Horror Show Sunday: Salvation Army Kids Get Saved

SalvosThe Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has said that the Salvation Army in Queensland, Australia has been found to have fed children in their care food donated for animals, has beaten them severely, locked them in cages and sexually molested them. The Commission examined four homes run by the Salvos in NSW and Queensland from 1966-77 and said that the abuse they found there was among the worst they had ever seen.

Boys were forced to clean the playground with a toothbrush, were beaten severely until they bled and were locked in cages on the veranda for up to two weeks at a time.  One boy was reported to have been forced to consume his own vomit.  Children were routinely molested and raped by those running the shelters.

Of course, the Salvation Army is sorry for all of this, they always are.  The Catholics are always sorry that their priests are screwing kids, they just don’t take any steps to ensure that it never happens again.  Salvation Army Australia has paid out about $15 million in claims to abuse victims and says they deeply regret what’s happened. According to an official statement, “The Salvation Army feels deep regret for every instance of child sexual abuse inflicted on children who were in our care.  We are grieved that such things happened. We acknowledge that it was a failure of the greatest magnitude.  The Salvation Army now has policies and procedures to ensure the protection of children is the most serious of our obligations.”

I hope they’re sincere and I hope that they do have rules in place to stop this kind of thing from ever happening again.  I’d love to think that these religious organizations learn their lessons and improve the situation of the innocent in their care.  While I am not aware of more recent cases of abuse among the Salvation Army in Australia though, the same can’t be said about the Catholics who consistently say they’re sorry, consistently say they’re changing the rules and still have problems over and over and over again.  They’re not serious.  They’re just saying what the public wants them to say.

So for the Australian Salvation Army, I hope that you’ve changed your ways and made it impossible for these kinds of things to ever happen again.  Otherwise, you can expect to see yourselves right back here in Horror Show Sunday.

 

84 thoughts on “Horror Show Sunday: Salvation Army Kids Get Saved

    1. I don't think it is though, the Salvation Army has been a consistent problem, not just with sexual abuse but with refusing to feed the hungry until they listen to a sermon, or refusing to provide a bed until the person claims to believe in God. This is the problem I have with religious charities, they take advantage of people when they are the most vulnerable to push their religious bullshit on people who aren't in a position to refuse.

          1. I see you just made up a number to lie and insult my religion.

            I can prove millions have died under communism.
            Why do you have so much hate?

          2. You're an idiot. The whole point of atheism is that NOTHING is worshipped at all. You are right that communism represses religion because the point of communism is that the state be supreme, but that's not the point of atheism. No wonder you have no clue what you're talking about, you don't even understand the terms.

          3. In communism the whole point is that nothing is allowed other than the state.

            And that is the point. Religion? It is a enemy to that and has to be stomped out.

          4. I understand that atheism is the state approved 'system of belief' and that is goes hand in hand with communism historically.

          5. Ah, you admit it's a blog.

            And perhaps you should read the links I use before you make false statements about them.

          6. You used blogs.
            And I used a modern media outlet.

            Hmmmm… and you think you had the more credible sources. Curious.

            Do you declare that you debunked anything else?
            That's all you do is just announce you did something and expect every one to overlook the actual facts that don't back you up.

          7. I used one blog wrote an atheism expert. The rest were not blogs.

            The facts back me up even the Harvard Study I posted

          8. You had a blog.

            I had a world renown news source.

            The facts don't back you up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncogni

            Notice the list of four dogma of atheism?

            "God" does not refer to anything that exists.
            "God" does not refer to anything that does not exist.
            "God" does not refer to anything that may or may not exist.
            "God" has no literal significance, just as "Fod" has no literal significance.

            That is the dogma/doctrine of atheism, it's a belief system and that makes it by definition a religion.

          9. And I notice you didn't explain why the common beliefs of atheists aren't dogma to them.

            Tossing out a site with opinions and not explaining why the common definitions don't fit is just not very credible.

          10. No, they had opinions that wanted to make that leap without any more credibility than you have here.

            Proof, you haven't offered it, you haven't even offered evidence as this site has defined it for me.

            Either you need to make the same standards you impose or just realize your credibility is lost.

          11. Atheists don't understand. You can't comprehend you have a strict set of required beliefs. That's part of the definition of a 'religious system'.

          12. Of course you do.
            Why deny it?

            The Christian God needs to be denied and insulted, lied about historically an attacked any time a person posts values that reflect on the teachings of Christ.

            You follow that consistently.

          13. You are entitled to your opinions, but that's all they are.

            How you view the afterlife dictates how you live your live here.
            Even if those views are wrong, if they harm nobody and lead a person to live a more elevated life, why not?

            And yes, religions have been abused and used towards violence, but the lack of God has led to even more, as the communist murders show.

          14. Yes according to the numbers.
            Prove it, you demand proof from me, you need to use the same standards you demand from me.

            Fair is fair.

          15. It has to do with actual deaths done by them.

            If you can say the Christians violating the teachings of Christ still reelect on him then violence done by atheists reflects on it.

          16. You still haven't produced a shred of evidence that any atheists have done violence in the name of atheism, whereas we can produce LOTS of it for Christians who have specifically done violence in the name of their religion. If you can't prove that atheism causes violence, it's about as ridiculous as saying that mustaches are to blame because people who did violence had them.

          17. did produce links that tied the repeated atheist values being used by communists and then communists repeatedly suppressing religions.

            Some might connect those dots, even if you haven't.

          18. There is no such thing as an atheist value. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Full stop. It means nothing more. Come on, just admit that you're wrong for once in your life.

          19. The difference there is that they did not kill people BECAUSE they were atheists, they killed those people because they wanted to be in power and keep in power; compare that to christians who kill heathens because those people are heathens, plain and simple.

            To say they killed those people because they were atheists is like saying Stalin killed people because he was Georgian, or moustached, or that Mao Zedong killed because he was Chinese.

            Oh and just because they had a war on religion did not mean they killed because their athesism

          20. Exactly and whereas we can post direct quotes from people like Hitler who said that they acted specifically because of their beliefs, nobody can ever post a single quote from anyone claiming that they acted violently because of their atheism.

          21. it proves you have an agenda that is more important to you than facts.

            One more time you made claims and don't bother to back them up.

            Typical.

          22. Once more you lie and then offer nothing to back your positions.

            Are you going to find more 'blogs' instead of facts?

          23. Again I will not argue that communist has have killed millions but that has nothing to do with athesim

          24. Again you can't show anything to back any of your claims.

            You have an agenda to insult and lie about Christianity in particular and when called on it you have nothing but spin and talking points.

          25. And the BBC researches the information they post, they are more expert than you are, but you reject that.

            If you can reject one of the foremost outlets for international news I can reject your blogs. Having the same bias as you doesn't mean they are experts, only bigots. They have the same refusal to even consider that they might be wrong.

          26. Facts on BBC vs opinion on a blog…

            Let me think…… thinking, thinking, thinking…

            Oh, I'll go with facts over opinions.

          27. The BBC article was an opinion piece.
            I used one blog and two other links that were not blogs

          28. It was a list of religions and belief systems.

            I've listed the dogma atheists belief in order to be a member of that group. That is something you ignore and side step, why?

            Is it that you're possible wrong and can't admit it?

      1. Setting the abuses of the Salvation Army aside for a moment…

        Assuming that listening to a sermon or a mealtime prayer is a prerequisite to being fed by any religious organization (it isn't, working through my church I've helped serve thousands of meals over the last decade – the services are available but not required), would you rather that such organizations stop serving meals or providing outreach services? As a conservative, I gather that you'd rather not put it all on government's shoulders. Should religious organizations ignore the need altogether? Isn't that sort of volunteerism fundamental to a conservative mindset?

        1. I'm not saying they should ignore the need, I'm saying they are not necessary to fulfill the need. You don't need religion to be charitable. You could just filter out religion and individuals would provide the necessary services. I'd rather have churches paying taxes on all of their money, except that which they can prove is going to charity. People are charitable without being religious all the time.

          1. Hypothetically, perhaps. But here in the real world the need for charitable acts outstrips the supply of them. In that sense religious charity is necessary, as is secular giving.

          2. I mean that people can give without religion being involved. If religion went away tomorrow, there would still be charitable giving. Religion doesn't make it happen and I think that religion promotes giving for entirely the wrong reason. It doesn't promote charity for the sake of charity, it promotes charity to earn brownie points with an imaginary father figure in the sky. They're not giving to give, they're giving to get something. I think that's problematic.

          3. There are people that want good things, that are willing to work to be part of good things.

            You bring out a valid point.

          4. I believe it is inaccurate to attribute giving by the faithful to the desire to score points while simultaneously crediting secular giving to more altruistic motives. People on both sides do these things for many reasons. For the most part I'm content not to question motives (unless abuses such as described above are involved) and instead be glad such giving occurs.

          5. There's no such thing as altruism, everyone ultimately does charitable deeds to feed their own ego, but at least with the secular, there is no reason to exclude various groups that you don't like. Atheists don't exclude gays or women or blacks or people of other religions. There are many, many examples of this happening with religious charities. Certainly it isn't all religious charities but enough where it's a problem. I do question motives. Motives are important. I'd much rather see everyone giving because it's the right thing to do than to spread their religion or win favor with their gods.

  1. It's a systemic problem. In Kearney, Nebraska, Salvation Army children are forced to listen to Roger playing the piano.

Leave a Reply to TheNewsMadd Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)