at_ag_ch

Hello,

I represent a newly formed organization for non-believers. This group is not political or social in nature such as existing organizations like American Atheists, Atheist Alliance, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

We have instead formed a group that strives to fund charitable activities through the donations and participation of non-believers of all kinds.

More specifically the organization will...

Several of our board members are currently active in the atheist community. For example, one played a prominent role establishing a large non-believer organization and another is an on-air TV media figure for a nationwide channel.

This organization will attempt to make a large splash with advertising directly through mediums frequented by non-believers. This new effort is not being done half hearted or on a whim. Professionals are being brought onboard to help it succeed.

We are seeking dedicated people who share our vision. Volunteers are needed for many roles including (but not limited to) that of board members.

If you are interested in participating in the "ground floor" of what may become a significant organization or you are simply curious, please contact me by e-mail.

Note that if you post inquiries to this forum, we may not be able to answer them.

at_ag_ch

Brian63

Even though you may not read this, I'd just like to say it sounds like a great idea. I am unable to become active in running the organization, but it is definitely something that I would look forward to donating to.

If you read this, would you mind specifying who this is? That piqued my curiosity.

Is there/will there be a website for this?

Brian

Bluenose

Sounds like a good effort worthy of our time and support. I emailed last night and got a positive vib from their reply today. Check it out and email them if only to get on their list so you can donate money in the future. If you can help in other ways, please let them know.

Brian63

I'd just like to add a couple comments about some concerns I have with a group such as this.

My largest concern is that people may feel inclined to donate to it for the primary reason of wanting to give atheism, humanism, etc. a "good name," and as a secondary reason only for the purpose of actually alleviating social problems. In my opinion, that is the exactly backward way we should be thinking about this problem. That is the exactly backward way we should have our priorities set.

It is a big temptation to want to make this charitable organization large, successful, and well-known so that the reputation of atheists and humanists can be improved in the public's eye. If that was the primary goal of such an organization though, I think we would instead just be undermining our credibility. We may be perceived as just wanting to do things for show, whereas many Christians are willing to donate their time, energy, and money without such recognition.

I think that for both organizations sponsoring humanist ideals, and for us humanists ourselves, our primary goal should be to cure these social ills, not to get attention. For that reason, I donate to both secular and religious charities. Donating to a religious charity, in a sense, humbles me and keeps me focused on what the actual goal is (alleviating poverty, hunger, etc.) rather than the more selfish goal of gaining recognition. Granted, when I first started donating to this particular religious charity (WorldVision), I didn't know that it was a religious institution. I found out later. Still, in retrospect, I'm glad that I do donate to it among other secular charities. It is akin to "siding with the enemy" to fight a greater common enemy.

I'd be interested in hearing any comments about this. Can you foresee such problems, or am I worrying too much about this?

Brian

Eudaimonist

I personally have no problem with secularists donating to this organization for the "selfish" reason of improving the PR of secular people. There's nothing wrong with such self-interest, and the recipients of charity are helped besides.

I would only object if secularists were to become excessively tribalistic about charitable giving. I don't see anything wrong with giving money to religious charities as long as they are effective in rendering charitable aid.

Rhea

I think you mistake the motives of many secularists waiting to donate.

Many of us want to donate to charitable causes but cannot compromise our values to allow harm to come before the good. For example, persecution of gays in order to feed the hungry.

So we contribute in other ways right now, but would love to contribute MORE to solve these problems if an avenue was availabale that did not have so much collateral damage.

4th Generation Atheist

An explicitly "atheist" (or at least nonreligious) charity at least doesn't have to spend any money on the upkeep of a church, pastor, recruitment, etc. These costs are part of a religious charity; even if they're not on the books of that organization, they're part of the sect it is associated with. The exception is if it's organized through an organization like one of those we have already, that is associated with defending the rights of secularists in various places in society. But if it isn't, if it's separate (which it sounds like the suggestion is here) there's that additional benefit to a secularist charity.

brighid

Is there a link to this up and coming organization so we can get more information and possibly volunteer that time or make a donation?

Brighid

Brian63

I've been giving this a little more thought and would appreciate your comments on the following:

Suppose that for whatever reason, a Christian wants to donate to this particular charity. There arises the question of whether or not this charity should accept this donation (assuming they know that the donor is a Christian).

If they say "no" to accepting it, then IMO they are putting their image of being an atheist/humanist organization ahead of (what I consider to be the greater social good) the goal of alleviating social problems. I spoke about this in my earlier post, and hopefully this post will (in an indirect way anyhow) address your replies, but maybe it won't.

If instead they say "yes" to accepting this contribution, then they should be willing to accept donations from any people, regardless of their religious beliefs. This would, however, make them no different from any other secular charity that is willing to accept donations of people of any religious persuasion, such as the Red Cross. What would make this particular charity distinctively atheist/humanist?

I was considering what would happen if I had told WorldVision (religious charity that I donate to) that I was an atheist. Would they reject my donations or accept them? If they would reject it, then they are indeed a Christian organization (exclusively). If they would still accept my donation, then they are like any other secular charity.

When I thought about this a little more, I realized that last sentence wasn't necessarily true. WorldVision may still accept donations from people with any religious beliefs, but how they spend their money reflects their religious side. They do spend money (much to my dismay) buying Bibles for people, setting up churches, etc. So the method a charity uses to spend its money can reflect its distinctive character, even if the method it uses to receive money does not.

So this charity mentioned in the OP can still reflect its atheist/humanist leanings by spending its money in a particular way, even if it accepts money from religious donors. The only way I can envision it doing so though, is if it mirrored the methods that Christian charities use. That is, to make it apparent that this organization is atheist/humanist, it would mean that it would have to spend a portion of their proceeds promoting atheism and humanism, like Christian charities spend a portion of their proceeds promoting Christianity. It could hand out copies of "Atheism: The Case Against God" or such.

This then, would make it sound less like a pure charity, but instead it would be partly a propoganda machine, with the cover of being a charity. I mentioned before how I have concerns with this. So to me anyway, this is a complicated issue, and I'm trying to figure some things out about it.

Thoughts?

Brian

Bluenose

I have only the first reply to my email and will keep you all up to date when the next email arrives. SEND the OP person an email and you will get the same info when I do. At this stage of early formulation it appears to me there would be nothing ready yet to link to and the effort of running a site or trying to post very much info would be premature or counter productive ?