Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Well FAQ Me.

xmercy_thumb[3]_thumb[1]Mat 19:17-19 - "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbour as yourself.'" (My bold)

"Do not give false testimony"... It means "do not tell lies". It's a very simple and straightforward statement, uttered by none other than Jesus himself and written as an instruction from Jesus to those who wish to follow him. "Do not tell lies"... I mention it just so we can all be sure that it is a basic tenet of christianity that really shouldn't be ignored if you purport to be a christian.

With this in mind, let's take a look at question 6 on the Mercy Ministries program FAQ with my bolds and highlights:

6. How much does the program cost?

Mercy Ministries program is provided at NO COST to the young women.

For young women who are eligible for a Centrelink payment (eg. Youth Allowance, Newstart, Pension) we ask that they contribute their payment to Mercy Ministries for the duration of their time in the program. From this payment the young women receive an allowance for weekly shopping for incidentals.

Upon entry into the program a deposit of $200 is required from all young women (whether eligible for Centrelink payment or not), to cover the cost of any impending medical expenses.

It will then be necessary to replenish the deposit to take it back to a balance of $200 for any further medical treatment that may be required.

For young women who are not eligible for Centrelink support, Mercy Ministries does require them to have a sponsor to support weekly shopping for incidentals and medical expenses.

As Mercy Ministries is not a medical facility we work with the young women alongside medical professionals who support Mercy Ministries to access excellent and affordable medical care.

Any remaining part of this deposit will be refunded to the resident on departure from the program.

So is it "no cost" or a $200 deposit with ongoing costs? One of these things must be a lie, so only one question needs to be asked; In ignoring such a basic tenet of christianity, deliberately and in print and expressly for the purpose of attracting desperate young women, does this organisation still have the right to call itself christian? My personal opinion is no, they don't, but I'm interested to hear what you think.


Donna said...

Well, the 1st few things that "jump
out" @ me are that they tell you, right up front (more or less) that
they're not a medical facility. Apparently, "we" should BELIEVE them!! 2nd: also apparently, the
initial 200. and any monies paid to the "ministry"/entities thereof

I had not heard of it until "here" and Sean's, so I think, up here, it
must not be very well known. Unless the telly news is talking about the nutter groups out in Ariz/Colo/ etc. (fundie LDS groups), we don't actually hear much about places like this- at least I don't....

Plonka said...

The first thing I thought was "how many destitute and desperate young women are actually going to read the rest of that answer?" The conclusion I came to was "probably not many".

But we must also remember that this FAQ has been changed and updated quite a bit since the story first broke, so the fact that it still tells a lie speaks volumes to me.

Donna said...

Oh, of course, they're not going to
come clean & admit that they know
NOTHING about REALLY coming up with a protocol for treatment of mentally ill/addictive personalities, that would be having
"integrity". And Accts Rec'ble would be affected. So no, we won't do that. Hmm... best to fall back to Plan B- a little equivocating, etc., under the guise
of "updated" info.

"Mercy" needs its butt sued off...

Plonka said...


Oh, of course, they're not going to come clean & admit that they know NOTHING....

And that's what really irks me about these guys. Christians aren't supposed to employ deceit, but these guys are ruining lives by doing just exactly that.

And they need more than their butts sued off. There's simply no excuse for ruining lives like that.

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

I am wondering if I should make a complaint to the ACCC.


Plonka said...

Hmmm, indeed. I wonder if they have any jurisdiction here?

Donna said...

NOW you're "thinking", guys!!


("Help" for the girls may have to
initiate from "outside". In other words, it may be a classic case of
not being able to see the forest for the trees &/or they are afraid
to be "victimized" all over, AGAIN.)

Dikkii said...

If the deposit is refundable (i.e. if it isn't spent) then I would think that no court would find that there is a case for misleading and deceptive under the TPA. The Centrelink one is curious though. I would assume that any leftover Centrelink monies are also refundable, but this says nothing about that.

It's worth a query to the ACCC, but probably not a complaint, yet, I think.

Plonka said...


By refundable to you mean in total?

I ask because the last sentence implies that at best you'll only get a part of it refunded:

Any remaining part of this deposit will be refunded to the resident on departure from the program.

But I wasn't sure about a complaint either. How legally binding is a FAQ in these matters?

Dikkii said...


Any remaining part of this deposit will be refunded to the resident on departure from the program.

In total, I guess. I know that their defence would rest on the statement, "The remaining part would amount to 100% of their initial deposit unless there was further medical treatment required." In other words, it's a statement that's easily spin-doctored.

I ask because the last sentence implies that at best you'll only get a part of it refunded...

How big is a "part"? Counsel for the defence would certainly go as big as 100%, and I don't see a judge contradicting that.

This is the bit that interests me: The term "further medical treatment" is a bit grey. I'd like to see where counsel (plural) would take this one.

Also, I'm unsure about the status of an FAQ. FWIW, I think that it's a representation of sorts clearly designed to give the impression that the service is provided at "NO COST" (their capitals). I don't see the harm in a query to the ACCC - a representation like this would be subject to Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act - misleading and deceptive conduct - I would think.

Dikkii said...

Incidentally, I got a response from Glroia Jeans.

Donna said...

Dikkii & Ted:

I say: "TELL on 'em, TELL on 'em!!"

Stupid, perverted, conceited jerks- they don't have ANY business purporting to be "helping" ANYONE with addictive personalities OR mental health issues. Idiots!!

All they're doing is stepping in & delaying the pt from possibly getting some REAL protocol for help. Now the pt gets to do it TWICE, if they can ever TRUST anyone to "help" them the 2nd time!!

DECEPTION. I NEVER in my life met
a preacher/priest with a REAL university degree that EVER said
"he" or "his" belief could cure mental illness.

Donna said...

PS TED: Forgot to tell you I LOVE
the title "Well FAQ Me"!!

Just goes to show ya that great minds think a like. (If you have one & ARE one- ha-ha. YOU do & are. Jury is still out on moi!!)

A little laugh, just for you, there...

© Blogger Templates | Tech Blog