Is Atheist Money Too Controversial for the American Cancer Society?

[stockholmer]

http://www.alternet.org/belief/152685/is_atheist_money_too_controversial_for_the_american_cancer_society_


The American Cancer Society may have turned down a potential half-million dollar donation because it came from a non-theistic organization.
I'll say this clearly, right up front: The American Cancer Society did not explicitly reject a massive donation offer from a non-theistic organization on the basis of it being a non-theistic organization.

That was not the stated reason given for rejecting a matching offer of $250,000 from the Foundation Beyond Belief and the Todd Stiefel Foundation to sponsor a national team in the upcoming Relay for Life. http://www.relayforlife.org/ (An offer that, as a matching offer, was likely to bring in a total of half a million dollars for the American Cancer Society.) Nobody at the ACS has ever said, in words, "We don't want our organization to be associated with atheists. It's too controversial. We don't want atheist money." And when asked if this was the case, they have denied it.

It's just difficult to reach any other conclusion. In the place of clear explanations, there has been an ongoing series of evasions, imprecisions, conflicting answers, moved goalposts, apathy, and even hostility.

Here's the deal. A few months ago, Todd Stiefel -- philanthropist and founder of the Stiefel Freethought Foundation, http://www.stiefelfreethoughtfoundation.org/ which provides financial support to atheist and other nonprofit and charitable organizations -- approached the American Cancer Society with an offer. He wanted local atheist groups around the world to participate in the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life program, as a national team, under the banner of the humanist charitable organization Foundation Beyond Belief. http://foundationbeyondbelief.org/ In order to make this happen, he made a generous offer: a $250,000 matching offer from the Todd Stiefel Foundation, which, as a matching offer, was likely to bring in a half million dollars to the American Cancer Society. And he was stonewalled.

clip

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Stephen Henry Roberts

[trotsky]

1. This tale pretty much matches how many believers on DU view atheists.

They're perfectly OK with us as long as we all just shut up and stay hidden.

[MindPilot]

2. Yeah, but DU will still take our money.

And then let the believers tell us to shut up and stay hidden.

[sarcasmo]

61. +1

[Iggo]

76. That's fine with me.

Long as I get to ridicule the ridiculous.

And I do.

[Bake]

7. I've never said you have to "stay hidden."

It's the superior, condescending comments like "Cloud Being" that tend to irritate some people. Not saying you've said things like that, just that some have.

As for me, I just say live and let live.

:hi:

Bake

[trotsky]

9. And I never said you did.

But please realize that merely saying "Jesus is a myth" or "I don't believe in gods" will irritate some people. If your position is that no non-believer should ever say something that's going to irritate a believer, then you are indeed advocating that we remain silent and hidden.

[Bake]

13. Nope. Not saying that.

Some DUers (and I think you will agree) just can't wait to jump into every thread or respond to every post by a theist to piss on their beliefs.

Like I said, I just live and let live. I sometimes struggle with my own faith or lack thereof, depending on what day it is. I respect your world view, and expect the same in return.

:hi:

Bake

[trotsky]

19. Good, but you didn't address my point.

No matter what is said, no matter how innocuous you and I might think it is, there is probably a believer who will be offended by it.

So what's the cutoff? What are atheists allowed to say, and what are they not?

[Bake]

24. I think the line is drawn at mutual respect.

I can't say where that is except on a case-by-case basis. But I agree that you're right that some believers are not respectful and have a martyr complex, and to them, ANY comment will be considered oppression -- which I do not, by the way.

I think in general, comments like "Invisible Cloud Being" are over the line because they're obviously condescending. But that's just me. You've seen those -- do you agree or not?

:hi:

Bake

[trotsky]

30. But that's exactly what I'm getting at, and where the problem lies.

There are believers for whom "Invisible Cloud Being" rolls right off their backs. How can I agree or disagree? Your statement is both true and false depending on whose sensibilities we are talking about.

I think a good guideline can be found in the DU rules.

[Bake]

35. If you think "Invisible Cloud Being" is respectful, I've simply got nothing else to say.

In that case, yes, go take a Dale Carnegie course.

I've gone the extra mile and then some. That's all I've got. If you can't acknowledge that, then honestly, I can't help you.

Bake

[trotsky]

42. And I never said that.

You keep dodging the central problem - which is why you've gone an extra mile, trying to avoid it.

[Bake]

45. The central question? You want a bright line?

As in so much of other human relations, there's NOT ONE.

I gave you all the guidelines I can. Common courtesy and respect.

Bake

[trotsky]

46. Aha! You get it!

No, there ISN'T a nice defined line. That's the point! The only way a non-believer can be assured of NEVER saying anything to offend a believer is to simply say nothing at all. Since I assume we both agree that is no solution, perhaps the idea here is to recognize that while we enjoy many rights as Americans, the right to NOT be offended isn't one of them.

[Bake]

48. I disagree. I think it's possible and even desirable to engage in

meaningful, respectful discussion. You don't have to bail out completely. If you're respectful, and the other party is offended, that's on THEM. Not you.

Bake

[trotsky]

49. Which is essentially what I said.

No matter what, you're probably going to offend someone. And at a certain point, that's their problem - not the atheist's.

[Kurmudgeon]

53. Many are offended here if any believer posts, yet never see how they lose their ability to convince.

I expect this will become yet another DU pile on topic. However, no matter who gets mad or how many get "offended" at believers, you're not going to change their RIGHT to believe how they feel.
Now say something about a "sky wizard" or some such, because it's oh so witty.

[trotsky]

63. Enjoy your argument with your straw man.

I have not seen anyone say they want to take away someone's "right" to believe. :eyes:

[Kurmudgeon]

51. No, you quoted it, and you dance and dodge quite well yourself.

[trotsky]

64. Do try to keep up.

The other poster suggested that I thought the phrase was respectful. That's what I never said. Feel free to keep piling on, though. I do enjoy the great example of a Christian you are!

[Bake]

72. Now you're being dishonest and apparently just trying to start a fight.

I explicitly said, and I quote:

"Not saying you've said things like that, just that some have."

So you're being dishonest to say I "suggested" that.

Bake

[trotsky]

73. Your quote:

If you think "Invisible Cloud Being" is respectful, I've simply got nothing else to say.

So who was being dishonest?

[Bake]

75. Look at the totality of the thread

I was nothing but respectful, and you kept pushing it and twisting what I said, out of context, and you're still doing it. Frankly, I think you are just gunning for a flame war.

THIS is the kind of crap that pisses people off.

Atheists who push the notion that they're being oppressed are no different than Christians who do the same thing. Has anybody put a gun to your head and made you go to church? No, I didn't think so.

I'm done. Enjoy your self-imposed oppression if it makes you feel like a martyr.

Bake

[trotsky]

77. Oh, I have.

I think it speaks for itself. And I have no need to attack you or call you names to sign off.

Good day.

[RyanPsych]

57. In terms of substance

an atheist saying that "Jesus is a myth" is no different than a Christian saying that "Jesus is lord" or "I'm a Christian."

[trotsky]

67. I agree.

And will also note that someone who says "Jesus is lord" is basically telling believers of other religions that they worship false gods.

[Kurmudgeon]

32. I'd say militant Athiests are probably "too controversial".

Believe, don't believe, you have that freedom of choice. So don't berate those who believe differently than you.

[trotsky]

34. So it's militant to want to give money to a charity in the name of a freethought group?

Dang, you have an interesting definition of the word berate.

[Kurmudgeon]

50. I defined no words, don't project. As for why, take that up with the American Cancer Society.

[tnlefty]

58. I don't need to. I've donated annually on the birthday of my

best friend who died from breast cancer. Now I know the ACS doesn't really want my money, so I'll keep it.

[trotsky]

65. You're the one who introduced the terms militant and berate.

Why did you use them? What is militant about the behavior on the non-believers in this news story? Who was berated, and how?

I eagerly await your answers that will undoubtedly be delivered in you typical Christian style.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sarcasmo]

62. Militant Atheists, funny stuff. How many Militant Atheists do you know?

[kenfrequed]

74. I have long laughed at the application of the 'term' militant to atheists and lefties

Most of whom do NOT take a lot of violent action in favor of their cause in America. Yet ours is the country that talks about militant feminism, militant atheism, and the militant left. Very curious bits of language used I would say.

Who are 'militant atheists' and in what way are they 'too controversial?' Are evangelical christians that greet you at bus stops, airports, and train stations considered 'militant' or 'too controversial'? Or is it acceptable because evangelizing to the faithless is an article of their faith? Why is Richard Dawkins a 'militant atheist' (by othrs definition, not yours perhaps) whereas every member of an evangelical church or the Jehovas Witness's not?

[Contrary1]

66. Hey Atheists...

I'm not one of you...but I love you. Not a single condition attached.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

3. That's ridiculous!

When you are trying to save the lives of people from cancer, you take money from where ever you can get it. this is just stupid. And The American Cancer Society will never get another dollar from me. I'm agnostic, Skip, the husband, is an atheist. Cancer has no religion, creed or sexuality. It does not discriminate. And neither should they.

[rug]

4. First, they can't donate $250,000, now they can't use the country club.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/richard_dawkins_event_banned_in_MI

Oh, the oppression.

[trotsky]

5. Substitute "Jewish" or "homosexual" for "atheist" in either of these stories, rug.

Would you still be singing your tune of sarcastic dismissal?

[JNelson6563]

6. Exactly, well said.

I've seen people accused of being homophobes for pointing out anything Obama has done on behalf of the LGBT community.

Atheists, the last openly encouraged prejudice.

Julie

[rug]

8. They are hardly comparable.

As you have oft stated, atheism is simply a lack of belief, nothing more.

To equate that with the oppression felt due to sexual orientation or ethnicity (yes "Jewish" is more than a belief system) is, at best, unseemly.

[trotsky]

11. I'm asking about treatment of a group of people.

It should not matter if it concerns what they believe, who they love, or what ethnicity they are.

No one is "equating" the treatments of these groups, but we should at least be able to identify prejudice and oppose it ALWAYS.

Do you agree?

[rug]

14. You're talking about a self-identified group based on opinions that are subject to change.

Are you also advocating for the right of the Flat Tax Society to use the country club of their choice?

Obviously, prejudice must be opposed. Attacking ghosts is not the way to do it.

[trotsky]

18. I am concerned that you appear to be arguing that prejudice is perfectly acceptable...

as long as it's based on something that someone might be able to change about themselves. Might.

[rug]

22. Your concern is misplaced since I'm not saying that.

As you well know.

[trotsky]

25. Overweight people might become slim again. Weight is subject to change.

Is it OK to discriminate against overweight people then? Deny them access to facilities to meet?

I'm not sure WHAT you are trying to say, so that's why I'm asking these questions. It seems like you are just trying to find a way to minimize any discrimination that happens to atheists, and have painted yourself in a corner.

[rug]

37. I'm waiting for zumba to file a lawsuit.

[trotsky]

44. Thanks for the non-answer.

Confirming that yes indeed, you're cornered and have switched to one-liner mode to bow out.

[trotsky]

28. By the way...

"You're talking about a self-identified group based on opinions that are subject to change."

Wouldn't that also describe Catholics?

[rug]

38. Are you equating atheist nonbelief to religious belief?

[trotsky]

43. Are you saying that Catholics are NOT...

"a self-identified group based on opinions that are subject to change"?

[kenfrequed]

78. So...

You can discriminate against Atheists then?
Because:
They aren't a group?
They aren't identifiable?
They don't identify themselves as a group?
They don't identify as having a consistent theology?
They are defined by having the absence of a belief?





Actually on that last point, what is the difference between being a group (or not-group as you seem to contend) that refuses to state a belief in a particular religion and a group that refuses to take a loyalty oath? Would a group of atheists that claim to worship the giant space spagetti monster get legal protection even if their religion was a joke, so long as they stated they had a religion?

[jeff47]

29. So, Jews can't be discriminated against?

After all, they could convert to another religion. So their belief is subject to change.

[rug]

39. Read your history of the Holocaust and the purity laws.

[jeff47]

47. You're the one making the argument that discrimination isn't possible if it's over something

that can change.

Not my fault that your argument doesn't make much sense.

[NYC Liberal]

12. Discrimination is discrimination.

Yes it's just a lack of belief, and in an ideal world it wouldn't be a big deal. But for whatever reason, a lot of people get very riled up about it and use it as a basis to discriminate.

[rug]

15. The converse is true.

[NYC Liberal]

16. ...and that would be?

[rug]

17. Whining about persecution is tedious, coming from Christians, atheists, or Snooki.

[NYC Liberal]

20. I agree, but pointing out specific instances of discrimination

is different from complaining about mass persecution (which too many people do).

[rug]

23. That's true.

But I would be hard pressed to see either of these instances to be discrimination, let alone discrimination that requires an action.

[jeff47]

27. If it's not discrimination, what is it?

The country club and the ACS seem to not be able to give a reason that stands up to any scrutiny.

[MattBaggins]

52. it is not even remotely unseemly

it is perfectly fair to point out the bigotry against atheists as in our modern world it will indeed get you killed, beaten up, ridiculed and denied employment. There is a thriving industry of bashing atheists and many who would like laws aimed against us.

[rug]

59. This is about trying to donate a quarter of a million dollars.

It is not about getting killed, beaten up, ridiculed and denied employment.

With reason comes perspective. Usually.

[Worship Money]

10. It's interesting how

In 2011, we are still giving legitimacy to the concept of something like "atheist money". Stop and think about what this actually means.

Atheist money. Money from people who don't happen to believe in a god. There is an issue with this....?

God help us.

[Kalidurga]

21. If I said I believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and faeries as an adult....

people would either think I am insane or joking. Either way, I wouldn't be taken seriously. But, believing in an invisible man who created the entire universe (yet needed men to create a book) is somehow credible and respectable....

[Worship Money]

36. It gets worse

It makes explicit and implicit demands on you and me. It isn't satisfied with keeping it's claims to itself, or within one's personal life.

Worse...we not only are barred from criticizing most of this in the public (or even private) realm, despite that the fact that the consequences of these believes directly affect us. In this country at least, you are effectively barred from higher office unless you are or claim to be SOME kind of "believer".

Wonderful.

[Skittles]

55. CORRECT

[idiotgardener]

31. I wish there was atheist money

All the money in my pocket mentions God.

[Arugula Latte]

40. If only we could fleece the masses out of their $ like the religious do.

Hmmm, thinking ... thinking ...

[cordelia]

54. That makes you as ethically bankrupt as those

you despise so vehemently.

[Arugula Latte]

68. Oh, jeez, it was a joke.

:banghead:

[qb]

26. Anti-atheist bigotry is alive and well. Two glaring examples are the BSA and the judicial system.

I don't know about theists, but I can't shop around for a belief to make life more convenient. I believe what I believe because I can't see the world any other way. It makes no logical sense to see it any other way.

[krabigirl]

33. Disgusting. The lack of respect for people who trust reality over fantasy in this country...sucks.

Screw them.

[Raine]

56. IF they really cared about saving lives they would've taken the money nt

x(

[NMMNG]

60. I'm sure there are plenty of other organizations that would be more than happy

to take that money. Let the American Cancer Society's bigotry be somebody else's windfall.

[Recovered Repug]

69. Turning down $250k - $500k

probably means that there is a fear of losing more money from other donors pulling their support.

[JoeyT]

70. Well, to be fair, the ACS

was perfectly willing to take all the atheist money they were offered. They always have been and always will be in the future.
Just as long as they're not forced to publicly admit they had anything to do with filthy non-believers as a condition for taking that money.

So we're allowed to give them money, they just won't admit we did it.

[trotsky]

71. Pshaw, I can't see why non-believers should have a problem with that.

Damn militant atheists. :sarcasm:

[kenfrequed]

79. Of course!

The most polluting, disgusting, child labor using, company in the world can smear its corporate logo all over the ACS and get some kind of bump for being socially conscious, but obviously some Christian was deeply offended that those horrible, disgusting, godless atheist scum might get some kind of positive PR for their godlessness.