It must be true. You better not touch us — the cooties will jump off and give you horrible diseases. Also, everything we handle, including our money, is contaminated. You can trust the American Cancer Society on this one.
You see, Todd Stiefel and the Foundation Beyond Belief offered $250,000 in matching funds to the ACS — a great big pot of godless moolah — and the American Cancer Society dodged and waffled and squirmed and ran away from the money. A charitable foundation turned their nose up at half a million dollars. It’s inexplicable.
Except for the cooties. That’s the only conceivable answer that makes sense.
It isn’t that it has cooties- it just isn’t legitimate, what with the “In God We Trust” defaced and all.
Jesus money has a x10 multiplier.
yeah, i read that whole thing, and most of the comments.
Seems that the ACS wants to play the “I never said that” game.
They never said they didn’t want his money.
they simply said they didn’t want to give an atheist, non-profit corporation the same national recognition as say, the girl scouts, which is another non-profit corporation.
uh huh.
I don’t know what to make up of this. The only thing that I can hope is that the ACS just didn’t want some stupid and nutty group get some traction by pointing at the “tainted” money used to fight cancer given by atheists.
Because I can imagine that there are kooky xians out there that would scream. And worse, they somehow get people to pay attention to them and actually listen.
And that is a mystery for the ages.
OT but what the heck. Demented psycho Harold Camping is back. The world really ends October 21, he forgot to carry the 6 or something. I wonder if his followers will re-emerge?
My mother’s 80th birthday is October 22, so I certainly hope he’s still off by at least a couple of days.
Oh yes, atheism is contagious! You can catch it from talking to atheists, reading their blog posts and…steel yourself…thinking rationally!
*Scare chord*
The only way to protect yourself is through Herd Immunity, avoiding them and Dousing yourself in the Holy Water of the Lord. Get thee to a
nunnerychurch and submit to spiritual healing! Only by remaining in the fold will you be safe.Brought to you by Dr Boll Ox.
Gee, I wonder if they’d accept that sum from The Wyndgate Country Club?
This may not be as stupid as it sounds. If by accepting half a million from atheists offends religious donors to the point that it costs them, say, two million, then they have done the financially sensible thing.
And, arguably, the moral thing, if we assume that money given to the ACS actually has an impact on cancer treatment and possible cures.
We may be the victim of prejudice of other donors, not the ACS.
Can we sue under the Civil Rights Act?
No, probably not.
Gee, I wonder if they’re using spirituality in their research?
Somehow I doubt it, so the rationale is, shall we say, a tad on the mystical side, unless–could it possibly be?–having to do with fundraising and prejudice.
Glen Davidson
Meh, blacklist the charity and donate to someone else.
You don’t suppose that they might possibly fund atheistic scientists to do any of their research, do you? Because what would that do to learning about cancer?
I know that they can’t legally discriminate like that, but that didn’t stop Wyndgate, did it? Surely they’ll not be inconsistent?
Oh, I know, funding won’t be hurt by hiring unbelievers, while a donation from explicitly atheistic donors will be. We can and should make fun of such inconsistency, though, shouldn’t we?
Glen Davidson
It makes you wonder if your donations to the American Cancer Society are being used to pay people to pray away he cancer.
It makes you wonder if your donations to the American Cancer Society are being used to pay people to pray away the cancer.
@ littlejohn #7
I hadn’t thought about it in that context.
But would a contribution by a non-theistic group really dissuade those of a more … ummm faithful inclination from donating to a worthy cause?
Never mind that last question. Of course it would. Cooties and all…
*sigh*
I imagine the reason that money from athiests is considered tainted (‘people without God are evil’) is somehow related to the reason that organized religion escaped serious prosecution despite decades of willfully covering-up child molestation at the highest ranks (‘God can’t be associated with evil’).
Couldn’t atheist groups just get around this problem by donating anonymously?
After all, the point of charitable giving should not be to make a point about what great people we are. The point of the exercise should be to help people who are suffering from cancer. If the best way to do this is to donate anonymously, without revealing one’s religious position, then that seems to me to be the best course of action.
This must mean cancer is eradicated. Everyone is cured. Hallelujah!
Time to try the Canadian Cancer Society. I’m sure they’d take the money.
We’re a PR faux pas. Flattering.
It really says something about what kind of an enormous pariah group we are when curing tots with cancer isn’t as important as not being associated with us.
@#9:
Agreed. If no one wants it, give it directly to a cancer researcher who cares more about finding ways to treat cancer than what religious nuts will think of them.
Walton:
Yes, but why should an atheist or atheist group have to do that? This is a fine example of just how reviled atheists still are and of the power religion still holds to sway decisions. I’d think a large amount of money would be welcomed with open arms. It should be welcomed with open arms.
Walton:
We could. But this is more than making a simple donation. It is also about being part of Relay for Life and becoming part of mainstream society.
In the suburban area where I live, there are 17 Relay for Life events next summer alone. The participating organizations get great billing and are recognized as contributing to the cause. It would also be another way for local atheists to discover each other for social reasons or to organize for other purposes.
Read an excellent summary and commentary from Greta Christina.
littlejohn is correct: this is almost certainly a case of blacklisting a donor so that other, larger (as a body) donors don’t take their cash elsewhere. I’d imagine the response and reasoning would be the same were a company like Jax or CRL to offer sponsorship. They want the atheists/mice to do their science, but don’t wish to have them polluting their promotional materials.
Caine: read littlejohn’s comment, and mine. WTTRW.
Shouldn’t that be “quarter of a million” ?
And besides that, everybody knows that cooties can’t really be cured. Perhaps if they had a famous Jesus-ite prey on pray over the money first ? I mean, maybe if they didnt keep all that dirty Atheist money in their hands long ? surely limited exposure to godless money must limit the risk ?
Gnu money, you understand.
Hrmph. that’s supposed to be
prey onSince this whole thing came out, I’ve been reading up on the ACS. Their overhead is way too high (somewhere in the 70%-80% range) mostly driven by huge marketing campaigns like Relay for Life, as well as huge compensation packages for their leadership. Search for “ACS overhead” on Google and you’ll see what I mean. In conclusion, I will never being doing another relay for life and will urge people to consider giving to better charities. some great PR if you ask me, not.
What is meant my “matching” funds? Did he want to match someone else’s 250k, or did he want someone else to match his?
A sensible approach might have been to challenge some religious group, or just religious folks generally, to match the 250k. I’m not sure how that could seem controversial to even the most irrational theist, and would seem to nullify the coodies (and they could even SURPASS the atheist donation to flex their faith muscles…if they were strong enough to do so…and everyone wins).
#25: I just L’ed out loud.
Part of Steifel’s point of the charitable giving was to create community among non-theists. The value of such community building efforts should not be underestimated, and it’s part of the whole point of the ACS corporate program. My son’s Boy Scout troop (and both son and daughter’s Venturing Crew) collect food in November as part of BSA’s Scouting for Food program. Sure, it collects food for local food pantries. But it ALSO allows kids to feel part of a national volunteer effort, to connect with kids from other troops or crews, to connect with local anti-hunger groups, etc. These outcomes are as or more valuable than the actual cans of food in the long run, since it (hopefully) shapes kids’ ideas about community, volunteer work, and addressing hunger problems in the local community.
It appears to me that ACS does not want non-theists to create community by raising money for them. So screw them, they’re off my giving list – there are plenty of other charities to give to.
au contraire
source
tag, you’re it
One of the historical stereotypes of the GLBT community is that they do not/cannot form long-term, stable relationships. Then, when the GLBT community says “we want the right to have our long-term, stable relationships recognized under the law,” they are rebuffed — I suspect for the purpose of preserving the stereotypes held by bigots..
I see a similar pattern here. Religious people accuse atheists of being selfish — rejecting “god” so that we can be self-centered and “sinful.” Thus, when we say “we would like to give large sums of our hard-earned money to important charitable organizations,” we are rebuffed.
In the case of the ACS, I think littlejohn (Comment #8) has it right. By having a group publicly associated with atheism as a named sponsor, religious groups (or religious leaders of non-religious groups) may very well withhold their support, resulting in a net-loss to the ACS. Of course, the actions of ACS is morally wrong. But I don’t see that they have much of a choice given the behavior of religious thugs.
very sad. I contribute to ACS since my husband’s family is rife with various cancers. However, if they aren’t willing to 1. accept the money just like from other non-profits in return for a little good exposure like all non-profits get from each other from their donations (I work for one) and 2. be honest why they did it, then they’ll get no more money from me. I’ll hold my judgement until finding out more about this. But it certainly doesn’t look good for the ACS.
Following up on Dean Buchanan, everyone knows that you can prevent yourself from catching cooties by crossing your fingers behind your back while in contact with an infected person. ACS needed to only cross their fingers with one hand while accepting the money with the other.
On a more serious note, the problem with making the donation anonymously is that it plays into the “Atheists don’t give money to charity!” lie.
If that’s the case, let them say so.
Let the ACS stand up on it’s hindhooves and say “Well, we’d love the money, but some of our much bigger donors don’t really care for
niggersatheists, so, you know how it goes. I’m sure we could work something out if you’d make it easier for us to pander. In the meantime, don’t call us, we certainly won’t call you…”If we smell too bad for polite society, as far as the ACS is concerned, they should at least have the raw guts to be honest about it.
That.
And all sure as anything be remembering this incident next time some mouthbreather tries to pull that ‘atheists don’t give/we need religions for the charity they do’ bit.
(/We need religions for the charity they do ‘cos they’re the only ones we’re gonna let do it.)
Half a million dollars – maybe instead of going through a “charity” which doesn’t welcome donations, the money should go directly towards a research lab that is in need of some.
The ACS has demonstrated through its bigoted and frankly slimy actions that it cannot be trusted with that money – so cutting out the middle man and donating directly might be the way to go.
It amazes me how people don´t understand why the ACS refused 250.000 from the Foundation Beyond Belief!
EVERYONE knows that cancer is fought everyday by the power of God, and that the scientist that discover new ways of fight against cancer are guided by God, and the same God watches offer the cancer pacients (the suffering and deaths are another way of God shows His love for us: like he showed to my grandmother and one of my best friends…) so ACS would note accept the help of a heathen, enemy of God, organization of atheists!
Really!!! It´s simply a rational decision of ACS ,without any kind of stupid discrimination based in crazy ideas…
Religious people accuse atheists of being selfish — rejecting “god” so that we can be self-centered and “sinful.” Thus, when we say “we would like to give large sums of our hard-earned money to important charitable organizations,” we are rebuffed.
I hadn’t considered this before, and yet it should be obvious. It explains quite a lot, actually.
thanks for pointing it out!
It’s a perfect catch 22.
We need religions for the charity they do ‘cos they’re the only ones we’re gonna let do it
just so!
littlejohn,
the way they handled it totally backfired, I’d say… It looks like they destroyed their credibility, well done…
I suggest the money be offered to an organization that is making proven progress toward disease prevention and cure. The ACS hasn’t ponied up anything worthwhile since they began taking money from people who “in lieu of flowers, send a condolence donation to the American Cancer Society”. What do they contribute anyway?
Sent to ACS
I read about the ACS refusing to accept more than a quarter million dollars in donations because it came from a group whose goal is to promote free thought (http://www.alternet.org/belief/152685/is_atheist_money_too_controversial_for_the_american_cancer_society_/?page=entire).
This is appalling. The only thing that makes any sense is that the ACS is pandering to religious thuggery because they believe that religious leaders will convince their flocks to stop donating. While this seem sensibly pro-active, it is very disappointing to me that ACS doesn’t even have the courage to come out and say so. Instead you simply ignore the fact that a donation of this size was offered and rejected. Think of the change you could have made if you publicly said you were rejecting the donation because of the fear of blowback from religious people. Public shaming of religious thuggery might have had some positive effects on your fund raising.
You don’t want money from people who don’t believe in gods? Fine. I will no longer donate to ACS in any capacity and I will be sure to communicate your weaselly approach to any who will listen.
Good luck.
Betcha if you looked into the matter closely, you’d find a near-nutbar fundie high up in the ACS hierarchy, or maybe a little lower down but in the fund raising department.
If this refusal really offends you, write letters (no! don’t send emails!) to individual members of the ACS board of directors. There’s a fairly good chance this refusal hasn’t come to their notice yet, so sending those letters should smoke out whoever actually made the decision. A press release from the Foundation Beyond Belief to all the major newspapers might also ruffle a few feathers.
The ACS Board is listed at http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/WhoWeAre/Governance/acs-national-board-of-directors . Unfortunately, that webpage doesn’t identify these people beyond their names and degrees, so finding their snail mail addresses may be a little tricky. I suppose you could address them all c/o the ACS national HQ, marked “personal and confidential”.
Are they still looking to give the money away? I’ll take it and credit them in any work that their money supports.
Cervantes:
Well, to stretch the OT a bit, that’s actually not true. Camping’s Oct. 21 prediction is not new–in fact, it was part and parcel of his May 21 prediction from the beginning.
I had something of an obsession over Camping back in April/May. I’d never had a chance to watch this sort of thing go down so closely before, in realtime, and I was fascinated. Camping had been running his Open Forum radio show nightly for roughly half a century, and was still doing so in the days leading up to his predicted Rapture. Night after night, he’d take hours of unscreened calls from around the world, a large chunk of which challenged his claims. Most of his challengers were themselves evangelicals, which made their questions nearly as interesting as Camping’s strange replies, contorted by fifty years of rigid radio show format and completely non-self-aware theology. He is a beautiful example of what happens if logical fallacies go completely unchecked by critical thinking and metacognition for a lifetime.
For all his surreal splendor, the common media representation of Campin changing his prediction to October was never true, and wasn’t all that hard to discover. Camping predicted that God would choose people (he believed neither faith nor works would save you, it was entirely predestination with some weird “but prey anyway, maybe you’ll get lucky” caveat) would get Raptured on 5/21 in some vague but highly visible, flashy way. But the world itself would not actually END until 10/21. The intervening period would be the Tribulation many end-times predictions include, at the end of which everything and everyone left would permanently cease to exist. Camping rejected the concept of Hell. When 5/21 failed, Camping flailed about privately for a few days before seizing on the idea that the Rapture had indeed occurred, but only in a “spiritual” sense, and for some reason God decided to be merciful and not make everyone suffer horribly for the next five months. Not long after, he had a stroke and was moved to a nursing home. Unless something’s changed recently, Camping and his remaining followers still very much believe the universe winks out in ten days.
Camping had a LOT of quirky beliefs born of his inability to regulate his own thought processes and pattern-recognition. One amusing quirk worth noting is his hatred of the term “prediction”. Camping insisted he was not making predictions, and consistently became annoyed when the word was mentioned. Predictions, you see, are the work of prophets, and by Camping’s interpretation (another word he hated) there were to be no more prophets after some long-past date; as such, any prophet since has been false, and usually Satan-influenced. Camping insisted his work was purely discovering facts plainly laid out in the bible for anyone sufficiently skilled in numerology, cherry-picking, confirmation bias, and a host of other fallacies and woo to find.
The American Cancer Society views churches as really good resources for this campaign:
See page 10 of this document:
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@relayforlife/documents/document/acspc-030529.pdf
and an associated local news story:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14932877/relay-for-life-event-held-at-mt-zion-baptist-church
Yep… it looks like discrimination to me!
asyouwere #41 – That’s the question I was going to ask here. There’s got to be someone on Pharyngula that’s dealt with ACS for a research grant, or something. What do they do? Where does all the money go?
I was joking, but now I’m not. I’m totally nominating SCDAA for this.
The ACS has, at various times, provided funding for cancer research and funding to help patients with things like transportation to and from appointments. Within the last couple of years they cut out much of their direct patient support. I’m not sure on the research end. They’re definitely down as far as donations go with the economy worsening, making their decision so much more incomprehensible.
Heck, I emailed the ACS and told them after the rebuff of the FBB contribution they won’t get another cent from me and I’ll encourage everyone I know to drop them from the donation list too. Screw em.
Last comment, at least for now: I believe we’ve just demonstrated why the libertarian idea of depending on private charities to take care of things like funding hospitals, medical research, and patient support is a foolish one.
Dianne #51 – We could privately band together and form our own ACS: Atheist Cancer Society.
Not long after, he had a stroke and was moved to a nursing home.
Are we sure Camping didn’t have a stroke long, long ago?
53 Ichyic
Nice. Should we not try to avoid disability-based insults?
And before the tone-troll platoon arrive with their “swooning couch” grenades, here’s a rude-word smoke-grenade: fuck, shit, piss, wankstain.
Dianne (#51) wrote:
You might think that, but this is merely a sign that the goalposts need to be moved. A reason will be found why this is an isolated situation, and that the Free Market is still supreme and the only good and pure way.
This kind of thing makes me really mad. Christians love to run around and talk about how atheists aren’t interested in helping others. “Where are the atheist Salvation Armies, Red Crosses, and so forth? There are countless examples of Christian charity, but I don’t see atheists giving! Therefore, atheists must be less caring than Christians.” And then, when atheists try to give money, we are turned away. “We’ll take your money, but we won’t give you any recognition. We don’t want people to know we’re taking money from atheists; that might offend our Christian donors.” We can’t freaking win.
This is why I refuse to donate anonymously. I will not support any organization that works to keep Christianity in the spotlight and atheism in the shadows. Screw that.
Charity Watch gives ACS a C+ for getting 60% of its funds to program services:
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html
Maybe they aren’t the best recipients for donation.
rowdy, 57:
The ACS also fund many many scientific conferences, which cost a shitload but make an invaluable contribution to the science.
Also, a terrible quote from the link you provided:
In other news: the manager of Burt’s Groceries in Butthole, Iowa, gets paid less than the manager of Macy’s, 5th Avenue.
Do you get it?
The sad thing is Relay for Life is international this could impact on the whole Relay for Life brand. It matters not that there is no connection between operators, the brand damage is something they should be considering accross the board.
@31 : While you might get a Vaccine for cooties, how do we know that Vaccines don’t cause Autism, like Jenny McCarthy Says?
(that sound you hear is the goalposts being shifted. pay no attention. )
Oh, and I revise my original comment. I misunderstood the OP to say that it was 250k in with matching funds, or 125 k in donations and another 125k in matching funds. thus, taking the whole donated sum to be a quarter of a million. Tis what I get for reading before my nap. had my cookies and juice now.
So, these idiots rejected a substantial sum of money for cancer research. And why? Either out of craven cowtowing to fundies who might object to atheist baby-eaters contributing to a condition that effects everyone irrespective of religion or lack thereof, or possibly just in order to take a cheap shot at atheists themselves.
That has to be the most spectacular lack of priorities I have seen in a while.
I really don’t care if they hate people like me for our non-belief in imaginary sky-fairies, its stupid and bigotted, but I can live with it. However, when they start rejecting sources of funding for research into life threatening conditions just to makeup to xians or to express a vapid statement against godlessness I begin to get annoyed.
@60
that’s easy…
children ‘discovered’ that vaccine and not BIGPHARMA ™ and greedy scientists. We all know that everything that children do is natural, and therefore, good and righteous. What could possibly go wrong?
In my last post the sentence “Either out of craven cowtowing to fundies who might object to atheist baby-eaters contributing to a condition that effects everyone irrespective of religion or lack thereof, or possibly just in order to take a cheap shot at atheists themselves.”
Should read “Either out of craven cowtowing to fundies who might object to atheist baby-eaters contributing to research into a condition that effects everyone irrespective of religion or lack thereof, or possibly just in order to take a cheap shot at atheists themselves.”
Damned typoes.
*grumble…. mutter*
PaulG:
Fuck off, fuckwit.
Slightly OT, but equally as unbelievable is the possible treatment of Humanities and Liberal Arts departments in Florida by their governor: http://htpolitics.com/2011/10/10/rick-scott-wants-to-shift-university-funding-away-from-some-majors/
64:
Your thesis interests me. Please expand.
Should we not try to avoid disability-based insults?
in Camping’s case?
no.
he’s obviously got some… issues.
a previous stroke WOULD actually explain some of them, tongue in cheek or no.
besides, you disingenuous shit, I know quite well why you are commenting on that, and it’s got fuck all to do with you trying to be sensitive to the needs of stroke victims.
Your thesis interests me. Please expand.
allow me?
Fuck off you disingenuous, fuck-witted little troll?
The ACS also fund many many scientific conferences
which are much better off funded directly.
the overhead on ACS is excessive; which is the point. Hell, it’s even higher than most large academic institutions I’ve worked with, and that’s saying something.
yeah, we get you’re trolling for kicks, and really couldn’t give two shits about the issues at hand.
try again?
at least you’re wittier than most trolls.
?
So sad.. I’m a cancer survivor, and often participate in various ACS Relay for Life events. I know the good they do – the rides (they do the insurance and logistics, while individuals volunteer to drive), the donations for research, etc, etc. So I know they do good.
On the other – what are you doing, ACS? Some Relay events get way too competitive, while others at least settle down to say “it’s all about raising money to fight cancer”. That’s the long and short of it, ACS. Fight cancer. Fight it by helping people who are in treatment. Fight it by helping to research new ways to fight, or hopefully someday a cure beyond chemotherapy / radiation, which basically work by killing cancer cells faster than normal cells in your body (super simplistic version).
If an atheist group wants to donate, who are you to say no? Atheists get cancer, just like Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jewish, and so on. Cancer hits anyone and everyone. Let the same group try to fight it with you.
Here’s what I just sent from the ACS contact page:
I am an ACS volunteer and contributor, but I am appalled that you would refuse to allow the Foundation Beyond Belief and the Todd Stiefel Foundation to participate in the Relay for Life. There is no sensible reason why you would reject a 250,000 matching grant from any organization. Certainly if you rejected them because they are non-theistic organizations you are simply stupid. I’ve been putting in 8-10 hours per week as a volunteer driver. And I am an atheist. Would you prefer that I not drive cancer patients to their appointments? You have only to say so.
I know quite well why you are commenting on that
so he can pretend to claim the moral high ground for himself.
and then think he can hide that’s what he’s doing by using profanity after.
he’s trolling.
I’ve seen him before.
^that last was directed at Chas’ confusion, btw.
Chas:
PaulG is also known as Monkey Genes, Pollution and Jazz Hands. Xe was dungeoned at sciblogs and is an admitted troll.
They just lost my business. We always support our local ACS but no longer. Maybe I’ll stop by and tell them why.
DLC,
If I read before my nap, can I get one too?
This is no laughing matter! I shared an elevator with an atheist one time, and only a week later my god became infected and fell off completely!
But surely atheists get more cancer because god is not protecting them so they should pay more?
Ah well next time I get into a reasoned discussion with a theist I can always tell them I save a fortune by not being able to donate to charity.
Well, one of us has that mission, them…not so much it seems.
Littljohn at #7
No, that would just mean we are getting prejudice from donors AND the ACS. “I don’t like you because my friends might snub me” is still prejudice. It’s just an incredibly snivelling kind.
This charity should be avoided like the plague/cooties. There are plenty of other cancer charities and they will probably use that money far better than a large organisation.
Has anyone yet mentioned that 250,000 is a quarter of a million dollars, not half a million?
just re-read the post, realised my mistake, damn I’m slow, carry on people, nothing to see here
Rob,
are you a stupid moron? We usually tend to read the posts before commenting on them. And lo behold, it says something about “matching funds”, look it up…
ok, then
Get Hitchens on the case. He’ll embarrass those shriveling cowards in short order.
Get Hitchens on the case. He’ll embarrass those shriveling cowards in short order.
Oooh, I like this idea. Like LIKE LIKE IN ALL CAPS!
There is no sensible reason why you would reject a 250,000 matching grant from any organization.
I must disagree slightly. There could be sensible reasons. For example, if Phillip Morris put up $500K, it’d be reasonable to refuse their blood money. Especially if they put restrictions on its use. I wouldn’t let the KKK join as a team and run in full regalia either. But I have a hard time imagining anyone thinking of FBB in either category. Heck, FBB gives money to religious organizations specifically to challenge the meme that religious and secular organizations can’t work together for a common goal. The irony is…deadly to cancer patients who won’t get the help they need because the ACS runs out of money. Not that the government shouldn’t be all over problems that keep cancer patients from getting care, but they’re not so ad hoc groups like the ACS are all we’ve got. And they’re failing badly.
As several people have already noted, ACS is a bloated-overhead C+ charity and you should be giving your money to better organizations anyway, until they shape up in any number of respects.
I wish I had the same faith (for lack of a better word) in humanity. I find it completely easy to imagine vast swathes of society pegging FBB as the greater of those 3 evils.
Give that money to the League of Conservation Voters. The best way to fight cancer is to get the carcinogens out of our environment.
I’ve had cancer. Here’s my message sent to them through their website:
— begin msg —
Subject: Donating
Message: Although I have donated in the past, fund raised for you and am in remission from cancer, I will no longer donate any money nor do any work for the ACS. Why? Because you refused to accept a $250K matching donation from the FBB. It does not matter to me if you did this because of some organizational belief in a god or fear from others who believe in god, what matters to me is that you are not brave enough to stand up and be do the hard work of making sure cancer is eliminated, which necessarily includes accepting funds from all legitimate sources.
— end msg —
You can read my reflections about my cancer (and that really stupid facebook meme, the paragraph about people having cancer only wanting to live) here:
http://codeedog.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-not.html
http://codeedog.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-survival-enough-redux.html
http://codeedog.blogspot.com/2011/10/surviving-cancer-part-iii.html
…..dammit.
I’ve been directly supporting the ACS for years, and now I find they don;t want money from “my kind”?
That makes me feel just great. :(
my god became infected and fell off completely!
that’s not something to worry about, you might in fact be one of the lucky ones with a…
Detachable Penis
I would have liked to post this to the original site, but it requires positive ID, and I don’t do that. It’s also probably too late to post this, but my wife, who has spent most of her life working for non-profit organizations, had this to say:
=====
I actually don’t think they turned down the donation because it was offered by an atheist. I think they turned down the donation because they [the American Cancer Society] are idiots.
In fact, none of the national teams listed for 2010 and 2011 are nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits have other arrangements. For example, Girl Scouts can earn a Relay for LIfe patch for learning about cancer and participating in their local Relay event. But, the onus is on the Girl Scouts to administer the program – ACS has very little to do with it.
IMHO, this is what happened at ACS headquarters: the fundraisers get the call about the donation and are really excited; they talk to the tech/admin folks who inform them that this donation won’t conform to the new “guidelines”; the fundraisers stall the Freedom From Belief Foundation because they want the money but they can’t get admin to bend. The most important part – no one told the CEO of ACS what was going on, because if they had, this would have been worked out with two emails. Now it is too embarassing for ACS to do anything but fall back on those “guidelines” as their reason for not taking the donation. To me, it sounds like a bunch of frustrated and territorial jerks working for a nonprofit that is too big to remember it is a nonprofit. They simply have lost their ability to respond creatively to an offer that is outside their box. And, they suck at PR.
=====
For the most part, my wife doesn’t like large non-profits. As a wise man once said, never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity.
Dadoo,
You might pass on to your wife that these possibilities are by no means mutually-exclusive; if anything, they complement each other nicely.
(IMO)