Woman Says She’s Being Evicted From Shelter Because Of Her Religion

http://www.newschannel5.com/content/news/12738.asp



complete story: http://www.newschannel5.com/content/news/12738.asp

Gee things surely all upside down.

Naawww... they're not biased. Of course not. :eyes:

...will get them off the hook legally?

and I hate religion ,especially when it's pretending to care about people in trouble when all it cares about is a certain belief and if you believe as they do..
If these pigs really cared about women in abuse situations I think RELIGION would not even ENTER the picture.Safety and helping would override all pretenses of belief. But nooo.Churches poison every human kindness with selling their jesus.

Charity in the name of selling religion or outreaching FOR a religion or to reinforce a religion in others is NOT true charity.

It is a kind of psychological BRIBERY feeding on the desperate.

I would hate to see every shelter ,soup kitchen or haven for the poor turned into a religious bribe.

Fuck these assholes and their "rice"christ.

and a "rice" christ is much more crispy with wine...

:evilgrin:

not everyone who reads the bible and believes in Jesus would turn a woman and her children out because of how she worships.

In fact, I don't believe anyone who would can honestly call herself a Christian.

Because too many Christians OMIT half of what a Christian is,
Jesus is not all warm fuzzy lovey dovey. He was brutal harsh and bigoted too,Worshiping a god of love that is all love you cease to be a christian because Jesus is not love alone..

Why do people insist on clinging to the label christian? Clinging to Christianity you are also clinging to the brutal history and biblical insanity that christian religion has in it.

You can be a good guy without a good guy badge and the christian label can't you?
Christianity is not just about love.
To be more honest about what the religion you believe in is it requires you to know what it is the belief is about and the tenets of it.Some Christian tenets are not nice.Hell is not nice.Original sin is not nice.Yet these concepts are an integral part of the Christian faith.

On what do you base this statement?

. . . How about this:

32"Therefore (AX)everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.

33"But (AY)whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10, NASB)

Sounds a lot like you have to be a Jesus-following Christian to receive redemption. Where does that leave everyone else? Burning in Hell?

Or this?

34"(AZ)Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35"For I came to (BA)SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;

36and (BB)A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

37"(BC)He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. (Matthew 10)

Yes, that the peace loving fellow we all know and love.

There's lots more if you'd like.

Picking and choosing Bible verses works both ways.

if that's what you were doing. I was just asking. I wasn't defending Xtians or even my own religion (which is my private religion), just curious as to how you came to your conclusions.

Just felt compelled to oblige. Sorry I came off as combative. Maybe I just need some lunch.

nothing like watching a good religious argument to get the blood flowing! ;)

It's so true that by picking and choosing verses from the bible (or the Quoran for that matter,) you can find justification for anything, including murder - in fact, in some books, ESPECIALLY murder.

Man, mention religion on any post and ZAM! Flamethrowing time!

Having been a fundie for about 15 years prior to my coming back to reality, I can't seem to help myself. INTO THE FRAY! YEEEHAAAWWW!

And the words he said.

from those attempting to evict her.

Jesus would NOT HAVE BOTHERED TO LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY?

That's not the Jesus I taught about in Sunday School 40 years ago.

I seem to remember that one saying something about not casting the first stone. Perhaps not exactly on point, but I think it's the spirit we're needing a little of here.

I continue to be just blown away by the baseless vitriol directed against the staff and volunteers and board of this organization, about whom NO ONE making these comments here HAS BOTHERED TO LEARN ANYTHING.

Well, except me. And few people seem to have the time to spare even to read what I have learned and offered to them on a plate in this thread.

I was merely pointing out as a reply that the Jesus I've known was/is not bigoted or hateful or harsh or angry.

Peace.

What you SAID was that Jesus would have defended the woman in this situation. Your assertion was:

Jesus was not bigoted and he would have defended this woman from those attempting to evict her.

How can you possibly know WJWD when you don't even know what facts he would have been basing his actions on?

You did NOT merely say that Jesus was not bigoted. You implied that there had been wrongdoing against this woman, against which she needed defending.

If Jesus had merely read the news report posted in this thread, he would have no more basis for leaping to that conclusion than you or anyone else here has.

There is no basis in that report for accusing the organization that evicted her of being "bigoted or hateful or harsh or angry" than there is, you say, for saying that of Jesus -- other than the uncorroborated and possibly self-serving statement of the woman in question.

I think it would be a little "harsh" of Jesus to take a position against an organization that has not been shown to have done anything wrong -- and that in fact (do read a few of the posts here from knowledgable people) very likely did exactly what it should have done to protect the people under its responsibility.

What does that mean?

I'd thought that "what would Jesus do" -- and the acronym WWJD -- was a well known phrase south of the border.

So I thought that "how can you possibly know WJWD?" was pretty obviously "how can you possibly know what Jesus would do?".

Question still stands.

what I am going to do.

It is not my intention to disrupt this thread or become involved a lengthy discussion concerning a subject about which I obviously know nothing.

I wish you well. :)

We are asked to be as Christ-like as possible, but that's impossible, frankly. We believe that He is both God and Man, and being God, He is without sin. Now, last I checked, I'm just human, so I'm going to sin. A lot. I'm going to screw up big time every day.

The issue is, do I ask for forgiveness, pick myself up, dust myself off, figure out what not to do the next time, and start over again, or do I keep sinning and screwing up and hurting people. Christians are asked to do the first one, but we often, as screwed up humans, do the latter. That's not the Christian thing to do, but it often gets labelled that way since Christians are doing it.

People have been hurt in the name of pretty much every religion we have and have had throughout history. Christians have done some awful things over the course of two thousand years, and I don't see that changing. Christians have also done some wonderful things over the course of two thousand years. The faith is still a work in progress, as each and every Christian is still a work in progress towards becoming more Christ-like.

I am so sick of Christianity thrown in my face at every turn.

(sorry I had to hold back so I kept it short)

It's not a very good version of Christianity, and it's rather disgusting.

Start with only one side of a story (the other side being impossible to get because of privacy/confidentiality rules) ... adopt a rather tortured meaning of some words taken from a website ...

It is our belief that there is a definite need for an outreach program to Christian women who are in abusive relationships. We have found that no one is automatically safe because of her race, religion, the amount of money she makes or how long she went to school.

Getting women to admit they are victims and to attend support meetings is still a problem, and it's even more difficult for Christian women to reach out. This is a sensitive issue that many churches have not addressed. Christian women tend to stay in marriages longer for religious reasons, even though they are being abused.

Would anyone who had seen those words in a different context -- like, a story about the women partners and children of fundie assholes who take the biblical injunction against sparing the rod literally -- not have leapt to his/her feet in applause? Yes, help the women! Yes, give them shelter from their abusive fundie asshole husbands!

Some christians (and I haven't a christian for nearly 40 years) do genuinely reach out and help. And some of them are genuinely aware of the oppression of women within some elements of the christian community, and the special needs of women in that situation.

Also from the S.A.V.E. site:
http://save.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=859

CHURCH AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION - S.A.V.E. is committed in educating the community, religious congregations and their leaders about the dynamics of domestic violence. If you would like to have someone come speak to your women’s group, youth group, school, church or other organization, please contact us to schedule a date and time.

They certainly appear to me to be seeking to be genuine agents of change and social justice. It probably just never occurred to them that their formulation of their commitments would appear exclusionary.

Those blunders happen. Some years ago, I had to point out to a very progressive legal aid clinic I did some work with that there was a big problem with the classified ad they ran permanently in the daily paper. Much of the clinic's clientele consisted of recent arrivals to Canada, needing legal assistance with refugee claims and immigration applications, but also just with abusive landlords and the like. But the ad said that the clinic's services were "for citizens living west of X Street". "Citizens", to them, meant "people", or residents of the city. To someone who wasn't a citizen of Canada, it would probably have meant something completely different - and they wouldn't have called the number. Oops, the clinic said. And changed it.

I've encountered good and bad in the christian "helping" community over the years. A very young Jamaican client of mine who had been badly exploited, and abused, by the middle-aged Cdn man who sponsored her to Canada, and whom she only then found she would have to marry, eventually left him with her baby. Her JoHo pastor's wife took her in. The baby cried. The pastor told her that her husband was her test from god, and she must go back to him.

But my very first refugee client, 25 years ago, was an Iranian woman -- a Zoroastrian herself, so with no natural community of her own among the Iranian/Muslim population in the city, and married to an Ethiopian psychopath she had met in Germany who had badly abused her and their two children -- who had a very different experience. One night, she was watching 100 Huntley Street on TV, the Cdn equivalent of The 500 Club. She was desperate for help, and she called the prayer line. The call-taker listened to her story and referred her directly to the (lesbian feminist-run) women's shelter (who took her in and referred her to me for her legal matters). I was stunned. But the fundie asshole on that phone quite possibly saved her life.

But back to the story -- it really is possible for a decent group of people to recognize and try to address a particular group of people with a particular kind of problem without intending to exclude, or excluding, other people with similar problems, and to just get the words wrong.

I wouldn't be condemning these ones until I'd at least heard some details of the story, and knew a little more about how they put their purposes into practice.



edited to make it plainer that I haven't been "one of them", i.e. a christian, not a christian who genuinely reaches out and helps, for nearly 40 years. ;)

to help Christian women. Our local battered womens' shelter rakes in millions every year in federal grants, but they can't seem to manage to keep soap at the bathroom sinks. One woman complained to me that for a person to wash their hands in that shelter, they had to go to the kitchen sink and use dish soap. Illness runs rampant in there, you know if you go there you're going to get sick. I don't see how women could take their children to a place like that, in spite of all the pretty BMWs and Lexuses you see in the administrative parking lot, the place is a germ infested rat hole. The volunteers that work there have to pool their money together every week to buy milk for the kids who live there. I think a lot of these shelters are shams and need to be exposed.

http://www.unitedwaynashville.org/pdf_files/EligibleAgency091602.pdf

The following agencies are eligible to receive designations through United Way/s campaign. Qualifications include: 1) exemption from Federal Income Tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, and 2) Provision of local health and human services. ...

... S.A.V.E. (Survivors Against Violent Environments.)

I'd think that, given its tax status and association with the United Way, it would actually be VERY EASY to tell how much federal money they were getting. I'd think that all one would have to do is ask them, actually.

I think a lot of these shelters are shams and need to be exposed.

But I guess you're not the person to do it, eh? Even though you seem to be the one to have the knowledge of the situation you think needs exposing ... which just happens to have nothing to do with the situation at the shelter being vilified in this thread ...

No, much easier to just vilify strangers on an internet discussion board.

>>>But I guess you're not the person to do it, eh? <<<

Oh absolutely, I'm one step ahead of you. You sound like you're on the board of directors.

>>>No, much easier to just vilify strangers on an internet discussion board.<<<

Uh, that seems more like your department to me

And the shelter is in Nashville. I really doubt he's on the board of directions.

I'm all for opposing and exposing bigotry, but as I've said on other posts, I think there's a lot more going on here.

The shelter I worked at operated on less than 300k per year with an unusual variety of services including sexual assault counseling and advocacy, a drug and alcohol prevention program, children's services, counseling, etc. We received a number of kind donations from the community, more, in fact, than we could always use. Including soap. What we didn't have was money to offer competitive salary for staff which is why I finally had to go elsewhere. The multiple cuts to what insurance was paid for, coupled with the lack of any raises or cost of living adjustments was eventually too great a cut in pay for me to afford to work there any longer.

I really can't imagine a shelter that is a 'sham'- especially considering the constant fear (and the reality of) of budget cuts ending programs and forcing good workers out of their jobs.

Possibly very very large operations serving thousands of people per year, but a DV shelter? No way. And do you have the slightest idea how difficult it really is for a non-profit agency serving the homeless to put together enough operating revenue through grants every year? You make it sound like federal money just falls from heaven like mana. The truth is, it was kind of like that 30 years ago, but it's been an arduous and carefully monitored process now for many years. Nobody gets rich running an emergency housing operation.

DV shelters, especially, aren't just soup kitchens. They provide medical treatment and counseling services that are very expensive to pay for. That's where much of their funding goes. So if they have trouble buying things like soap (cute anecdote, by the way, where'd ya hear that one?), it's because they can't get enough money out of HUD and the DOJ to serve their clients properly.

and i thought that a 501c3 cannot discriminate on the basis of race or religion.

even though it states in their "purpose" over and over how they cater to "christian" women, i wonder if they actually put that in their description when they filed for 501c3 status.

can anyone imagine a theater company that provides classes for "white" children (thereby not allowing kids of any race to participate in the class?)

but then, on the other hand, i'm sure there are plenty of organizations that provide services to "minority" and "underprivileged" groups. (so, if you're in the majority you don't qualify for the service?)

??? i don't know. somehow i can't imagine that there could be a non-profit organization that provides services for only "upper class white women".

yet, these shelters (in a way) discriminate against males--providing services and emergency housing for mothers and children.

it's very weird. i want to say they can't do this....but maybe they can. i should ask my accountant (he does reports & files for non-profits and might know. i wonder....)

and will provide either on-site shelter or alternative shelter options for male victims of domestic violence.

And yet, so many answers have already been given or are readily available.

even though it states in their "purpose" over and over how they cater to "christian" women

Actually, of course, it does no such thing, as has been pointed out here over and over.

It states in their purpose that they have a particular aim of reaching out to christian women who are particularly vulnerable and at a particular disadvantage because of the pressures on them from their religion/church not to recognize that they are being abused and not to seek help for the abuse.

Imagine ... someone trying to help women who are victimized by fundie asshole husbands, and whose problems are ignored by fundie asshole clergy and congregations. Why, it's unthinkable.

can anyone imagine a theater company that provides classes for "white" children (thereby not allowing kids of any race to participate in the class?)

Can anyone imagine why you would ask this question in a discussion where it is of no relevance whatsoever?

Do you have any basis at all for suggesting that S.A.V.E. does not allow women of any other religion to receive its services?

I didn't think so.

but then, on the other hand, i'm sure there are plenty of organizations that provide services to "minority" and "underprivileged" groups.

Yeah ... like "Ujima", the shelver for women victims of violence in the same city as S.A.V.E. that stresses services to women of colour ...

yet, these shelters (in a way) discriminate against males--providing services and emergency housing for mothers and children.

I do hope you were being sarcastic. Nonetheless, look what I found in the information filed by S.A.V.E. with GuideStar:
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=746400
(registration needed to view)

GOALS AND RESULTS

Accomplishments for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2004

1. We served 156 women and 13 men. Approximately 650 Crisis calls were received. 218 women attended support group meetings. We conducted 11 speaking engagements, 4 of which were radio. We conducted 12 educational trainings, reaching more than 550 people.

i want to say they can't do this....but maybe they can.

And yet, the damned thing is: they don't.

Surprised that they didn't send her back to her abuser, since if she would have been a proper submissive wife, he wouldn't have needed to beat her.

:sarcasm:

Bribe based hide who you are and what you might think about the unknown to get food or help..

Damn that is true evil in this world for ya..

Imagine there's no heaven..its easy if you try,
no hell below us,above us only sky...

Imagine..charity for the sake of compassion for another human being in distress ...and nothing more.

Here's an oped that expains how it works:


"Last year, federal housing and community development funds totaled $7.7-billion. Under Bush's order, religious organizations can apply for these funds to acquire, build or renovate buildings even if the bulk of the structure is used for religious devotion. These mixed-use facilities could receive tax dollars for the proportion of the structure intended to be used for social programs. HUD officials give the example of a church that operates a counseling center in the basement. The cost of building the church's basement could be covered by government funds."

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/11/Opinion/More_church_state_ent.shtml

Do they get "faith-based" funding or tax exemptions? (I have no idea, actually, being a foreigner; but I would expect that such non-profits have some rather strict accountability requirements to meet.)

From your quote:

Under Bush's order, religious organizations can apply for these funds to acquire, build or renovate buildings even if the bulk of the structure is used for religious devotion. These mixed-use facilities could receive tax dollars for the proportion of the structure intended to be used for social programs.

What the HELL does that have to do with S.A.V.E.??

It is NOT a "religious organization", and it does not appear to operate any "mixed-use facilities", or to use tax, or any other, dollars for any purpose other than to assist women victims of domestic violence.

http://save.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=55471

Survivors Against Violent Environments is a grassroots organization established in 1997 by a survivor of domestic violence, Beth Lowry, through the Woodmont Hills Church of Christ in Nashville, TN. The first four years the Executive Director devoted her time as a volunteer for Survivors Against Violent Environments. In 2000 S.A.V.E. separated from the church and became a private 501c3 non-profit organization.

Note also:
http://save.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=859

We participate on GuideStar, the on-line standard for nonprofit accountability.

So I did the work. I registered at Guidestar: www.guidestar.org -- you have to do that to view the organization's information there. And I looked at the Form 990 that it filed with the US IRS. It's pdf, so I can't reproduce it here; it's linked from here
http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=746400
which you can access once registered (or if not directly, use the search function as I did).

I found that its total revenue in 2003 was $39,602 (the "6" is somewhat illegible).
And its total expenses in 2003 were $39,761.
And its total assets at the end of of 2003 were $10,578.

Goldarn it. Somebody is obviously getting rich by exploiting abused women in Nashville.

Surprised that they didn't send her back to her abuser, since if she would have been a proper submissive wife, he wouldn't have needed to beat her.

Can you REALLY not see that this is EXACTLY the problem these women are trying to address???

Getting women to admit they are victims and to attend support meetings is still a problem, and it's even more difficult for Christian women to reach out. This is a sensitive issue that many churches have not addressed. Christian women tend to stay in marriages longer for religious reasons, even though they are being abused.

They are trying to FIGHT the submissive-wife bullshit, which it is particularly difficult for some christian women THEMSELVES to recognize and escape.

christofascists, NOT Followers of Christ.

Jesus didn't just minister to his disciples.

This is my gut feeling. They're just using religion as an excuse.

http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050704/NEWS01/507040400/1006/MTCN02

Middle Tennessee's #1 Online News Source

Monday, 07/04/05

... "As Americans, one of the beauties of this country is the First Amendment, which grants us the freedom to express ourselves," said Aila Ibn Kareem, a Cleveland, Ohio, native, at the Bordeaux branch library yesterday. "As Americans, we can examine our country and … embrace what is right and just and challenge what is not."

<photo> Aila Ibn Kareem listens to a speaker during a DIVA meeting at the Bordeaux library yesterday. DIVA stands for Domestic Islamic Violence Awareness Assistance. Kareem, the founder of DIVA, faced domestic violence.

I can't get the photo of Ibn Kareem on that page to reproduce, but it's quite obviously the same woman.

Evicting an obviously highish-profile member of the Muslim community without some good reason strikes me as a rather stupid thing to do. I'd be wanting some more information before forming any opinion, myself.

:sarcasm:

These things are supposed to be *discussion* threads. Is plonking a comment into a thread without knowing what any of the discussion has been "discussion"?

Of course, even if nothing else had been said, is a sneering judgment of a group of people about whom one knows nothing, except one side of a story that those very people are prevented from telling the other side of at least conceivably because of their decent concern for privacy and confidentiality (let's remember that there are children involved too), even worth plonking?

It's late, I'm peevish, my tolerance for unwarranted judgmentalism wanes ...

And I posted MY take in reply to the OP. There are no rules on DU as to what, where or how the discussion of any topic goes. Usually, they go all over the map; that's the way it is.

That said, I have to tell you that I take issue with you stating that I posted a "sneering" judgment. These people did not behave in a charitable Christian way-I called them out for the hypocrites they are. They exhibited the bad behavior not I. And no amount of listening to the other side of the story would change my mind since they turned away a woman who was a victim of domestic violence who was asking, perhaps begging, for their help. Their action of turning her away, strongly suggests that they'd rather see the woman beaten to death rather than trying to help her.

So I'll say it again:

NOT very Christian of them.

The only rules I had in mind were the general rules of civil discourse.

As for the rest of the blah, I'm sure it's nice to hear that you read the rest of the discussion in the thread (although there's not a stitch of evidence that you did so in what you've said in either post so far). I guess you just chose to go with your unsubstantiated sneer instead of addressing any of information or ideas in the thread that demonstrated just how unsubstantiated and unwarranted it was.

It seems to be necessary, so allow me to elaborate.

These people did not behave in a charitable Christian way

Sez who? One woman, who has told a story that the people she is telling it about are not in a position to refute no matter how completely they could do that? A woman who is apparently not a neophyte in the field of violence against women, who apparently has organizing skills, and who just might have either an agenda of her own or problems of her own that made her and/or her children disruptive to the welfare of other residents of the facility? Who knows? You? I don't think so.

I called them out for the hypocrites they are.

Nope. You alleged that they are hypocrites, based on nothing but the flimsiest and most incomplete evidence.

They exhibited the bad behavior not I.

Nope. You know pretty much zilch about their behaviour, and have no basis for calling it "bad" other than that flimsy incomplete evidence.

And no amount of listening to the other side of the story would change my mind since they turned away a woman who was a victim of domestic violence who was asking, perhaps begging, for their help.

And my guess would be that you either didn't bother reading WildClarySage's post or just decided that what she said wasn't worth your notice. I have less direct experience than WCS with women's shelters, but I have had long-term peripheral contact, and I know quite well that there are times when women and their families *do* have to be directed to leave the facilities, in the interests of the welfare of the other women and families there.

What I don't know is whether this was one of those instances. But then neither do you.

Their action of turning her away, strongly suggests that they'd rather see the woman beaten to death rather than trying to help her.

And that comment strongly suggests that you don't have an iota of a clue about what you're talking about.

And you can sneer your little sneer again, and as many times as you like, and it will have no more merit than it did the first time.

Why do you come down so hard on the Muslim woman and in such strong support of the so called Christians? The way you have worded your blah blah defense of them comes off as if they can do no wrong. How do you know for sure they are not wrong? You don't. Your defense of them is nothing more than the taking of sides, just as I have taken the side of the Muslim woman.

So please spare me the holier than thou attitude since it appears that your mask is slipping and your Christianity is showing.

Christians aren't always good or Christian like in their behavior.

And that's something that far too many Christians with giant sized egos do not care to admit. Which is a sin, isn't it?

Why do you come down so hard on the Muslim woman and in such strong support of the so called Christians?

Why do you ask me questions loaded with false premises?

Where have I come down at all hard on the woman? All I have said is that so far all we have heard is her side of the story -- and a very incomplete and unhelpful story it is.

Where do you see my strong support of the "so-called" christians? All I have done is reproduce information readily available on the internet to anyone who bothered to look for it, showing that there is no support to be found for the seriously unpleasant allegations made against them by people in this thread.

The way you have worded your blah blah defense of them comes off as if they can do no wrong.

If you could quote some particular blah blah that would support your characterization of what I have done, then I'd have something to respond to.

How do you know for sure they are not wrong? You don't.

And, quelle absolute amazement, I never said I did.

Your defense of them is nothing more than the taking of sides, just as I have taken the side of the Muslim woman.

And again, if you could quote something that could reasonably be characterized as a defence of them against the allegations made by the woman, I'd have something that might need responding to.

So please spare me the holier than thou attitude since it appears that your mask is slipping and your Christianity is showing.

Well, I guess I should have anticipated that one, given the blizzard of unfounded allegations that pretty much make up this thread.

Imagine how much of a shit I give about this particular unfounded -- and absolutely false, and extremely nasty -- allegation. I'm just not especially disturbed by unfounded assaults on my own character. I take rather more badly to unfounded assaults on the character of people not present or otherwise able to defend themselves.

Christians aren't always good or Christian like in their behavior.

No shit. Did you read my first post? -- #13.

They also aren't always christo-fascists or assholes or any of the other nasty labels that have been applied to these particular christians by people in this thread who know precisely fuck-all about them.

And that's something that far too many Christians with giant sized egos <don't?> care to admit. Which is a sin, isn't it?

I wouldn't know. No more do I care. No one's religion is any of my business unless s/he attempts to make it so, and I remain supremely uninterested in what anyone's religion characterizes as sin.

If I had some credible basis for thinking that the shelter workers or directors in this story had attempted to make their religion the business of Aila Ibn Kareem, I wouldn't be at all interested in the sinfulness of their acts, but I might consider their acts a violation of her rights.

Since I have no such credible basis, I'll just reserve judgment on the whole thing. And submit the FACTS that I have identified for the consideration of anyone who cares to actually consider facts before hurling verbal abuse at strangers such as what you hurled in post #19.

Really. Attempting to learn the truth, and reserving judgment until there is some minimal basis for it, just is not "defending" anyone -- or anything but civil discourse.

is going to a Christian-based women's shelter? It seems to me there is another agenda here.:freak:

if any.... :shrug:

that she broke the rules, as the shelter claims. Happens a LOT. Shelters get a huge diversity of people and workers are trained very specially to be sensitive to diversity issues. Women's shelters are, by their very nature, generally progressive places. There are plenty of progressive christians in the world, and some of them run shelters. In fact, if you look at the makeup of most boards of directors of women's shelters, you'll find that they are comprised quite heavily by local ministry. This doesn't mean that they have religious prejudices, it means that they draw people who are sincerely concerned with the welfare of others to serve their communities. Since confidentiality limits what can be said about this case, I'm not ready to condemn Ms Lowery or her staff.

My gut instinct is that there's more involved than we've been told.

Aila Ibn Kareem said she's proud to be a Muslim. But according to Kareem, she and her children are being kicked out of a Nashville domestic violence shelter because the director doesn't like the way the family expresses its faith.

... Lowery said Kareem was asked to leave because she broke several rules.

... if the rules she broke were rules against, oh, engaging in religious proselytizing, or initiating unwanted religious discussions or arguments, within the facility?

Hey, if everybody else can speculate groundlessly, so can I!

The Nashville police's web site lists these shelters:

http://www.police.nashville.org/bureaus/investigative/domestic/shelters.htm

UJIMA HOUSE SHELTER
OASIS CENTER
DAVIDSON COUNTY YWCA SHELTER
BRIDGES OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
MADISON SHELTER

and also provides a page with domestic violence hotlines (mainly the above) and a page of additional support resources, where S.A.V.E. appears. (Apparently the site is out of date, as it does not show S.A.V.E. as having a shelter.)

http://www.vanderbiltorbis.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/20/4264c1328a7b3

The name Ujima is derived from one of the seven guiding principles of Kwanzaa. The principle of Ujima is "Collective Work and Responsibility reminds us of our obligation to the past, present and future, and that we have a role to play in the community, society and world." The Ujima House embodies this principle by serving some of the Nashville community's neediest victims.

One might suspect that this organization has a target clientele itself: a population with significant needs, some of which are specific to the nature of the population.

Ah yes.
http://www.elfmademessages.com/id323.htm

MISSION STATEMENT
Ujima House is a grassroots <501 (c)(3)> nonprofit, community service which focuses on the needs of women and their children who are victims of domestic violence. Ujima House provides support services to victims without discrimination based on race or religion. They are especially equipped to address the needs of women of color, but are always there for anyone in need regardless of their culture or background, ethnicity or age.

What is a UJIMA?
Ujima is a word drawn from the principles of Kwanzaa. Kwanzaa is not an alternative version of Christmas as some may think. Kwanzaa is a relatively new tradition (since 1966) that is celebrated the week after Christmas to remind African-Americans to explore their culture and heritage.
This year from Dec. 26 through Jan. 1 celebrate Kwanzaa. There is one principle for each day.

The Seven Principles
1) Umoja meaning unity
2) Kuijichagulia for self determination
3) Ujima means collective work and responsibility
4) Ujamaa for cooperative economics
5) Nia for purpose
6) Kuumba means creativity
7) Imani for faith

Let us now heap vilification on these folks. Imagine, stating that they are especially equipped to address the needs of women of colour. (S.A.V.E. might want to hire their mission statement writer.)

(White) christian women are not necessarily the privileged, pampered, voluntarily submissive ladies they are being portrayed as. Some are abused, and kept in their abusive situations by religious pressures, both external and internal; they have no more resources, and are in no less need of help, and of help that addresses their particular situation and problems, than women of colour. And some other white christian women are aware of their sisters' special problems and seek to help them.

And none of us knows why Aila Ibn Kareem was at the SAVE shelter, or why she was directed to leave.

if it didn't have to do with the no contact with family type of rules - shelters often take those very, very seriously as it can lead to tragedy if the abuser is able to figure out (through a second party, who had contact with the abusee) where the victim (and kids, if kids are involved) are currently located - which then can put the victim and everyone at the shelter at great risk.

Only saying this, because rules along these lines are ones that I could understand that repeat violations might lead to eviction.

Now were it to turn out to be something petty - then I would jump in on the pile on.

However, as you point out - the mission, when read in context, reads as though it recognizes a group that can be particularly prone to domestic violence and focuses on breaking through those barriers to get information to those communities. In and of itself, not a bad thing at all. There is more to this story - and I will wait for more info (if ever learned) before jumping in.

and we would never have considered evicting a victum of abuse becuase of her religion......

We did however evict people fromt he shelter for allowing contact with the spouse as well as drug or alcohol abuse and only after the people were warned and offered counseling....

That happens a lot.I've done volunteer work in a shelter and sometimes people have to leave for the sake of the shelter's other residents. Also, people jump behind the veil of their religion, race, etc. for sympathy and protection when religion, race, etc. have nothing to do with why they were asked to leave.

I worked in a shelter and it was like working in a prison. Management actually said (when I complained of the strict control of the women) "who is the warden and who is the inmate?". In other words, the abusers roamed free while the women went into strict confinement. It didn't take me long to know that I didn't need to be part of it.

It seems as if most of you folks, having no experience with how DV shelters are run, are automatically assuming that this woman is being 100% truthful--merely because she's Muslim and the shelter is Christian-oriented. They say she broke some rules, but not a single person here has any idea what those rules were or what she may have done.

DV shelters have rules regarding privacy and confidentiality that most of you would never imagine; a lot of the rules are designed to protect the shelter community as a whole, not just individuals, and so they are strictly enforced. I had a client who was expelled from a DV shelter because she had someone drop her off at the front door of the shelter, an action that was forbidden because the shelter operated in total anonymity from the public as to its physical location. So please, let's not automatically vilify the shelter merely because it's a faith-based org, okay?

I have worked with the DV network and state association here in Missouri for a few years now in my work on homeless issues, and I have no reason to think that the shelters in Tennessee are any less progressive than the ones we have here. I think it's VERY (no, EXTREMELY) unlikely that any abused woman, especially one with children, would be put on the street for ideological reasons. That's just not the way DV shelters work.

That's always troubled me about the news, they usually have to keep back some part of the story (like what rules they claimed she broke) because of confidentiality or fear of litigation.

But I'm probably much more nosy than I should be.

regarding the confidentiality: that's what DV shelters are all about. Just the normal secrecy procedures any such shelter follows would prevent them from revealing what rules were broken. It's like there was almost no point in this being reported, because the full story will never be known unless it actually does go to court (which is doubtful).

We need to know the other side of the story, and what rules she broke before jumping to conclusions.

I wonder if this gawdly organazation benefits at all from Shrubs faith-based initiative - i.e. welfare for christo-fscists who support the party.

That's a totally ignorant description of the "faith-based initiative". Are the non-faith-based agencies who get the same funding receiving "welfare"? Come back when you know what you're talking about.

I know what the initiative looks like on paper. It's about fairness.

I also know how disingenuous right-wing Dominionists and the
politicians they pay for have supported federal funding for religious service organizations. For two decades now the religious right has worked incrementally to not only undermine the establishment clause of the constitution, but also, in other spheres, to debilitate public education and force their mindless coloring-book doctrines into every aspect of public/civic discourse. If allowed to evolve to its inevitable conclusion, the faith based initiative will eventually represent an obstacle to the free practice of religion in this country.

Come back when you recover from your naivete and stop drinking the Kool-aide.

I happen to know a great deal, in detail, about how HUD funding works, and you obviously don't. I also know that faith-based agencies provide a large percentage of the emergency housing needs for America's homeless population, and they were doing that long before the faith-based initiative happened. In FACT, the faith-based initiative changes NOTHING (got that? NOTHING) about how HUD funding works. All it does is encourage faith-based agencies to apply for it. HUD regs still specifically prohibit religious proselytizing by agencies who receive HUD funds. Which is why a lot of them still won't apply for HUD funding.

Learn the facts before you call someone who actually knows them "naive".

We're talking about to very different issues.

We're talking about to very different issues.

The one you're talking about appears to have nothing to do with the situation and organization that are the subject of this thread.

Why find out the facts, when you can "wonder" in public whether someone is a christo-fascist?

Another voice of reason--will you marry me?? :blush: (j/k)

I haven't seen you around in a long time--not since I moderated the Gun forum a million years ago, under the name 'dirk'.

If the common error made by one of our otherwise more enlightened friends in this thread were actually the fact ... well, we'd still be able to get married, 'cause this is Canada and we gots real rights & freedoms up here! -- i.e., if I wuz a man, and you still wanted to marry me. ;) (Assuming here that "dirk" is indeed a man, of course.)

But sadly, although I'm not a man, I'm also not a fan of making my sex life the state's business, so nope, I'll never marry thee. Unless, maybe, you were resisting conscription into a odious war. Then I can pretty safely say I would abandon my principles for the higher good.

You can always try propositioning me instead of proposing ... if you really like older women (I assume again, based on the law of averages or something) ... and if I throw the co-vivant out. That might be a coin toss.

It's true, I'm a man after my own sort, and attached these 19 years anyway. My proposal in jest was merely intended to demonstrate my undying respect for your accute mind. So, don't get rid of the "co-vivant" (god, I love that phrase!) yet! :toast:

:toast:

Read iverglas' posts to get caught up with the rest of us.

"friendly reminders" weren't enough.

Maybe the shelter should have been more lenient with her than with Christians because she was a Muslim.

Oh. That would be discriminatory, wouldn't it?

What people really need to do is figure out how one demonstrates "discriminatory" treatment. In this case, they would need to show that non-Muslims received better or more lenient treatment, instead of assuming the existence of whatever facts are necessary support what they want their particular reality-based narratives to say.

But nobody's done that.

http://save.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=55471

S.A.V.E
About the Director

Survivors Against Violent Environments is a grassroots organization established in 1997 by a survivor of domestic violence, Beth Lowry, through the Woodmont Hills Church of Christ in Nashville, TN. The first four years the Executive Director devoted her time as a volunteer for Survivors Against Violent Environments. In 2000 S.A.V.E. separated from the church and became a private 501c3 non-profit organization. In 2002 the Executive Director became the only employee of the S.A.V.E. program. She has 8 years of experience and education in the field of domestic violence. Mrs. Lowry has received many awards for her endeavors in assisting victims. One through the National Organization for Victim Assistance for her advocacy work in the field of domestic violence. She was presented the Sui Juris Award from the Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence for her hard work, dedication and perseverance in the struggle to end domestic and sexual violence. Mrs. Lowry is a credentialed Domestic Violence Advocate through NOVA, a certified Rape, Aggression, and Self-Defense (R.A.D.) Instructor and is certified in Critical Incident Stress Management. She served 4 years on the board of the Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and is currently the Secretary of the Nashville Coalition for Homeless. S.A.V.E. is a member of the Nashville Domestic Violence Coalition, Baptist and St. Thomas Hospitals Domestic Violence Committees, Nashville Center for Non-Profit Management, Association of Traumatic Stress Specialists and International Critical Incident Stress Foundation.

http://save.faithsite.com/uploads/34/35810.doc
google cached html version
Source: The Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence and the Metro Police Department

Beth Lowry has climbed many a hill in her life.

The first big one presented itself when her she kicked her drug-addicted husband out of their Denver apartment after he relapsed again. She changed the locks, but he came back, broke in and tried to kill her anyway. She escaped, barely, and came home to Nashville to start over.

The next big hill was letting a persistent church community help her heal her broken spirit and bruised body.

Today, the hill is convincing church leaders that if one in three women are abused, some of those women sit in their own pews.

... "They don't want to deal with the issue," Lowry said about why churches turn away her requests to educate their congregations. "They don't want to believe it's going on in their church."

The one-time abuse victim tries to use statistics to get the attention of uninterested church leaders.

... Similarly, Lowry recalls the time her husband tried to kill her. It wasn't the first time he had abused her, but when it happened, she knew this time was different, that he was trying to end her life when he put his hands around her neck, choking her, and yanked the phone out of the wall.

When she jumped out the second-story window of her apartment, shattering her ankle to get away from him, passers-by ignored her screams for help as her husband picked her up and took her back upstairs.

<the article goes into more detail about the physical and emotional aftermath of the incident, and her church's efforts to assist her>

... "I don't get into religious views," Lowry said. "We have a general belief in God, but I'm not trying to take anybody out of their church and bring them to mine."

Yeah, Lowry and her volunteers are just a bunch of cristo-fascists.

Jesus fucking christ, if I may.

Talk about blaming the bleeding victim.

the woman probably broke some rules. Which as others said, happens frequently. Thanks for all the extra information you have posted, I always appreciate being able to read more facts around a story. And I sincerely hope this Muslim woman finds the help that she needs and can follow the guidelines of whichever place she finds help at.

:kick:

before talking about it.

Seems to be a quality in very scarce supply hereabouts.

What is your bone to pick here iverglass?

Please explain your point of view beyond the fact that that you're fed up with people who are sick of religion being misused and politicized in this country?

What's your position beyond being smarter than everyone else here? Do you believe that faith based groups should be funded by tax payer money? Yes? No? Why? How about churches that preach blatant rightwing politics from the pulpit? They're providing a service are they not? Maybe my tax dollars should fund them as well?

Where do you draw the line?

Teach me.

You might usefully look here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4049582&mesg_id=4049882

Please explain your point of view beyond the fact that that you're fed up with people who are sick of religion being misused and politicized in this country?

Since "the fact that I'm fed up with people who are sick of religion being misused and politicized in this country" is NOT a fact, I answer: mu.

I reject your question.

What's your position beyond being smarter than everyone else here?

Mu.

Isn't this fun?

Do you believe that faith based groups should be funded by tax payer money? Yes? No? Why?

I certainly believe that WHERE I'M AT they should be funded TO PROVIDE SOCIAL SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC; was that your question? - it was just a little vague; odd, given how very specific, even though falsely premised, some of the others were.

The religious organizations that are funded or contracted to provide social services in Canada do an excellent job of it, on the whole, and are of course expressly prohibited from engaging in any proselytizing or from discriminating against (i.e. treating in any way differently) anyone at all in the delivery of their services. It would be a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality for a govt here to fund an organization that proselytized, or discriminated, in the delivery of funded services.

As an example, I often had occasion to work with an RC immigrant services outfit. Many of my immigrant and refugee clients were RC, and were comfortable in that climate. Non-RC clients were equally well-served. Ditto for the Jewish immigrant services group. My protestant mum attended a publicly-funded group for recently separated women operated by a Jewish community service organization, and was nothing but happy with their services.

I'd certainly prefer it if such services were delivered directly by government or through funding of secular organizations, but the fact is that there are economies to be made by exploiting the volunteer labour and capital assets of religious outfits, so what the hell.

How things work where you're at, I coudn't tell you. But it has still not been established that the issue is even relevant to the situation under discussion in this thread. Get it?

How about churches that preach blatant rightwing politics from the pulpit? They're providing a service are they not? Maybe my tax dollars should fund them as well?

Well, that would be up to you. Where I'm at, the delivery of religious messages is not regarded as a service to the public (and I can't imagine why it would be where you're at), and the notion of funding such activities would cause outrage.

Where do you draw the line? Teach me.

Hmm. How did that old religious saying go? There's none so blind ...

Thanks for your description of the successful "faith-based" services in your country. Such groups are obviously run by compassionate, civic-minded people with the best interests of others in mind. Perhaps that's because you are in the enviable position of living in a country that's still relatively free, and legislation is passed and enacted generally in good faith and in the spirit of an acknowledged social contract between lawmakers and the public.

As you may know, that is no longer the case in my country. Many of us have already seen how legislation passed by the current regime tends to be nothing more than trojan horses intended to undermine or circumvent constitutional protections, and in some cases, to pander to the religious right in return for political contributions and support.

Any legislation signed into law by the Bush gang is highly suspect. My cynicism comes from watching ordinary people get burned as a result of this epidemic of purely political hubris.

You seem like someone whose intelligence probably gets insulted at times. That's what it's like for a lot of us living under the shadow of this administration. So maybe you can appreciate the (admittedly) knee-jerk cynicism of some people on this board who vent their frustrations at times.

???

Thanks for your description of the successful "faith-based" services in your country. Such groups are obviously run by compassionate, civic-minded people with the best interests of others in mind. ... As you may know, that is no longer the case in my country.

And as I'm sure you know, such generalizations prove nothing about the organization and individuals who have been vilified in this thread.

And that's been pretty much my entire point.

Well, my fellow Canuckian, the only religious group here in Canada that I would (and do) donate money to is the Salvation Army. Why, since I'm so opposed to ALL religions? Because, I've seen the work that they do and I see the offices from which they operate--not all their offices--obviously--but many--and their trappings are minimal and their staff not highly paid. My gut instinct says they're not skimming.

Having said that, if I had my way, ALL government and tax funding benefits would stop today. If our governments were run for the benefit of the majority, we wouldn't require charity to be dispensed at the pleasure of those who run the charities. Charities just get government off the hook, and isn't it just a feel good thing. I give to charity. I offer my services at Christ Church and then return to my 500,000 dollar home and children who have everything they could possibly want. I've earned every penny I have. I have only my own hard work to thank for what I have. I go to church every Sunday and pray to a jealous God. I'm hoping to enter the Kingdom of God. Aren't I the pillar of the community? Rubbish! Sheer rubbish!

Ya wanna really do good; then, insist that the government stop stealing from its citizens; insist that it initiate programs which will cut down on the need for welfare; insist that kids from low-income homes get at the very least, good food, clothing, shelter and an education. Otherwise, our Charter of Rights is pure unadulterated verbiage signifying nothing. And while you're at it, insist that we purge our media of crap. And finally, encourage everyone to ditch their bloody religions and go for the Golden Rule--

Is this a rant? Yes! And I'll tell you one thing more, I haven't met an overtly religious person that I've liked. Not a one.

which was:

I'd certainly prefer it if such services were delivered directly by government or through funding of secular organizations, but the fact is that there are economies to be made by exploiting the volunteer labour and capital assets of religious outfits, so what the hell.

And of course governments hereabouts aren't about to start doing some of the other kinds of stuff that I've been associated with religious people and organizations in doing ... like solidarity work with the liberation struggles of oppressed peoples around the world ...

And I'll tell you one thing more, I haven't met an overtly religious person that I've liked. Not a one.

Well, results do vary. I was really very fond of my grandfather, the United Church soloist. A couple of my long acquaintance and friendship is composed of an observant though radical Jew and a feminist and formerly Marxist-Leninist, these days lower key, Anglican priest. While the current co-vivant's atheism was a necessary condition of our relationship, and of any truly intimate relationship I might form, I don't dislike everybody I'm not intimate with.

I've actually quite liked the woman who was the victim of the unfounded attacks in this thread, in the correspondence we've had so far. I don't expect that we'll become best buddies, but I certainly haven't found any reason to dislike her.

As long as religious organizations and individuals choose to do good in the world, their collective or individual reasons for what they do just aren't my affair. In fact, neither are their reasons for doing bad; I certainly won't allow them their religion as an escape hatch from responsibility for the bad they do, any more than I'd recognize it as the reason for any good they do. They make their own choices, just as I do.

And if any of *them*, the people with religion, want to batter others over the head with their own religion in the cause of good, I say let 'em go to it. It may be the only way of reaching some people, and that makes the people with religion the only ones likely to reach them. It's sad that they wouldn't listen to an atheist like moi, and hear things we atheists say as worth considering on their own merits instead of regarding them as the words of the devil, but there's nothing I can necessarily do about that.

The demise of religion is certainly a nice idea, but there's much to be done while awaiting the new Jerusalem, and many ways of doing it.

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

It's actually a socialist anthem, y'know. ;)

Thanks for your well measured post in response to my rant. You get mega marks for that--in my wee book, that is. Of course, stating that you are an atheist didn't hurt either. :)

As for me, I don't quite know where I stand spiritually, but I do know where I don't stand--I don't stand in the camp of any organized religion. I've concluded this as a result of a very long process of studying history, making observations, engaging in heated debates, and tuning in to gut instincts--the whole ball of wax as it were.

I did "hear" what you said, though, and commend you for your open-mindedness.

mine. I love these faith based money grubbing a-holes. This is why these organizations shouldn't get any federal dollars.

What rule did *you* break?

That would be one that, in the law biz, is known as audi alteram partem.

HEAR BOTH SIDES of a situation before passing judgment on the people involved in it.

In this case, it was really easy. All you had to do was read some of the other posts in this thread, to realize at least that you had NOT heard both sides of the story, and that there very possibly IS another side to this story.

But no, much more fun -- and certainly a whole lot easier -- to call perfect strangers money-grubbing assholes.

Maybe you could read the post (35) where I reported the experiences and qualifications of the director of this organization -- a woman whose husband tried to kill her, and who has devoted herself to trying to persuade christian clergy in her community that they need to address the problem of violence against women right in their own congregations.

And who, as far as I can tell, did not even take a salary for the first few years of her efforts. See also the 2003 financial info in post 43.

Or not. Hell. Why would a liberal / progressive / d/Democrat think it necessary to actually know something about a person before slagging her off in public?

One takes the job because one wants to serve the community, not because of the money.

Since she picked the wrong God to worship, she's gonna burn in hell anyway so what's a little discrimination?

:sarcasm:

edited for evil spelling

I think I'm officially going to GIVE up and go home to make dinner.

about the importance of the Individual but in fact can't get beyond the notion of not seeing Individuals but only their group affliation? These self-styled progressives clearly don't give a a hoot about the Individual, wedded as they are to the notion that group/enthic/religious idenitites trump the importance of the Individual. Many of the so-called progressives on this thread leap to conclusions based on kneejerk reactions to the Christian angle of the story and are not in the least interested in determining actual truth about about its founder which in fact fly in the face of their kneejerk reactions. Thanks for posting Iverglas, I value your insights and demand for intellectual rigour.:applause:

They need us more than ever and no wonder the violence against women by some in the Muslim community is allowed to flourish in this environment.

no wonder the violence against women by some in the Muslim community is allowed to flourish in this environment

... that the organization in issue here is apparently working its ass off to do something about the violence against women that is allowed to flourish in the CHRISTIAN community.

You know (or you would if you'd read some of the information in this thread) ... asshole fundie Christians ... just as misogynist as asshole fundie Muslims ...

What you've said is not contrary to what S.A.V.E. says. What it *does*, we unfortunately do not know the whole story of.

http://save.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=859

CHURCH AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION - S.A.V.E. is committed in educating the community, religious congregations and their leaders about the dynamics of domestic violence.

http://save.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=860

It is our belief that there is a definite need for an outreach program to women of faith who are in abusive relationships. We have found that no one is automatically safe because of her race, religion, the amount of money she makes or how long she went to school.

Getting women to admit they are victims and to attend support meetings is still a problem, and it's even more difficult for women of faith to reach out. This is a sensitive issue that many churches have not addressed. Women with faith beliefs tend to stay in marriages longer for religious reasons, even though they are being abused.

Oh, never mind.

because he can name a rabid right-winger AND make Scalia chief.

I have received an email from Beth Lowry, the director of S.A.V.E. I will request her permission to reproduce it, or portions of it, here. Unfortunately, I have to leave now, but if I hear from her on the weekend I will post it then, perhaps as a new thread in GD if this one has died.

She did respond to my quibble about the chistianosity of her email address: "savedv". Apparently I'm not the only one to have failed to get it: it's "S.A.V.E. D.V." -- the S.A.V.E. domestic violence program. ;)

Strike one is she's black.
Strike Two is She'a Black woman.
Strike Three is that She's a black woman who ain't Baptist in Tennesee.
***(Anyone know if the sheets are back from the laundry yet?)***

Strike one is she's black.
Strike Two is She'a Black woman.
Strike Three is that She's a black woman who ain't Baptist in Tennesee.
***(Anyone know if the sheets are back from the laundry yet?)***

Strike one: you don't know what you're talking about.

Strike two: you declined the opportunity to learn anything about the subject you are addressing (by reading any of the other posts in this thread).

Strike three: you make vile accusations about complete strangers for which you have not a shred of evidence.

I'd like to say that you might find life difficult around here if you persist in taking that kind of approach, but I'm afraid that that would be wishful thinking.

Where is the "compassion" that some of these groups are supposed to be showing for the needy?

Bush: "Now, to make sure that them Muslims in the shelters are cared for, compassionately, I'm gonna build a big camp and have them move there. Maybe we can build it in Florida. I'll get that other Bush you've heard about to take the lead on that one... Have to make sure that citizens are protected from relgious persecution and terror... Ensure freedom... It's hard work... I think about it eveyday... God Bless America.... It's hard work... terrorist threat... bzzzzzt!"

Rove:"Quick! Get the other Bushbot! This one's a dud!"

Where is the "compassion" that some of these groups are supposed to be showing for the needy?

Maybe if you'd read something other than the unconfirmed and extremely vague allegations made by one individual ... like all of the information that has been posted in this thread ... you might see it.

enlarge the picture in this link...it's definitely the same woman.

http://www.rctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050704/NEWS01/507040400/1006/MTCN03

interesting too...the caption for that picture too:

Aila Ibn Kareem listens to a speaker during a DIVA meeting at the Bordeaux library yesterday. DIVA stands for Domestic Islamic Violence Awareness Assistance. Kareem, the founder of DIVA, faced domestic violence.

Nobody thought it was interesting when I posted it, either.

;)

:hi:
i suppose it's easier to jump to conclusions...
i'm keeping an open mind, but i checked out the some of the board members of SAFE, and they don't seem like fundie types to me.

From her email to me, which she has consented to my reproducing -- I have omitted (*only*) references to the reasons why Ms. Kareem was directed to leave, since Ms. Lowry has received legal advice not to comment publicly, but I would point out that Ms. Lowry provided me with no details that have not been stated publicly: that Ms. Kareem violated rules, without specifying what rules or how. (I have also divided the message into paragraphs for ease of reading.)

PLEASE read it carefully if you intend to comment on it. Please do not take anything said in it out of its context. For instance: the organization originally offered support groups for Christian women -- because that is its founder's religion and those were the women she perceived to be in need of special assistance (and their churches were ignoring those needs), and because the organization was born as a program operated out of a Christian church. (Damn, how dare a church do such things for its members?)

Note that there are two distinct programs addressed here. One is the housing program, which has nothing to do with religion. The other is what started as a Christian outreach group, and is now an "inter-faith" outreach group, offering support to women victims of domestic violence. The aim of the latter program remains the same: to provide support for women whose religious beliefs interfere in their ability to understand their problem and get help with it, and whose clergy / religious communities may be more part of their problem than of the solution. That is, when she says "the faith beliefs of victims were not being addressed by secular agencies", she is referring to the need to design ways of reaching such women that take the problems associated with their "faith beliefs" into consideration.

Thank you for your email. After surviving attempted murder by my abuser 10 years ago, I made a personal promise to God that I would strive to help other women in danger. In that regard SAVE was founded in 1998 through a Nashville church and specifically provided outreach for that church.

As we began to grow and I also after I realized that the faith beliefs of victims were not being addressed by secular agencies, SAVE separated from the church and became a non-profit in 2000. The purpose being, that we did not want to be tied to any one religious doctrine.

SAVE serves any one who asks for our help. All of our services are free. We are not a religious organization.

Up until last year, we were offering support groups for Christian women, as that is my faith and what I am familiar with.

That group has since changed and become an "interfaith" domestic violence support group facilitated by a religious "expert".

Insofar as our funding, we are struggling and I have been the only person to run the agency and provide services up until last year. We received a Federal Grant through President Bush's faith based initiative for $50,000 to increase our capacity. This was used to hire another staff person and to also provide compensation for providing transitional living services.

Our housing program is funded by Federal money. This year we have on $13,000 for OPERATIONAL EXPENSES only. All of our other funding is by way of personal donations and grants from foundations. In no way, form or fashion do we address religion in our housing program.

I would never intentionally break the law. Entry into our housing program has no bearing on the person's religion. <Reference to the specific case omitted>

Our financial records are public record with the State of Tennessee.

<References to the individual situation and Ms. Lowry's feelings omitted>

There are women and children waiting and begging to have a place to live and someone to help them. Last year in Davidson County alone, there were over 18,000 reports of domestic violence to the police department. Can you imagine how many went unreported? 1 in 3 women experience domestic violence.

I appreciate your efforts to stand up for me. Thank you.

<Sigh, even she thought I was standing up for her. ;)
Her next comments address a niggle I expressed about her email address: "savedv", which I thought a little religious.>

Also, a Jewish friend of mine just recently told me the same thing about my email address. It's funny how people think. When I made the address I was thinking SAVE - domestic violence program SAVE DV.

Take care and God bless.

Ewww! I've been blessed. :P

This description puts me in mind of the case I referred to in my first post in this thread: the Zoroastrian Iranian refugee in Canada who called the prayer line number she saw on a fundamentalist Christian TV show and was referred directly and immediately to the women's shelter in her own community. Not all Christians are yucky ... and, as that case shows, sometimes even yucky Christians do good things.

Now, if the stone-throwers in the crowd would like to regroup ...

Of all the people whom Democrats would not want to be alienating, I'd think that these folks (and remember: this is Tennessee) might be near the top of the list.

I've known a few people in social service organizations and most of them truly want to make a difference. Most are woefully underpaid if paid at all. I know a gentleman who used to be a social worker and now is a criminal defense attorney, often offering his services pro bono to broke defendants. He couldn't afford to remain in social work. And it burned him out emotionally.

It's such a difficult field to be in. I figure such professionals must often make the decision of Solomon. I don't have the fortitude to do it.

Really, not everybody starts out with a completely formed political analysis of the problems they see, before they set about trying to solve them.

What's amazing to me is to see so many people saying such vile things about someone who obviously *did* see the problems that some of the "faith beliefs" of abused women create for those women -- and that some of their christian clergy and congregations were *not* helping them with -- and who set about trying to do something to solve *those* problems.

I'd'a just thunk that people hereabouts would have applauded such efforts ...

I am Beth Lowry's husband, and I am so proud of her and all she has done to help others. When the interviews with Aila Ibn Kareem first aired on two of the local TV stations, Beth was very hurt. A few years ago, my cousin worked as a researcher for Bob Woodward at the Washington Post. From my discussions with him, they still have pretty strict requirements on verifying a story before it gets printed. I think that local TV news has a much lower standard. They are under pressure to get a story out and don’t always have the leadership or discipline to verify the details or get the whole story. Since Beth was prevented from talking about the case because of her confidentially agreement (and the advice of her board and attorney), she was left wide open to attack without the opportunity to tell her story. What would our news be like if it only included one side of the story? (Every watched any Al-Jazeera?) In cases where people are prevented from defending themselves, I think our news reporters have a special obligation to dig a little deeper to uncover the truth. Since SAVE gets most of its support from individuals and grant review boards in the local community, bad press can severely limit or destroy SAVE’s ability to help others. There is only so much financial support available in a community and the competition in Nashville is fierce. If an individual or grant board has a doubt about an agency they can just move on to the next applicant, and they will in a heartbeat. If Aila Ibn Kareem had called the news media and said “Help, I’m being evicted because I can’t follow the rules”, I don’t think we would be having this discussion. I can’t believe the local news media want to hurt community support programs like SAVE. But in not being diligent in their reporting responsibility and putting too much emphasis on ratings and not enough emphasis on uncovering the truth, a news agency can become a powerful weapon that can be manipulated. We see this often in politics, but at least there a politician can defend themselves.

After reading the different opinions in this forum and some of the e-mails that Beth has received, we both have a better understanding of how some people try hard to understand the world and events while others try to mold the events to fit their views. I thank those of you who have defended Beth or who have just held out for the truth before passing judgment. For the rest of you, I read what you have written and I discount it. Isn’t the free discussion of ideas great?!

Britt

Welcome to DU. Please understand that a lot of folks here are extremely passionate people who do a lot of venting. This discussion board is a safe place for them to vent. There are certain posters I rarely agree with, but their opinion is as valid as mine -- that's what we're all about, IMO.

As a former news media person, I can tell you from personal experience that SOME newspeople (not all) will rush on the air, or into print, all for the sake of getting the story first. If you've been in the business long enough, you realize the harm an incorrect or untrue story can do. They may linger for years, literally. (Not to discourage your wife or anything.) Once they're out there, they're out there.

Best of luck and hope these problems are squared away quickly. My time in the media business also taught me there are multiple sides to every story and few things are cut-and-dried. And sometimes, the person who cries the loudest does so to detract attention from what's really going on.

Americans are blessed with a powerful tool, our press corps, which has done tremendous good for the protection of our freedoms and to promote democracy around the world. I didn’t intend to diminish the press at all. I just wanted to point out that there will always be people who will try to influence the press and that vigilance for the truth is an import part of the press’s responsibility. I have great admiration for many in the media, especially those who provoke serious thought on an issue. I am troubled when a reporter can use an authoritative air to perpetuate a baseless claim. We all know that many take what they hear on the news as fact; even if the reporter uses the words “Claimed” or “Alleged”. I don’t believe the Channel 5 or Channel 17 reporters intended any harm. They only wanted to report a story of interest. I think it is just a matter of discipline and accountability for some reporters. In this case, the Channel 5 (WTVF) reporter didn’t even bother to get Beth’s name right. They reported it as “Lisa Lowrey, the Director of SAVE”. She is actually “Beth Lowry” and there is no Lisa Lowery around here that I know of. A quick search of the net or if the reporter had looked at any of the documents that Aila Ibn Kareem provided, would have produced the correct name. I just see this as sloppy work, nothing more and nothing less. I think, if the reporters had dug a little deeper they would have dropped the story altogether.

And the need to fill space or airtime, as the case may be.

We all get sloppy in the news business. That's probably our greatest sin. (And they got her first name wrong -- lord almighty!) And I didn't take offense at your post; not in the least. Thanks for visiting our discussion forum; please drop in anytime.

Since they may not have the decency to be ashamed under their own steam, allow me to shame them.

There are people in this thread who have been talking about REAL HUMAN BEINGS, and saying very unpleasant things about those real human beings, without a thought for the human beings involved.

There are many possible interpretations of the scant facts reported in the initial story, and of the statements and actions of the one person who spoke directly to the media about it.

As some have hinted at, one interpretation is that the person who did the speaking has an agenda of her own, one that no one reading the story could know about. Speculating a few steps even more removed, one might wonder about the motivations for making accusations of religious discrimination, and in general the behaviours, of someone who is pretty surely a convert to her religion (converts often being among the most zealous adherents), and apparently an adherent to a rather fundamentalist version of that religion (wearing not just hijab, but full "Muslim" women's uniform in Tennesee -- this being actually a cultural, not religious, practice, which would not indicate fundamentalism in some cultures).

No decent or rational person would assert that the individual in question had a less than honourable agenda, or was motivated by religious bigotry herself, without some pretty solid evidence. And no one here did that, despite the fact that some people obvious had questions in that direction.

Why anyone would make such allegations against someone else, particularly when that person is prevented at least by the ethics of confidentiality, if not by law, from defending herself in the public arena, I simply will never understand.

The television station that broadcast and published this information was in serious breach of its own ethics and responsibilities. In a situation where the other party could not present a case in its own defence, it should at least have required that the complaining party present something credible to support her accusations.

It should at least have required that she inform them fully and honestly about the warnings and notices she had received, and the rules she was alleged to have broken.

In fact, the only safe way for the media to deal with this situation is to require that the complaining party authorize the other party to release the relevant information to them, so that they can present both sides of the story. If the complaining party is not willing to do that, the media could rightly consider her not to have established her credibility, and properly decline to publish her allegations.

If someone here were my doctor, and I accused you of sexually assaulting me, and you were prevented from discussing my accusation publicly because you were legally bound not to release information about me, how would YOU feel if the media reported what I had accused you of?

If I had made a complaint to the police and a charge had been laid, that would make me look slightly more credible, and then that information would indeed be public, and you would at least have the knowledge that eventually there would be a public determination as to what had actually happened.

That is not the case here. This woman has made accusations to the media, without presenting them to any impartial authority that could ultimately determine whether they are true. The other party is prohibited from responding publicly to them. And yet the media reported them anyway, with apparently no reason whatsoever to believe that they are true or even distantly related to the truth.

And some people at DU -- liberals, progressives, democrats, Democrats -- asked none of the questions that people of those stripes should be asking when an individual's integrity has been called into question.

Nope. They called her names, and accepted what her accuser had said -- whatever that really was, which they didn't even know in enough detail to have a clue.

If I were a Democrat (which I'm not, the fact that I am not a US citizen being sufficient reason), I would be outraged at the face that actions like these put on my party, quite apart from being outraged at what was done in itself.

I'm going to kick this so that it might come to the attention of some of the people who had so much to say, and who might not be around on weekends to see how insupportable what they said was. I think they should have the opportunity to retract.

People who are actually familiar with services for abused women (you know, people who have actually put themselves out to help them) can read between the lines of stories like this.

They know that there are not uncommonly mental health issues involved, that people can be victims of things like domestic violence or addictions or homelessness and also of mental illness, and that services set up for victims of domestic violence or addictions or homelessness are seldom equipped to deal with serious mental health problems. That is one of the first things that people who actually know what they're talking about would wonder about when reading such a story.

The other thing they would wonder about is whether a case like this involved "breaking rules" that had to do with the safety of other people the program is serving. That, too, is very common in this field. Many women in such programs - virtually by definition - have great difficulty separating from their partners, and are subject to manipulation by their partners (or families, or even congregations or clergy, who disapprove of what they have done in leaving their partners), and fail to look at the big picture when it comes to the need for the absolute secrecy of their location.

I appreciate that the initial poster found the story interesting and thought that someone might want to find out more about it. Unfortunately, that is not a response that can be reliably expected hereabouts.

Those who read the story and the unpleasant comments on one of the parties in it, or made said comments, do really need to catch up.

Some people are beyond embarrassment.

Just one question:

What would our news be like if it only included one side of the story? (Every watched any Al-Jazeera?)

Ever watched any FoxNews?

;)

I think that we can be pretty sure that if Beth had been Muslim and the complainant Christian, Fox would have sent Van Susteren to Nashville for a week and O'Reilly would have shouted down anything Beth tried to say.

The television station in this instance did act entirely unprofessionally, irresponsibly and unethically, in my not at all humble opinion.

Oh well. I hope the fact that a bunch of non-believing, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights lefties ("liberals", as Ann Coulter would sneer it) have expressed their distaste for some of the less pleasant things said here (several other people of that ilk whom I know here also sent me private messages to that effect) has been of some comfort!

...I saw that it was a short story with little info. I was hoping that (in usual fashion) the folks at DU would add to the story with new information. I also knew that (due to the subject matter) we would get some reaction that would be extreme. I like DU because it helps me see my political group with a clear vision - there are many patient, truth-seeking peoples as well as many knee-jerk types. All-in-all this is the most informative and open forum I have seen which is open to stories and discussions like this - Thanks for your input.

That's why I for one chose not to jump into the discussions here.

Very interesting.

... to jump back in and see what they needed to know before they jumped in in the first place.

I don't really expect to see the apologies that some of them owe to some people they maligned without cause. I'd just be happy if they tucked the experience away for future reference, for the next time they're tempted to leap to totally inappropriate conclusions about people they don't know.