|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 11, 2019 16:27:25 GMT -5
In Michigan 2012-13, I wonder how many friends knew their money was being spent on legal fees? Well that's the part that I feel shouldn't be hidden because it comes under the heading of CSA and that just shouldn't be hidden imo. In a sense, if you consider money given to the ministry to be "payment" for service and livelihood, do they have a moral responsibility to ask them how they spend it? The bottom line is that when the friends give to the worker, they don't have any expectation of accountability for how it's spent. "Contracts" make things a lot clearer. Something like they did in Vietname -- the friends were asked to sign letters of loyalty to the "workers". [or else]
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 12, 2019 13:03:49 GMT -5
Well that's the part that I feel shouldn't be hidden because it comes under the heading of CSA and that just shouldn't be hidden imo. In a sense, if you consider money given to the ministry to be "payment" for service and livelihood, do they have a moral responsibility to ask them how they spend it? The bottom line is that when the friends give to the worker, they don't have any expectation of accountability for how it's spent. "Contracts" make things a lot clearer. Something like they did in Vietname -- the friends were asked to sign letters of loyalty to the "workers". [or else] I agree that when they give and don't expect to know what it's spent on that they can't complain. But, like you pointed out, they give it to the workers to help them live/survive. Paying for a lawyer to get them out of trouble when they've hidden CSA doesn't match the definition of what the friends give money for, essentials for life. What they did in Vietnam is just disgusting from start to finish imo.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Oct 12, 2019 14:32:40 GMT -5
Well that's the part that I feel shouldn't be hidden because it comes under the heading of CSA and that just shouldn't be hidden imo. In a sense, if you consider money given to the ministry to be "payment" for service and livelihood, do they have a moral responsibility to ask them how they spend it? The bottom line is that when the friends give to the worker, they don't have any expectation of accountability for how it's spent. "Contracts" make things a lot clearer. Something like they did in Vietname -- the friends were asked to sign letters of loyalty to the "workers". [or else] or else what?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 12, 2019 19:19:40 GMT -5
In a sense, if you consider money given to the ministry to be "payment" for service and livelihood, do they have a moral responsibility to ask them how they spend it? The bottom line is that when the friends give to the worker, they don't have any expectation of accountability for how it's spent. "Contracts" make things a lot clearer. Something like they did in Vietname -- the friends were asked to sign letters of loyalty to the "workers". [or else] or else what? The workers won't be able to "care for" them any more. [One quote]
|
|