Salvation Army Say Costello Wont Let Them Help Animals

We have made enquiries with Church Leaders for some time now asking them to explain their extrordinary silence regarding Cruelty to Gods creatures and their role as leaders.
After the five segments on 60 Minutes over the past few years and despite the huge public outcry and interest on this subject the Church Leaders have brought about attention to themselves by their "Silence".
After all whats a few words going to cost you? Umm interesting Question on its own. Long gone are the days when Churches didnt get involved in just about everything although I can recall when it was against the law for them to do so.
George Bush will tell you they play a major part in winning or losing elections.
I know people dont like reading really long openings to threads so I will copy letters from the Salavation Army Heads and disclose conversations with them as we work our way through this thread.

One Church the Salavation Armys "excuse' when we enquired as to why their drought appeal for farmers doesnt include starving animals, and pointing out that those animals are the farmers survival - will bring the house down -its so pathetic.

After being caught out lying to us and denying that they "had ever' been asked for assistance for water and hay for animals by farmers for their animals - they now claim Peter Costello wont allow them to help Animals.
`Poor Old Peter`. I wonder what else he gets the claim for.

I will leave you with a copy of a few words from RSPCA President where he addressed the Churches.

TRANSCRIPT OF NAB ADDRESS BY DR HUGH WIRTH AT NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, 5 JULY 2006.
COMPERE: Today at the National Press Club, the President of the RSPCA, Hugh Wirth. CHAIR: Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to the National Press Club and today's National Australia Bank Address and welcome to Hugh Wirth.

continued
We've got political grandstanding particularly in the States and lack of accountability. We've got still great pockets of community indifference and therefore complacency and we've got differences in focus, differences in philosophy, sometimes quite extreme and differences in conduct of the various advocacy groups for animal welfare.

Dr HUGH WIRTH RSPCA President>

Well let's put this in perspective. Where have we come from?

Put simply, animal welfare was never part of the Christian Judaic tradition. The great Eastern Religions certainly preached the value of the kinship of humans and animals and they still do today where those religions survive. But in the Christian Judaic tradition there is nothing in the Old Testament and there's nothing in the New Testament that actually lays a religious groundwork for what our relationship should be to animals.

Frances of Assisi attempted to do something about this when he was alive and he probably did more than any other person in the Christian denomination to try and get some semblance of religious basis for our relationship.

What drove animal welfare to the forefront of course was the humanist revolution that occurred in the United Kingdom at the end of the Eighteenth Century/early Nineteenth Century. Simply put, the humanist tradition said that the down trodden, those humans who had no hope of representing themselves deserved justice, deserved a fulfilling life, deserved not to be exploited, deserved not to suffer.

The leader in that group of course was William Wilberforce. He was appalled that human slavery still existed in the British Empire and was justified on the basis of the Bible and secondly the appalling cruelty meted out to children who then were factory fodder in the emerging industrial situation.

He took on the might of the British Empire and won. How he did this is a matter of history but having said this and having abolished slavery and brought about some measure of control about cruelty to children, it was a simple and logical thing to move to animals.

continued-

Animals were simply property and under the law and under cultural tradition you can do anything you like to property and if that means thrashing a horse in the main streets of London or Melbourne in 1871 you did so and nothing would be done about it.

He had a number of supporters, one of whom was Richard Martin. Richard Martin was a flamboyant Irishman, a Member of the House of Commons. He even put up his Martin's Folly, a particular keep on his property where he in fact interred people he considered were cruel to animals. He had no right to do so but he did it.

But he understood that in order to get social change accepted by this - by the political establishment.

You May Read The Full Transcript Here>
http://www.livexports.com/hughwirth.html

Getting back to the Salvos they seem not to understand spending money is chaplins in the bush is considered a waste. What they also dont get is these are proud people and would rather kep their stock alive than except a push bike for Christmas for their kids.
Futher more they have a absolute responsibility as we all to the God Creatures and suffering animals.

Its time to be answerable to the public who donate the funds. As for you losing your NFP status if you helped the farmers suffering animals I should think Peter might not mind some hay and water going to country people.

If you like we will write and ask him for you.

Well may you say its a job for RSPCA Mr Neil but you also know they have been grossly understaffed and under funded for years which was also mention in the address to the Press Club.

We are asking you the Salavation Army to ammend your drought appeal and repond to the requests of people asking for less councilors prays , new push bikes for children.
The would much prefer to see a truck load of hay and water role up instead of a Chaplain -
People have the right to say where "their" donations go Neil.

pale,
Surely the Salvo's can't take responsibility for everything. Their total revenue is only $565 million/year which they say helps about 1.5 million Australians. This is less than $400 each. How on earth could they justify spending thousands on a truckload of hay?
Govt Drought aid is for farm animals. RSPCA and groups like yourself ensure welfare.
It is unrealistic and unfair to expect humanitarian groups to encompass animal welfare and the associated financial drain. Costello would be correct.

Rojo
Thats a fair question and let me start by saying nobody expects them or the Red Cross or any other church to take Control. We are saying they should play a part and not turn their backs on animals in general.
We have made some pretty comprehensive enquires over the years and actually listended to farmers.

They have complained about public donations being waisted by paying councilers instead of other more practicle uses.

What "we" are saying there seems to be a total lack of understanding what these farmers really want.
It would be best if each farmer were actually given a choice by the Salvos or Red Cross what they prefered.
If the Bloke wants his light bill paid or phone bill, food, presents perhaps for the kids at Christmass - cool then give them that to him. However if a farmer says I need feed mate and water for me stock then give him that instead.

It hurts real farmers to "take" ANY sort of help but most seem to prefer water trucks and hay and fodder.

The public who donate the funds also have a right to say where they want that money spent and heaps give money for water and feed for starving stock- but it never gets there.

Nobody likes either Rojo being straight out lied to which I was when speaking to the lady three months ago she described herself as the head of the farm drought appeal for the Salvation Army.

She said ' quote' Nobody had EVER asked for water and feed for dieing animals.
This has been proven untrue-" In writing". She went on to say that she personally had never even thought about it.

In that case all drought appeals should then have to state in their advertising for donations they do not help suffering animals because I tell you what Rojo the majority of people think thats what the appeals for- to keep the farmers stock alive.
They cant have it both ways.

paleif, I think you are absolutely right that charities should define how the donations will be spent and importantly what percentage of that donation gets to the needy. I wasn't aware that charities were using the drought as a fundraising tool yet not using those funds as portrayed. They should not. Nor should they lie about their services.
I will reiterate that "some feed" will cost $5000/truckload or more and will be required again next week and the week after until the rains fall. This is beyond the scope of charities like the salvos who seek to make an impact with as many needy people as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I understand how difficult feeding animals during drought can be and how financially draining it is, I just think charities don't have enough resources available to provide meaningful long term feed/water for stock. And that their true value is in emotional support, whether by food/financial help or councilling, for people. I don't think it is fair to critisise drawing a line at this level.