The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Having a ball at your expense > Comments

Having a ball at your expense : Comments

By Teresa Gambaro, published 17/7/2015

In The Charity Ball, Gary Johns quite rightly focuses on the need for donors to be better informed of the real purposes and goals of the many organisations and entities that are today calling themselves charities.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
When Liberals are going after organisations like Hillsong then I'll believe them. Otherwise it's just another attach on their political opponents.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Friday, 17 July 2015 9:06:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And they need to get rid of self-aggrandizing she-man warriors like Bronwen Bishop first.
Posted by Chek, Friday, 17 July 2015 10:02:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aaah... Charities. One of my favourite pet peeves. Or... how to get rich fooling people into giving you lots of money.

I went to Malaysia with the Army 67/69. 8 R.A.R. One of the responsibilities of the Battalion was to look after some of the poorer villages in the area. Each Company was allotted a village & it was our responsibility to look after its needs. Schools, Medicals & basic Employment. We did a good job in that the Australian Villages were fairly well self sufficient. When the Poms pulled out of Malaysia in 69 Our Battalion took over some of their villages. Our Company did an assessment & found the fishing boats & Nets rotting on the beach. The school in a dilapidated condition & the rice hadn’t been planted for years. A collection was taken up ,(forcibly) timber, string for the fishing industry, building materials for the School & seed rice was brought for the village.

The big day arrived when the hand over took place. The village head man & the people came out, speeches were made etc. Then the trucks arrived & presented to the Head Man. Was his reaction on of gratefulness. No it was not. He stood up & asked what this was all about & where was his money. Apparently the Poms would take up a collection for the village, hand the collection to the Head Man who would take half & give the rest to a relative who would keep half, & so on down the line. He was told, in no uncertain manner, that’s not how the Australians operated our Charity. He refused the Material & demanded Cash. We left with the Material.

Cont.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 17 July 2015 11:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber you are right. If there is any organisation that needs to have their ‘charitable’ works scrutinised it is the church.

There are organisations who genuinely seek to provide charity because it is good to help those in need. It is a value in itself and part of our desire to see justice for all but this is not what motivates churches. Religious people do good works because they have to and ultimately it is a selfish motivation that propels them into such activity. It is all part of the package of being religious. People belong to religious organisations because they are looking for the emotional benefit they hope it will provide. If people like those who belong to religious organisations such as Hillsong want to drug themselves with the opium that such a group provides then they have to be seen to be a true believer and this means they have to be seen to follow Jesus and his insistence on charity. They toe the line and give of their time and money because they risk being ostracized from the group if they do not. It is the cost they are willing to pay to numb their emotional pain.

There is nothing altruistic about their giving at all – it has a purely selfish agenda. It is not charity because charity has no other agenda. There may be individuals in non-church charities that are protecting their own interests but there are many who are not and do great work for the right reasons.

Church based charities, however, never have the right motivation. They willing declare that what they do they do for Jesus and this is the wrong reason. Governments should not be supporting these organisations at all and should spend taxpayer’s money on genuine charity or adding more government services. Churches will still continue to provide ‘charity’ because they have to but that is up to them. Governments should not be supporting them in their need for emotional dependence on religion.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 17 July 2015 11:30:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont

The Head Man made a complaint to his Government who fronted the Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia at the time. Who , in turn, fronted up to the Battalion demanding an explanation as to why we had refused to look after the village.

Now as the trucks were still loaded we took the A?HC out to the village & fronted the Head man again. The Head Man explained what the Poms procedure was. Hand him the money & leave. That’s what he wanted us to do. He still refused to accept the material & demanded cash.

The AHC got I his car & left without even a bye to us.

That’s how overseas Charities work.

Back in Australia. Bangladesh had a bad year with floods. All the Charities were vying for the Dollar to save them. Having spent 4 years in SE Asia & had some experience with Charity to the locals. I looked at the Ads on TV. “Imaging YOUR house, Showing the normal 3 bedroom house at the time, being washed away in a flood. These people have lost everything. Please help them & donate a weeks wages.” I looked at the Ad & thought, these people don’t live in 3bedroom buildings they live in one room grass & mud huts & the banks of the rivers. Their houses get washed away very year, for thousands of years & they just build another from the flotsam left behind from up stream. This is their normal.

Then we had “Band Aid. Save the children” in Ethiopia & Somalia. By all accounts, by some people that were there. The kids didn’t get much of the Aid. The food was siphoned off at the Wharf & along the way by the different Warlords & armed gangs along the way. Not to mention the CEO’s Salaries & Admin Costs. The result. The children saved went on to become Armed Islamic gangs & Pirates raiding & killing not only in their countries but throughout the World.

Cont
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 17 July 2015 11:33:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont

Then we have Malcolm Fraser, CEO extraordinaire, He was paid a huge Salary by a number of Charities & took every opportunity to self promote. Photo Opportunities were his speciality. He flew 1st. Class, Stayed in 5 Star accommodation, Hired Limousines to hand out Charity so some little village in the middle of nowhere. The cost of this & all the trappings & hangers on, etc, was much more than the pittance handed out. All designed to keep him in a good figure head Salary.

The Darwin Cyclone. Half the millions donated went missing. What happened to the other half? It went to Lawyers & Accountants, paid to find the missing money. They never found it & gave up after the Donated money dried up. The same has happens time & time again after Cyclones, Fires & Flood disasters in Australia. The Red Crosses excuse for keeping half the donated Brisbane Flood money. They were keeping it for disasters Go figure.

The money donated to churches goes to build more churches. We are looking after their "Spiritual" wellbeing. Money donated to moslem charities ends up supporting Terrorists groups.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 17 July 2015 11:50:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I might be wrong, but didn't the Abbott government get rid of the woman who was exerting some control over the charity business?

I agree with Cobber. Not just on Hillsong, but all religious organizations.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 17 July 2015 12:44:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about the Victorian Bushfire relief fund? Millions donated and where is it now? I looked on the website and there was no indication of any money anywhere. Never mind that pitiful creature Christine Nixon who really needed another meal?
Charity and churches are to be avoided always and give them nothing, except some well placed abuse of course.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 17 July 2015 8:06:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not only the co-called religious 'charities', it is the whole religious corporation that is considered a 'charity'. All organised Religions pay zero tax on multi billion dollar profits from their casinos, real estate, share holdings; they pay no council rates, their maintenance bills are subsidised, their salaries are termed donations, that means all Australians pay a huge religious tax and we call this a secular country. Italians with the Pope in their midst can choose whether to pay a religious tax or not. We can't. And most of the charities they front are subsidised by the taxpayer.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 21 July 2015 8:16:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy