|
In Reply to: Re: The other side on the one-cent coin posted by Coordinator on September 20, 2007 at 19:11:39:
I go back and forth in my head on the issues that have been raised by this thread. I keep asking myself, "When is it appropriate to cut someone some slack and be merciful?" and, "When should we insist on the necessity of owning up to participation in a criminal organization?"
In this particular thread, the topic is charity fraud. I've been leaning toward the second, "hard-assed" position because I perceived an alarming level of rationalization and minimization in earlier posts of the damage TFI has been done and continues to do to others. So what's the big deal about donating "out of date inventory" to TFI missionaries who pick over the best and leave the rest for the orphans who provide photo-ops? The lowest of the low, in my book, are people who exploit vulnerable people and take what properly belongs to the disabled and destitute for themselves. I work for a legitimate social welfare organization, and it hinders our ability to develop resources to be standing in the same line as scammers when asking for donations and material support from the community.
On the "cut the guy some slack" side of the debate, I keep reminding myself that each person's experience of the Family is unique, and each case should be considered on its own merits when policies are called into question. I also have personal experience with doing whatever it takes to survive and take care of my family--and that includes some lowlife activity. When I was first out of TF, I was frequently tempted to shoplift goods for my kids with the rationalization that, "It's easy to be moral if you have money to buy what you need." But to understand where someone is coming from in the here and now, there has to be more information.
For the particular case that seems to keep coming up on the board, there isn't enough information--just generalities, some confusing and slippery language, and a request to take things offline. I'm glad the coordinator has insisted on a policy of transparency.
