King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:

Do you mean me or the organisations?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:00pm:

Treat centreline clients worse than crap: how much moolah do they get for that?

Those providers can be bad but the salvos are just shonky with dumb women you can't talk to running 'em!

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:13pm:

Of course that has to be true as groups of people are wary of who they affiliate with whereas family is random...

... wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:



disagree..

put on a uniform.. bang a drum.. telling everyone you are a soldier of the lord...

what do you expect anyone to think when they meet you dressed in the uniform of the army??...

if someone was putting you in a salvation army run home today...

would you go willingly knowing what you know now?....

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

I'd agree with that.

I can't dismiss the behaviour as just myopic or obtuse. These are organisations that promote the sanctity of children and monogamous relationships, yet they dispensed with those principles when it suited. I think it was all nothing more than a deliberate tactic to avoid losing any power.

These organisations draw their power from the number of people who identify as part of them. I agree that a proportion of the people who are part of religious organisations are good people, because in my experience a proportion of the world are good people. If those people come to know about abhorrent practices they won't stand for it and then the organisation loses some of its support base from which it draws its power.

There is another component to that, which is that the people in support have to be controlled so that when they do find out about matters like the covering up of sexual abuse they don't question it.

I find it hard to state that a person is a good person, though, if they had knowledge and turned a blind eye because then they are indirectly contributing to the problem by being part of the base of supporters from which the organisation draws its power that enables it to continue with its atrocities. Even if you don't stand up to what's happening, you can still walk away.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:

That link isn't working for me.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 5:08pm:

It's got nothing to do with moral superiority.

It has to do with not giving money to organisations that are dishonest and untrustworthy and that use at least a proportion of that money to further their own power structure not so they can more effectively help people but so they can more effectively further their own ends.

If someone asks me for money I expect them to be able to answer my questions and challenges to them.

When these organisations properly clean themselves up and can demonstrate that they actually place their principles of helping people about their own ends I will reconsider my position. At the moment if I was to give them money I would be contributing to the perpetration of possible crimes and their cover-up. I do not want my money used to build homes for children where they may well end up abused.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

You know nothing of how much I give of my resources to help others, so it's rather presumptuous of you to suggest that this is merely an excuse not to give. But nice way to attempt to shame me.

Moreover, I apply the same rigorous checks to any organisation that asks me for money. It baffles me that charities of any sort expect donations without often being willing to explain themselves. Reputation, as we now know, is quite often an illusion.

As for the comment about children's homes, whilst I might have expressed it inaccurately, it is not an inaccurate point. The Salvos do provide shelters for women and children and in those shelters there are times when the women leave the children in the care of the workers. Now if the Salvos had come clean about their abuse instead of trying to cover it up and only begrudging accept the bare minimum of responsibility when required to I would have had faith that they would take any and all measures in the future to prevent other harm. But they didn't so I have no confidence in them doing the right thing now.

I treat all organisations the same way. It just so happens that I knew about the Salvos before it was in the public domain and while many others were under the illusion they were different. When an organisation has nothing to hide they are very forthcoming about their practices and they can demonstrate what they have done when an individual has done the wrong thing.

There are plenty of non-denominational organisations around that do just the same work as the denominational ones without the same proportion of money being siphoned off to further the denomination itself. It is also the case that when people are out to do the wrong thing they tend to gravitate to environments where they will be protected and that culture still exists with denominational organisations. There are plenty of independent womens' shelters and homeless shelters, international aid organisations and counselling services.