The James Randi Educational Foundation has teamed up with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and a dozen other secular groups to set up a way to donate money to help out the people of Haiti after the huge earthquake last week.
As Randi says,
We at the JREF are very proud to be part of the concerted effort to aid Haiti to recover from this catastrophic event. To my mind, there is nothing more disturbing than hearing the distressed cries of children who are subjected to grief and/or injury, and my personal contribution has already been added to the encouraging total that mounts hour by hour. Please be generous and help us to reach out to Haitians of all ages, of any and all philosophical orientations.
Richard Dawkins will cover $10,000 of PayPal fees, so if you use that method 100% of your donation will go to help.
You can donate here. Please help.
January 18th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Sadly, that link is broken.
January 18th, 2010 at 9:55 am
It seems to be the right link, may have just overwhelmed the servers
January 18th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Why not give to either Red Cross or Dr’s Without Borders directly?
January 18th, 2010 at 10:05 am
@Shane – Because then the Skeptic movement couldn’t make a statement about themselves. I gave to the Red Cross with text messages (what a cool program that is). I don’t know if they’re religious or secular and I couldn’t care a whit – I just care that they get the job done.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Shane,
Why not have a pathway for people to give? RC and DWB aren’t the only pathways. The more the merrier, I always say.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:07 am
When the Red Cross stops discriminating against gay people, I’d be happy to donate to them.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Shane @3
1. Paypal sometimes takes out fees from your transaction. Dr. Dawkins is offering to pay for the fees.
2. Part of it is a demonstrative effort to prove that those who do not belong to a church or worship a god are just as charitable as those who do. It’s harder to track donations made by non-believers to disaster relief and humanitarian causes, since they tend not to donate as a group, as opposed to if, say the Catholic Diocese of Podunk does a fundraiser among the region’s Catholics.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Disaster relief isn’t an issue of skepticism vs dogma, so a skeptics’ organization isn’t a good choice for channeling donations. Inserting another layer of brokerage only weakens the value of your charity dollar. Give directly to the pros, the Red Cross, etc. ; or go directly to Haiti and give of yourself.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:22 am
I already gave to RC and DWB a few days ago. Please give in whichever way you can.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:23 am
@ Cheyenne-
Is there an implication that the ONLY reason skeptics & atheists are making donations is purely for publicity? That they can’t be just as altruistic as other people? That other people are only altruistic and never going for publicity themselves?
SO WHAT if skeptics want to donate and point out that it is they who are doing something that’s helping others? Every religious group I’ve heard of making donations to this (or any) cause goes out of their way to point out what they are doing, often with some statement to the effect of doing God’s work or some such. Nobody questions their motivations; people are just grateful for the help. Besides, maybe the effect of skeptics publicly doing this will show nay-sayers that skeptics and (GASP!) even atheists aren’t the evil, anti-human monsters they have sometimes been made out to be.
Having said all that, I agree with your other sentiment: I don’t care about any group’s religious (or non-religious) affiliation, as long as what they are doing is helping out. I’m more concerned about groups who use disasters as opportunities to scam people out of their money; in those cases, nobody that’s trying to help–and more important, nobody that NEEDS the help–ends up winning.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Sorry, I think this is just too opportunistic for my taste. Does it really matter if skeptics can track their donations or not? Just send a check (no paypal fees) to the secular or non-secular group you see fit. The JREF would be better off providing a list of secular charities, rather than acting as a middleman just for attention. It’s pretty disappointing actually.
They’re not the only ones though, a lot of groups are pulling this too.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Becca Stareyes Said:
“1. Paypal sometimes takes out fees from your transaction. Dr. Dawkins is offering to pay for the fees.”
He’s only paying up to $10,000. That’s nice; but what if people give generously and the donations rack up a lot more than that?
“2. Part of it is a demonstrative effort to prove that those who do not belong to a church or worship a god are just as charitable as those who do. It’s harder to track donations made by non-believers to disaster relief and humanitarian causes, since they tend not to donate as a group, as opposed to if, say the Catholic Diocese of Podunk does a fundraiser among the region’s Catholics.”
In my opinion skeptics should be above making an example of an entire nation’s misery just to paint a picture of themselves. When people lower themselves to such theatrics they reduce their so-called cause to not much more than partisanship. If you care about the Haitians, then give and not count the publicity to your other causes.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:40 am
@CR – Wow you read way too much into that. No there is no implication, no I didn’t even hint that they couldn’t be altruistic or moral or whatever (in fact most skeptics I know are very good people). I think one salient point to make is that maybe the skeptic movement doesn’t need to self pimp their cause in a case like this. Seems a bit unseeemly to me (just as unseemly as the religious organizations that would do the same). If they can’t even get their donation website to work maybe, and I could be wrong here, they aren’t the best at getting effective relief into Haiti. All I’m saying….
What matters is helping the people of Haiti out. End of. Skeptic self promotion might be necessary and good for some things – but not here.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:41 am
I agree with Shane, if everyone gave directly then Dawkins could just give the 10 grand towards the relief fund instead of to PayPal.
Seems very self serving and opportunistic.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:49 am
@kuhnigget: RedCross is not discriminating gays, FDA is. RC in fact is fighting to abolish gay blood donors ban, more here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10540971
@Troy: PayPal is the easiest way to transfer money from every place in the world. For example, I’m not from US and my bank account doesn’t allow net abroad transfers. It would be quite time-consuming and expensive for me to transfer money to RC and MSF without PayPal.
Anyway it would be nice if PP could give up on fees from Haiti transfers…
January 18th, 2010 at 10:58 am
I am disgusted by the news media portrayal of “missionaries” as being altruistic and giving, with no strings attached. The reality of the matter couldn’t be further from the truth. Who’s taking advantage of people’s suffering?
Someone complained about the Paypal fees. Dawkins has stated his liability limit of ten grand, the important part of that is that it’s *transparent*. You can’t say the same for most religious charities, or even other secular charities.
Considering how low Paypal fees are, that would be a resounding success if the fees actually came to $10,000. I seriously doubt whether that’s an issue.
There are a lot of charities putting their hands out right now. A secular humanist needs to be comfortable that none of his money is ending up in the wrong coffers, or being used for the wrong reasons, like proselytizing theism. Dawkins is just offering one route for this. I applaud him for it.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Read
http://bigthink.com/ideas/18284
Really, do you want to help the Haitians or do you want to make the issue about your feelings and antipathy towards religions? If I were hungry and needed help, I don’t think that I would care who is helping me; I’d be grateful either way.
In any case, why go through Dawkins and Pay Pal? Why not donate directly to the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders? If Catholic Charities were the ones already there and could most efficiently use the money , donate to them too. Don’t make this about yourself.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I already gave directly, as I think most people would. It is good to make the point that religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality, but this approach probably isn’t going to have much uptake.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@Cheyenne-
Thanks for the clarification. While you specifically didn’t make those implications (I see now that I did infer them at the time I made my post), I’m sure there are others who might. But I’m not going to split hairs over this–your point still holds that what’s important is helping out! I would add that it doesn’t apply only to this disaster but others that follow.
I would just caution anyone making donations to try to do so to organisations that get as many of the funds as possible to those that need them (or to the people most directly helping them), rather than to defraying administrative costs & fees or (worst case scenario) to lining some unscrupulous person’s pockets.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:24 am
@kuhnigget
I cant find any info on Red Cross and homosexual discrimination. Could you please post a link?
January 18th, 2010 at 11:27 am
kuhnigget, what’s that about the Red Cross discriminating gays? RC and DWB are my to-go disaster aid, but not if they discriminate. Do yo have a link?
January 18th, 2010 at 11:28 am
@12,
“In my opinion skeptics should be above making an example of an entire nation’s misery just to paint a picture of themselves. When people lower themselves to such theatrics they reduce their so-called cause to not much more than partisanship. If you care about the Haitians, then give and not count the publicity to your other causes.”
I hate to break it to you, but theists do this all the time. Atheists need to work together to “counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.” Stuff like this eventually promotes rationality, critical thinking and ultimately counters the nonsense being spread around by theists in a bigger way.
@19,
I think it has something to do with gay people not being eligible to donate blood, but not sure.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:31 am
@ Fizzle:
No link, direct experience. After 9-11 my husband and I, like countless others, lined up to donate blood. After 3+ hours and a sheaf of paper filled out, we were politely ushered out the door because of the sexual orientation box checked on our form.
Despite the fact that we had never had any sexually transmitted diseases, were in perfect health, and had been in a monogamous relationship for 10+ years, we were not allowed to give blood because we were gay and hence “at risk.” This, despite the fact that the Red Cross must screen all blood supplies regardless of how they were obtained.
When I asked the embarrassed volunteer at the desk about this, she sheepishly said, “Sorry, it’s policy.”
So it seems a straight man who had spent the weekend fornicating with sheep would be just fine, but we were ruled out simply because we were gay.
Red Cross? No thanks. Doctors Without Borders? Yup. That’s a good one.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:33 am
@21,
It’s standard policy for many other organizations too, not just the Red Cross… I can’t really say if it’s good policy or not, but it’s definitely not unique for the Red Cross to do this.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:35 am
kuhnigget, yes that is very poor.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:36 am
A secular humanist needs to be comfortable that none of his money is ending up in the wrong coffers, or being used for the wrong reasons, like proselytizing theism. Dawkins is just offering one route for this. I applaud him for it.
I have already read on CNN and other places online about “religious-based charities” slobbering at the opportunity to go down to Haiti and use food and medicine as an excuse to preach to people who are suffering enough already. These groups are actively soliciting their members to give money to help send missionaries down to Haiti to preach and in the process, perverting people’s wish to help into a religious fundraiser that is far from transparent. As far as I know, the people of Haiti already (many of them anyway) have a faith they rely on, and need food and medicine and shelter more. So, I’d urge caution in your giving — and even make sure that RC is spending the money wisely.
I do not wish MY contributions to be paving a pastor’s pathway to more riches. The money we give for Haiti should go to Haitians to help THEM, not to help tax-exempt churches buy more stuff for themselves and their preachers and then trickle down a few cents on the dollar to the people they are pretending to help.
I’m not saying that all churches are doing this, but I also don’t see any problem with JREF offering to help get money and aid to Haitians. At least they’re being honest and transparent and not preying on people’s praying.
How many of you play Mafia Wars? Did you notice that Zynga is asking members to buy a special item for the game and that the proceeds are going to Haiti Relief? If you aren’t whining about THAT, then you don’t have much cause to get all butt-hurt that JREF and humanists and atheists and skeptics are trying to find a way to give without subsidizing religious organizations.
Hence, I reiterate what CR says:
I would just caution anyone making donations to try to do so to organisations that get as many of the funds as possible to those that need them (or to the people most directly helping them), rather than to defraying administrative costs & fees or (worst case scenario) to lining some unscrupulous person’s pockets.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Paypal sometimes takes out fees from your transaction. Dr. Dawkins is offering to pay for the fees.
I’d rather he just wrote a $10,000 check directly to an aid organization of his choice than give PayPal $10,000 in profits.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Seriously, folks? I mean, seriously? You think these groups are doing this for publicity or something? Sure, people can donate to the Red Cross and DWB directly, but this way we can save some of the fees PayPal charges (and a lot of folks use PP to donate to charities). If JREF or Dawkins went on the news and used this to promote skepticism then maybe you’d have a point, but here we’re asking our own constituents to reach out and help. And even if they did announce this on the news, it’s not self-serving or using a tragedy to cynically promote the skeptical cause. It’s simply trying to help out.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:45 am
I don’t think $10k is going to PayPal, it depends on the fees. If this fundraiser ends up getting $1,000,000 and 1% goes to fees, that’s $10k. It would be absolutely worth it. I doubt the fees would be like 10% or whatever, but I think some clarification is needed, if only to convince others to pony up.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:46 am
I’m also a little baffled that people are saying Dawkins should just write a check to the charities for $10,000. Think this through: if he does that, and people donate through PayPal, then PayPal still gets that money. While the math work outs the same (assuming $10k in fees are generated) this way people know that all of their own money went straight to the charity. It’s all basically the same thing, but psychologically it makes donating easier.
And honestly, you’re complaining on how Dawkins is choosing to give $10,000 to help out Haiti. When you give that much, then you can go ahead and gripe on how he does it.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Um, Phil, PayPal doesn’t charge fees on transactions going to a registered charity. Is whatever the skeptics are giving to not set up as a 501(c)(3)?
“donations made through PayPal to any 501(c)(3) organization that is currently raising money to aid relief in Haiti will not be subject to fees.”
January 18th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
This hits very very close to home. I lost my best friend in this tragedy, under the rubble at the UN mission.
Do you think I give a tinker’s damn what colour the money is that will help the people recover?
Do you think that they care whether the money is religious or skeptical?
Just give, damn it.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Let me preface this by saying that I’m a Christian. I see no problem with secular relief agencies, or secular organizations providing a channel to give — there are people who might want to give but have serious hang-ups about supporting a particular religious view – don’t let those issues prevent people in need from receiving aid. As with any charitable giving, make sure the org you are donating too is accountable and responsible. Beyond that, it’s pretty callous to criticize people or groups for their altruism…
January 18th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
OK Cheyenne, but that’s a different thing then. I’ll be happy to send a note to Richard letting him know that he doesn’t need to cover overhead. But my original statement still stands: people were complaining that Richard was giving $10k of his own money to help charity.
Also, I couldn’t find that statement. Do you have a link?
January 18th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Re gays not being allowed to donate blood:
This has been the policy for the whole UK for some years. The UK blood service is an entirely donor system. But amongst others screened out, are (male) gay people. The medics think they’ve got perfectly good medical statistical demographic reasons for that. I’m not arguing ether way except to note the leader of Britain’s third political party called for an end to the ban a few days ago.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
@Phil: it’s on PP blog
https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2010/01/donate-to-help-haiti-during-internet-radio-athon-on-sunday-january-17/
January 18th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Click my name. It’s from PayPal’s blog.
Who complained that Richard was giving money to help charity? I don’t believe that was the direct complaint of anybody.
Since PayPal doesn’t charge fees, and it looks like the (now fixed) website is giving to Red Cross and DWB – why set up the middle man at all? Why the need to put the Skeptic name on it?
You know what, nevermind, it is charity at the end of the day and that is more important than this.
Now about manned spaceflight….kidding.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I haven’t looked into this yet, but after the Hurricane Katrina hit, many people donated to the Red Cross specifically to help out those in Louisiana. Turned out many donations went into the general pot, and paid for Red Cross needs elsewhere in the country.
Now, if you’re OK with your donation going to pay for some employee in Iowa who isn’t even working on the disaster in Haiti, then that’s fine. Personally, I would prefer to know for sure that my money went to help the people who need it most, or at least to help the support teams.
Like I said, maybe that has changed.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
@Fizzle, @Pieter Kok, and @kuhnigget – I’m going to repeat @buttie’s link, since so many of you seem to have missed it and it’s pretty important. The Red Cross does not discriminate against homosexuals, they have no choice but to follow the FDA’s policy on not allowing blood from homosexuals. They are calling on the FDA to change the policy, as noted in this story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10540971
So please don’t turn away from the Red Cross because of the FDA’s policy. The Red Cross does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, the FDA does.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
@Greg in Austin – the American Red Cross does not accept donations specifically for any one disaster. I for one am perfectly content to let the Red Cross spend my donation as it sees fit in order to keep in place the infrastructure that they maintain to enable them to respond rapidly to disasters around the world. Frankly, I get a little cranky about people attacking the Red Cross for paying its employees. Those employees make a lot of good things possible, and they are saving lives every single day.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Tell us your real reasons for not liking this effort by RDFRS, JREF and other like minded organizations, to gather donations for the relief of Haiti. Since none of the reasons put forth so far in this thread make any sense, I have to wonder if the nay sayers here might have some personal emotional issues at stake? Issues that might involve words like “New Atheists” and “Accommodationists”.
The only important thing here is turning as much of the donations as possible into real tangible help for the affected people in Haiti. This conduit created by RDFRS, JREF and others, is one of the few that a thinking person can use and be reasonably sure their donation will not be misused.
What is it with this zero sum, either or, can’t have cake and eat it to mentality anyway? There is NO downside to donating through this new secular entity. You need to rethink your math if you think there is. There could, however, be a tangible upside. It may take a while, but this kind of thing may, eventually, help change people’s opinions about secularity and non belief. Why should anyone feel bad in any way whatsoever for donating money to help people in need, and with the same act possibly help make society in general a teeny bit more tolerant of secularism and non belief? Your morality is screwed up if you think this is a bad thing.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Phil, you shouldn’t have even posted this. Not because it’s a bad thing in itself – quite the opposite – but because there are some people who see things like this and go into their offended modes, so convinced that anything that has to do with “THEM” is evil that they can’t get past their own friggin’ egos and allow some good to be done in the world.
It’s pathetic. It’s childish. It’s just the way things are now, apparently.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Harman Smith Said:
“I hate to break it to you, but theists do this all the time. Atheists need to work together to “counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.” Stuff like this eventually promotes rationality, critical thinking and ultimately counters the nonsense being spread around by theists in a bigger way.”
No need to hate it; I already knew. What does that have to do with what I said? How does that make it right for someone else to do it? What does it have to do with helping the Haitians?
January 18th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Phil Plait Said:
“Seriously, folks? I mean, seriously? You think these groups are doing this for publicity or something?”
Yes. Otherwise, why go to all the trouble of setting up a brokerage? Why not just encourage people to give generously? In the long run this all goes on record way past the Emergency. It’ll be hoisted up the flagpole at some point.
“Sure, people can donate to the Red Cross and DWB directly, but this way we can save some of the fees PayPal charges (and a lot of folks use PP to donate to charities).”
If I don’t mind the fees when buying a new toaster, then why would I mind them when coming to the aid of my fellows?
January 18th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Victor Prime, the Ghost-Who-Waddles Said:
“Phil, you shouldn’t have even posted this. Not because it’s a bad thing in itself – quite the opposite – but because there are some people who see things like this and go into their offended modes, so convinced that anything that has to do with “THEM” is evil that they can’t get past their own friggin’ egos and allow some good to be done in the world.
It’s pathetic. It’s childish. It’s just the way things are now, apparently.”
I must’ve missed the part where everyone refused to donate.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Darrell E Said:
“This conduit created by RDFRS, JREF and others, is one of the few that a thinking person can use and be reasonably sure their donation will not be misused.”
How do you figure that? All they’re doing is brokering money. The actual acts of relief must be done by people who physically manage the circumstances at Haiti. Unless you personally go there and supervise the spending of your donation, you really don’t know how much of it will make a difference.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Who cares if people want a little credit for helping, as long as they’re helping. In this case the money is going directly to aid organizations who will provide first aid, rescue, food, water, and other supplies. As oppose to some religious organizations who are just as likely to tout their help and may just be building new churches to convert them some Haitians.
Self promote all you want, as long as you help.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
@Gus,
I wasn’t attacking the Red Cross nor any of its employees. I was simply stating that there is no guarantee that a dime of your donations will actually go to directly help a person or the people in Haiti. If you’re OK with that, then don’t let it stop you.
On the other hand, if you choose to donate for a specific cause, and want to know that the money you donate will indeed go 100% (or 75%, or 50% or whatever) to that cause, then you may want to choose another charity.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
“When you give that much, then you can go ahead and gripe on how he does it.”
Phil,
Perhaps you want to rethink that statement. I didn’t realize one’s wealth inoculated them against criticism, and those less fortunate don’t have opinions worth listening to.
Back to the more salient points that have been brought up, no money is saved by donating to a middleman, and it just serves as self-promotion. The Dawkins page made that abundantly clear. As a big fan of both the JREF and Richard Dawkins, it was disappointing to see self-promotion as an obvious factor.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
The biggest reason there has been so much death in Haiti is overpopulation. In addition to medical help and rebuilding Haiti needs contraceptives. Which of the religious orgaizations providing relief will do this?
January 18th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
@Greg in Austin – I’m not going to go to far with this argument, but it just seems to me that people bring that up to dissuade people from giving to the Red Cross, not just to inform people. No, your money will not be guaranteed to go to Haiti, but it will go to disaster relief, and the Red Cross does use over 90% of it’s income for program services.
It’s better than giving to Yele Haiti, in which case your donation will go to pay rent for a small room in Wyclef Jean’s recording studio and to pay Wyclef Jean for doing a benefit concert for his own charity.
January 18th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
I was contacted by PayPal and was told they are in fact waiving the fees. I sent a note to Randi asking him to let Dawkins know.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Google lists a bunch of orgs to donate to.
http://www.google.com/relief/haitiearthquake/
January 18th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Simon Gardner Said:
“Re gays not being allowed to donate blood:
This has been the policy for the whole UK for some years. The UK blood service is an entirely donor system. But amongst others screened out, are (male) gay people. The medics think they’ve got perfectly good medical statistical demographic reasons for that.”
This touches on the difference between being anti-gay and just being smart. I’ve donated blood plenty of times, and each time I’ve been asked a battery of questions about my personal behavior. I’ve never been asked if I’m homosexual, but only if I’ve engaged in specific sexual acts (including heterosexual acts) within some number preceding of months. There’s a difference between accepting people as members of Society and needlessly spreading disease.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
@Gus,
Yes, for me, it is a very good reason NOT to donate to the Red Cross if I want my money to go directly to the victims in Haiti. What’s wrong with being informed or informing others? I’m not trying to argue here, I’m just telling you the facts.
The Red Cross has a new page that seems to allow you to select WHERE your donation will go: (International Response Fund, Haiti Relief and Development,
Service To The Armed Forces, etc.)
american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main&s_src=RSG000000000&s_subsrc=RCO_FrontPagePanel
However, based on past experiences, I will remain skeptical that all of the donations made by people who select “Haiti Relief and Development” actually goes to Haiti.
And I have no idea who Wyclef Jean is, and would therefore not give him a dime either.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Barry Kendall Said:
“The biggest reason there has been so much death in Haiti is overpopulation. In addition to medical help and rebuilding Haiti needs contraceptives. Which of the religious orgaizations providing relief will do this?”
Maybe a lot of them. Certainly the Catholics won’t; but not all religions are against contraception. They also know that not all acts of procreation are between unmarried couples.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
@ Gus Snarp:
Thanks for the link!
January 18th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
@grizzly
I am so sorry you lost your best friend in the horrible devastation. And I am sorry that no one else acknowledged your loss and your comment (unless I missed it, and if I did, I apologize). I agree with you – just give, to the organization of your choice, and help those folks!
These comments remind me of Meryl Dorey’s comment – she was looking for charities that didn’t provide vaccines to donate her contribution. Not that I was surprised by her, but I was surprised how that point was important enough to her to prevent her from helping.
Folks, let’s not use our lack of agreement as an excuse for not helping. Please help – choose the organization you prefer – and encourage others to do the same.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
My employer has a sponsored charity. The organizations that this charity supports are asking first for prayers, then money. The company-wide email sent out asked for prayers and donations. This offended me and I told them so. I don’t want my money to go to organizations whose goals are not only to help, but to convert. They haven’t responded and I suspect this organization considers themselves a christian organization and was offended by my offense. Since the donations will go to one or more of these charities, I declined the offer of payroll deduction. This will no doubt impact my career in some way. I really don’t care.
Instead I donated a very substantial amount of money to Doctors Without Borders, who I know will use this money to provide medical care. I did this after seeing a BoingBoing article about the work they’re doing and then reading their site. It’s my hope that perhaps I’ve provided them with a whole case of IV fluids, a surgical table, or some other really necessary item that will save lives.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
@ Simon Gardner:
There’s a difference between accepting people as members of Society and needlessly spreading disease.
Perhaps it’s different in the UK, or wherever you are, but here in the U.S., after 9-11, the questionnaires did not ask about specific sexual acts, only sexual orientation.
Based upon Gus Snarp’s linked NPR story, perhaps the Red Cross has modified their screening procedures at that level, at least.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
T.E.L. at 46,
That is a very easy question to answer. They clearly state what is going to happen to your money, including what entity(ies) they are going to give it to. They provide you with information on how to learn about the entities that they are going to give your money to. Their reputation. Experience with them. The fact that there is a vocal community that interacts with them that will, regardless of liking them, blow the whistle on them if they do not use the money wisely, just because that is how they roll. The fact that there is a large community that dislikes, distrusts, and even hates them, that will likewise blow the whistle if any funny stuff goes on with the money.
For those reasons, and several more, I feel, and think that any reasonable person should as well, as comfortable as I can, without actually going to Haiti myself, about using them as a proxy to distribute my donation. And while the same or similar arguments may hold for some other organizations which accept donations perhaps a given donor is ignorant about them but familiar with this one, not to mention that there are many more times organizations that will not use the donations they collect efficiently, or even ethically.
Your have extended your argument to the absurd to try to make a pointless point. Reasonable people do not demand absolute proof of integrity, since they know that there is no such thing. Most reasonable people do like to put a certain amount of effort into confirming integrity however. If, due to experience and or research, I am comfortable with donating to DWB, and I am comfortable with the integrity of RDFRS, or JREF, or Pharyngula then the standard of “reasonably sure” has been met. Reality is a spectrum, not all or nothing.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
So, either this effort is self-serving, or a genuine offer of aid to those in need.
This is a false dichotomy.
Religiousts claim that athiests cannot be moral (no God=no morality), so donating aid in the name of skeptisism / atheism / secularism demonstrates the falseness of that claim.
Is the money donated, therefore, not legal tender? Will the earthquake victims not benefit from the money?
The JREF and Dawkins will raise the same kind of public awareness that religious charities commonly do, and the people of Haiti will recieve needed support. That’s commonly known as a “win-win situation”.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Nevermind
January 18th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Phil, I love you, but I also understand why this thing rubs people the wrong way. First and foremost is the bit about PayPal fees. I can understand if this was just overlooked, but it really shouldn’t have been. PayPal has been waiving fees for Haiti donations since at least two days before the NBGA press release went out. To say that Dawkins is covering these fees implies both that the fees still exist and that other organizations aren’t covering them. It’s disparaging to other people’s efforts, intentionally or not, and it should be corrected immediately, including in your blog post.
Secondly, the stated goal of NBGA (by Dawkins, PZ Myers, and others) is to create a positive public perception for non-believers. That may be a noble goal, but it’s difficult to separate from publicity seeking. Any collection is good collection, but it’s equally fuzzy when religious middlemen tout how much money they’ve raised through their outfits. In either case, it’s easy to see how this could be construed as exploiting a tragedy for exposure.
I’m confident no one involved in this particular effort had anything other than the best intentions, but that’s not always good enough.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Comments about ‘brokerage’ and ‘middleman’ imply that the JREF is going to charge some administrative fee to handle this money. From what I know about the JREF and the people who work there, I’d be willing to stake a paycheck this is not the case.
Just last week, the Twitterverse was full of comments that it’s a *known fact* that secular people give less to charity and disaster relief. Of course, just giving a tithe to your church is tax deductible as “charitable giving” even if the tithes go to rent and hymnals and the new basketball court at the church rec center.
As a secular person, I get a bit sick of hearing that, and would like there to be some data to show otherwise, especially when the aid to the needy people is getting there regardless. Channeling your donations through a particular org that is just collecting the money is not self-serving.
By the way, the reason there is so much death in Haiti is that there are no building codes, concrete is poorly made with insufficient cement and structural steel,and essentially the entire capital city COLLASPED. The city has about two million people. Los Angeles and San Francisco have much greater populations but low death tolls because of building codes and infrastructure, not because they have easier access to birth control.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
So, either this effort is self-serving, or a genuine offer of aid to those in need.
This is a false dichotomy.
Religiousts claim that athiests cannot be moral (no God=no morality), so donating aid in the name of skeptisism / atheism / secularism demonstrates the falseness of that claim.
Is the money donated, therefore, not legal tender? Will the earthquake victims not benefit from the money?
The JREF and Dawkins will raise the same kind of public awareness that religious charities commonly do, and the people of Haiti will recieve needed support. That’s commonly known as a “win-win situation”.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Darrell E,
*I* never demanded absolute certainty about where my donation goes. But what I said is still true: JREF, etc are NOT relief agencies. They do NOT manage disasters. All they can do is assure which 2nd-party organizations they’ve channeled the money to. After that it’s out of their hands.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I gave to the RC thru my iTunes account already. The route doesn’t matter, just give.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I responded earlier to #37 and #43, but apparently my comment was lost in the vastness of the interwebs. (Still hoping it’ll show up.)
AmSci @61,
“it’s equally fuzzy when religious middlemen tout how much money they’ve raised through their outfits. In either case, it’s easy to see how this could be construed as exploiting a tragedy for exposure.”
The reason why it’s fuzzy (and not equally fuzzy when atheists do it) is because they do it to ultimately convert them to their religion. That is ultimately what all religious people want; christians want everyone to be christian, muslims want everyone to be muslim, et cetera. It’s not fuzzy at all for atheists to do it because all we want to do is help.
I absolutely do not think Richard Dawkins, James Randi and other atheists are ‘exploiting’ this tragedy for ‘exposure’. But there is obviously no doubt that this is an opportunity for atheists to demonstrate that the notion that atheists don’t care or don’t care as much as theists is absolute nonsense. Is that exploitation? I don’t think so.
Let’s say I was walking down the street wearing a scarlet A (Atheist) lapel pin and I see someone falling on his/her ass, and I rush to help that person out. It’s possible the person might recognize the lapel pin and others around me as well. If such a thing happened, I would very clearly be countering the BS about atheists being immoral and/or uncivilized. Would I be an opportunistic A-hole if I put that lapel pin on my jacket? Would I be exploiting that person’s injury for my own benefits? No, because I don’t pine for people around me to be injured. If I were to rush to someone’s aid, I don’t think to myself “I should help because it will make us atheists look good”. If such a thing occurs, I just help out like any other decent person, and very simply think the same thing: “Whoops, someone fell on his/her ass, I should help” . That’s how this should be seen. We are helping people out, but while we do it, we have the lapel pin on our jackets.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Buttie and Gus, thanks for clearing that up.
AmSci, very thoughtful comment.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
From my perspective, I do see a benefit from the JREF & RDF doing this. I already gave, to both DWB and RC. And to the a food bank organized for Haiti by my company. After reading about this effort, I decided to give again. Very well done, Randi and Richard.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
@64:
I think a more fitting analogy would be if you saw someone fall down, put on your lapel pin just so that person would see it, helped him up, then wrote a blog post about how much help you just provided. And all of this after you issued a press release saying you’re about to help this person in order to show you’re not as bad a guy as many people think you are.
I’m all for bettering the public perception of non-believers, but I think it should be done in a more organic way. Encouraging people to donate directly to charities is very easy, and the money will get through more quickly than if it’s directed by a third party.
In any case, I’m grateful people are encouraging donations. And NBGA providing a one-stop shop for both the Red Cross and DWB is a good thing. Ultimately, donations are donations. There are much better things to be upset about.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Phil, what you’re doing is great, but there is a better way.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are forbidden to give money to charities. A group of ex-JWs got together on Friday night and discussed creating a web site to encourage ex-JWs to give. Less than 36 hours later we had a fully functioning web site (http://www.exjws4haiti.com/) using a donation method that prevented most of the complaints you’ve seen here.
The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, CARE and Save The Children provided us with code that lets us function as a portal to their sites. Contributors are taken directly to the charity of their choice, where they can donate however much they like. The charities report back to us with the amounts donated, and nothing else, so we can keep a running tally.
We never touch the money, so any inappropriate use of it is impossible. There are no paypal fees to whine about. The only complaints we’re getting are from current JWs who see this as a slap in the face and are upset about us revealing their stinginess to the world.
I’d strongly suggest you switch to this method. It’s easy to do, eliminates most of the complaints, and will leave the whiners with much less to grouse about.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I understand the distaste some people are finding with this. It does not seem an organic process, and I think AmSci nailed that on the head.
I do not agree with the vociferousness of the objections people are taking to it. Having yet another channel and option for people to give help via donations is not a bad thing.
Having a process by which donations can be tracked so as to provide a data set that can be used to refute the argument that secular / atheistic groups are {self-centered, nihilistic, un-moral, un-caring, un-giving, etc} is valuable to the organizations and people that are on the front line arguing and debating against the non-secular groups on a daily basis.
This seems like a win-win situation all around.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
So, atheists donate because they want to show other people how good they are. Believers donate because they want to show God how good they are. Nice paradox – selfishness forces people to help others! How can anybody complain about this? I think it’s pretty useful.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
As I said in my first post, I don’t see a problem with the fact that one of the goals of setting up the NBGA is to illustrate the fact that non believers contribute to charity just like believers do. They are not doing this to earn money for themselves. They are not doing this in order to try and press their favorite dogmas on people in vulnerable circumstances. They are not doing this so that they can earn brownie points with their deity by witnessing to desperate people. They are not doing this so that they can falsely claim that they are the only ones who give to those less fortunate. They are doing it so that it can be clearly seen that they, and like minded people, that are currently stigmatized by a certain lie that has been spread by many religious believers, feel the urge to help the less fortunate and contribute to charity just like everybody else. Reasons do matter.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Well shoot. I was going to organize a benefit dinner in town but I guess that would just be “publicity seeking.” Oh well, sorry people of Haiti. It appears you can no longer do anything good in this world unless the entire effort is strictly anonymous.
January 18th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Anyone else note the irony of WorldVision’s “help Haiti” campaign ads appearing on Phil’s Blog?
Whuy should Ah help them devil-worshippin’ Hayteeans?
January 18th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Man, some of you people can’t walk and chew bubblegum at the same time?
Can someone explain, precisely, what is wrong with promoting rational thought at the same time as providing aid to a beleaguered nation?
Here’s a little thought experiment for you: If a billionaire donated $100 million dollars to the Haiti relief effort, and spent every chance he could on TV saying what a great and generous person he was, who but a complete wanker would begrudge him that, after such a donation?
Someone’s being pretentious, arrogant, and inappropriate here, alright. But it’s not the skeptical organizations setting up a donation pathway on their own dime (every penny of donated money goes to the charity organizations).
January 18th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
My brother is on the ground in Haiti now. Thanks for inspiring me to give another $25 on top of what pmStudent.com already did to Doctors Without Borders!
January 18th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
People seem very ready to claim that a big donation to a good cause cures all ills. The donation is really great, and of course it’s very welcome, but the person who gives it and their motives are separate from the donation. JREF has an agenda that it is promoting – as its website says: “Secular people and skeptics are often accused of not being charitable, and this campaign is fine way to demonstrate that nothing could be further from the truth.”
I think it’s fairly rational to apply the action to other people – if a religious organisation, a company, a crime family etc publicised their generous donation to a disaster recovery fund it would look a lot like exploiting the suffering of others. Why wouldn’t it look the same way if it was a rationalist group? It doesn’t work differently just because you like one group and don’t like other ones. I suspect that all the other groups giving to Haiti think that there’s nothing wrong with promoting their agenda either which is why they’re doing it too.
If you actually are truly anonymous about it that’s called being “selfless” and it means that you won’t gain any prestige from making the donation so you do it because you “just want to help”. Putting your name to a public donation is not just for the purpose of giving money, otherwise you’d just give money and not put your name to it. That seems obvious. If it’s got a dual effect admitting that there is a dual effect shouldn’t really be a big problem. If you really “just want to help” you honestly don’t need to get your name / photo holding the cheque etc out there to do that. If you don’t “just want to help” then that’s alright, you’re still helping but you’re doing something else too and you have to be realistic about that.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
79. Thanny Says:
January 18th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
I would think the guy was a complete wanker. If that makes me a wanker – well, I am a wanker.
If a billionaire donates $100 million, so what? He can still afford twenty Aston Martins, multiple houses, buy his own island, become one of those stupid adventurers that break world flying and sailing records that nobody actually cares about, have a hot trophy wife and 7 mistresses that are even hotter and still afford to make the same donation again the next day. If he’s then going on TV and self promoting that kind of ‘generosity’, I wouldn’t hesitate to label him a wanker. I’m not saying that his money wouldn’t have a far greater impact than a million of most people’s donations, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that I’m forming a judgment of this guy based on his piss-weak so-called ‘generosity’ and the fact that he’s trying to win praise for it.
Now, that aside, almost every comment on here is BS. I bet not even 10% of those who are acting so high and mighty about the relative merits or issues associated with donating to this organisation and that organisation will even consider donating, and a large percentage of the rest seem to love mentioning or implying that they will be making significant donations. Just act according to your own convictions on this matter, and shut up about the rest. What the hell do you care what organisation people see fit to give their hard-earned to?
January 18th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
69. Harman Smith Says:
The reason why it’s fuzzy (and not equally fuzzy when atheists do it) is because they do it to ultimately convert them to their religion. That is ultimately what all religious people want; christians want everyone to be christian, muslims want everyone to be muslim, et cetera. It’s not fuzzy at all for atheists to do it because all we want to do is help.
This may be one of the most insulting comments I have read in a long time. You may as well say that all atheist are heartless, uncaring, unimaginative and lack inspiration because they do not have a faith that tells them to love one another. And this is a false statement as well. Be careful with all inclusive statements such as this because it makes the issuer of said statements look closed-minded and willfully ignorant.
As for the topic at at hand, I think this is a wonderful thing. It is nice to have options of how to disperse your money so that at the end of the night you can go to bed with good conscience. To make any inference as to what is going through the minds of the organizers at JREF and RDFRS and what their intentions may or may not be, makes me want to ask “When did everyone become a mind reader? That does not sound like skeptical behavior to me.”
I personally have issue with all overseas charities as it bothers me to end that there is so much poverty in our own corner of the world and children going without and people turn a blind eye to it. If people put in half the effort they do locally as they do when a tragedy hits overseas, we wouldn’t have these issues. But that is a whole different topic.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Travis Said:
“Well shoot. I was going to organize a benefit dinner in town but I guess that would just be “publicity seeking.” Oh well, sorry people of Haiti. It appears you can no longer do anything good in this world unless the entire effort is strictly anonymous.”
Why not donate anonymously? Why would you need public recognition for giving money to a worthy cause?
January 18th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
@84
What are the benefits of donating anonymously versus donating through the JREF or Dawkins?
January 18th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
@85
It’s hard to explain the benefits of donating anonymously to someone who assumes that there has to be some sort of benefit when you donate to a good cause. The idea about donating anonymously is that you just selflessly give to a good cause even though it -doesn’t- benefit you.
The JRE- and Dawkins foundations both look better because they’re associated with donating to needy people. If it was anonymous you wouldn’t know that they were behind the donation. The money gets to Haiti either way but because people know who it was they get some good publicity, so it’s not a entirely selfless thing for them. The amount you can do with the money depends on solely the amount of money but what you should think of the people who give it depends on why they’re giving it.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Horse,
It’s possible to donate anonymously through JREF and Dawkins. All you need is to not call attention to yourself when you do it. And of course, donating through them adds no extra value to the funds; the people of Haiti won’t be better fed or protected from the elements. It also doesn’t increase accountability once the funds have been transferred. It’s redundant, which is what makes it interesting. It looks like showboating. Why don’t JREF and Dawkins just implore people to donate directly? It’s in bad taste, and makes them look like just a couple more churches trying to win over converts.
What this is all about is a valuable lesson to be learned: Focus on the goal. Don’t become what you battle against.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
It’s in bad taste huh? I can certainly see how and why a person would think that. The feelings engendered in me when people try and describe how they arrive at that position range from sorrow, to frustration, to disgust, and then usually to dismissal.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Interesting to compare & contrast the reactions of “godless militant athiest” Richard Dawkins and fundamentalist militant “Christian”* Pat Robertson to the unfathomably horrible catastrophe in Haiti.
Dawkins sends money and works to address the problem from a charitable standpoint albiet arguably a rather self-promoting & perhaps distastefully opportunistic one.
Robertson unbelievably spews out some offensive sewage about it all being the Haitians fault because they supposedly made a deal with the devil 200 years ago in a slave revolt …
While both men on these opposite theological poles may be motivated – at least in some part – by PR self-servingness; the humanity of Dawkin’s response is both sane and helpful whereas Robertson is just .. well *despicable*, unhelpful and vile isn’t quite adequate but willhave to do.
See also the Slacktivist blog discussion here :
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/01/dear-pat-robertson-stfu.html—–
—–
* Please note that most real, average Christians as opposed to a minority of moonbat right-wing nutter examples, (who, we’d say, don’t really *get* what Christianity is about at all) would totally disagree with Robertson on this and find Robertson’s comments as offensive and wrong as everyone else.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
D’oh! Link not working? Sorry.
Trying again – hope it works this time:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/01/dear-pat-robertson-stfu.html
& also Robertson’s putrescent diatribe reminds me of this – a musical reply to Jerry Falwell’s similar lunatic rant on 9-13 which seems equally apt & applicable to Pat Robertson’s verbal diarrhea this time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
January 18th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
I haven’t looked into this yet, but after the Hurricane Katrina hit, many people donated to the Red Cross specifically to help out those in Louisiana. Turned out many donations went into the general pot, and paid for Red Cross needs elsewhere in the country.
Now, if you’re OK with your donation going to pay for some employee in Iowa who isn’t even working on the disaster in Haiti, then that’s fine. Personally, I would prefer to know for sure that my money went to help the people who need it most, or at least to help the support teams.
Part of taking care of this crisis, for any organization, is making sure that when the next disaster comes, they’ll be able to handle it, as well or better than they were prepared to take care of this one.
Much of the immediate aide when a disaster strikes has to be from saved reserves, things set aside to be ready and waiting when needed. There isn’t time to wait for the disaster-specific donations to come in, and then start collecting the goods and hiring the people needed to do the job.
So money collected in response to the Tsunami went to buy supplies and train workers that were ready and waiting for Katrina. Money collected in response to Katrina went to buy supplies and train workers who are now off to Haiti. Money collected now then goes to prepare goods and people for whatever comes next, whenever it may come.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
[...] Secular Help For Haiti | Bad Astronomy | Discover MagazineI have already read on CNN and other places online about “religious-based charities”… [...]
January 18th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
@86
What I’m trying to pin down is why there is a feeling among posters on this forum that an individual is suddenly n% less selfless by donating through JREF or Dawkins as opposed to donating directly to an organization that is on the ground in Haiti. Is there *really* an issue at stake here or is it merely people with strong preferences (tastes great versus less filling).
If there is a real issue, is it quantifiable? If it is quantifiable, what do those numbers tell us?
January 18th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
@87
With the way you lay it out, it does appear to be redundant. It does seem to add an extra step to the whole process (showboat or no showboat).
I suppose a further question would be is the redundancy outweighed by the possibility that members of the JREF and Dawkins foundation might be inspired to give more, give again, or further encourage others to give knowing that these respective foundations are becoming more involved – if only in the role of facilitating the collection and redistribution of said donations?
What kind of outcome would make you say, “I though it was a crap idea at first, but I suppose it was worth it.”?
January 18th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Re 8:
Do NOT go to Haiti directly yourself. Pay the professionals to do it. Their infrastructure is stretched badly enough as is without any non-critical flights or ships getting in the way.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
@93
I don’t actually think Dawkins or JREF are going to be gurning at the cameras with a novelty oversized cheque or anything, obviously, but I think it’s clear why announcing your donations to the public is not selfless. I think you need to distinguish people who give through JREF and JREF itself. If you donate through JREF and don’t make it public knowledge that you did then you’re not going to benefit from doing it and if you don’t do it to benefit yourself that’s a selfless act.
JREF, just because they’re the public face of this, will inevitably benefit from it perceptually and through publicity, so that’s not selfless. Once you announce your donation you’re no longer doing it with “no concern for self”, so doing it with n%, n>0 concern for self isn’t selflessness. It’s only really significant if the gesture is presented or advocated as being unequivocally noble (particularly if it’s getting favourably contrasted with others who are also getting publicity out of their action). Otherwise it’s just a matter of how you then perceive the person making the donation (and if you don’t know about the donation it can’t change how you perceive them – so they don’t gain anything from donating anonymously) and donating to charity helps create a positive impression to others, unless you seem to set out to create a positive impression to others by donating to charity, which is a bit manipulative and gives a bad impression to others.
The actual scale of the donation is orthogonal to the motives behind it. A corporate donation may be absolutely staggeringly huge and critically important to the recipients but if it’s made because they expect to reap the benefits of a huge wave of goodwill towards their brand it’s never going to be a selfless gesture. A huge amount of money doesn’t turn a self serving gesture into a noble one but it’ll build so many shelters for the dispossessed and that’s important too. You shouldn’t think too much of the philanthropist who goes on TV every chance he gets with the oversized novelty cheque, he’s not doing it for the poor, but you take his money anyway because it can help.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Anonymous donations are no more virtuous than those accompanied by chest thumping. Anyone who thinks differently is being a sanctimonious ass.
Moreover, it’s quite easy to argue (successfully) that donating loudly through a skeptical organization serves two goods – giving aid to those who need it urgently, and increasing recognition of the fact that rationalists are good people, too, in defiance of the all-too-common (flagrantly incorrect) stereotypes of them suffused throughput popular culture.
Ironically, those complaining loudly are even more guilty of the conceit they imagine they see. I’ll leave it as an intellectual exercise for them to develop an understanding why.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
@kuhnigget
When I heard your story I was very upset by it (and angry). I have been donating blood to the Red Cross for years and am sickened by the possibility that they discriminate. So… I looked it up. It is apparently an FDA ban, not the Red Cross
Here’s an interview from NPR a couple years ago that talks about how the Red Cross disagrees with the ban. “American Red Cross Fights Ban on Gays’ Blood” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10540971
Here is the ban in the FDA’s own words: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm
In the Red Cross’s own words:
“In 1983, when the cause of AIDS was not yet understood and the disease appeared to be linked to homosexuality, the FDA required blood banks to reject blood donations by men who answered “yes” to the donor-screening question, “have you ever had sex with another man, even one time, since 1977?” Incredibly, this policy remains in effect, unnecessarily disqualifying many potential donors of healthy blood. . . . ” http://chapters.redcross.org/ca/norcal/donor/faq.html
They also say:
“It does not appear rational to broadly differentiate sexual transmission via male-to-male sexual activity from that via heterosexual activity on scientific grounds,” said Steven Kleinman, M.D., presenting a joint statement on behalf of the Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers. http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories06/march/0317062.htm
I will still donate blood to the Red Cross.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
@97
The issue was selflessness, not virtuousness. That’s just reframing the issue in vaguer terms.
I’d say that donating loudly wouldn’t help if people interpret it as a self serving gesture intended to improve how people think about the giver. Donating loudly so that people will change what they think of you actually tends to backfire. You don’t want to replace “uncharitable” with “manipulative”.
You started so strong with “anyone who thinks differently is a sanctimonious ass” to go coy at the end, just say what you think. Are you sure it’s the -same- conceit?
January 18th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
@ Sylva333:
Poster Gus Snarpe offered similar links upthread. I am glad to hear it’s our government’s stupidity at work.
Wait. What??
January 19th, 2010 at 12:47 am
I welcome the opportunity to strike two flies with one swat by donating through a sceptical organisation.
This however is the idiots way of dealing with the crisis:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60I02S20100119
http://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com/audio-bibles-minister-hope-haiti
January 19th, 2010 at 1:48 am
Sorry – but why is this needed? If people are concerned about money going to charities affiliated to a faith group (get over it – they’re helping everyone as always not just their own!) then what about DEC?
Surely Dawkin’s $10,000 to cover paypal fees would be better spent going to DEC!
January 19th, 2010 at 8:24 am
One aspect of this argument seems to me to be getting lost in the shuffle, and that is that plenty of people might be uncomfortable giving when their money might go to organizations with religious inclinations. The JREF and Richard Dawkins are providing us with an opportunity to make sure that our money goes straight to secular organizations without ulterior motives. Now, we could certainly do the research ourselves, but one-stop shopping for nonreligious charities is pretty convenient – not to mention that one might feel a lot more comfortable giving under a specifically nonreligious “seal of approval,” for lack of a better term. It’s a way to get people like Nameless Regular Poster @59 to donate, especially if they don’t have the time or know-how to confirm that a particular charity’s ideology isn’t contrary to their own.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Nice of them that they’re creating that opportunity, but they’re just turning the money over to the International Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontiers, the latter of which to whom I have already given (and to whom I am already a regular contributor anyway). Given that, I’m not sure it’s necessary to create an extra layer like this, especially since as noted earlier, it would be better to put Dawkin’s $10,000 straight into those two charities. It strikes me more as an opportunity to say “see, atheists care too!” While true, I’m not sure it’s worth spending $10K to make that message, especially given that there is a much more pressing issue — lives are being lost right now.
More to the point, it isn’t really one-stop shopping for non-religious charities. It’s only two charities. It’d be only slightly more complicated to give to each separately.
On the other hand, there is one upside: those charities won’t have your address and won’t be able to spam you for donations later on.
I choose where to spend my money not by religious affiliation (or lack thereof) but by how the money is going to be spent. To that end, I have to plug Charity Navigator, which has set up a page with some very good information about which charities are most likely to spend your money well in response to the Haitian crisis. (Also has tips for evaluating other charities, and for making sure your money goes specifically to Haiti, if that is your desire.) Note: it’s based on US tax information, so it cannot evaluate non-US charities. For instance, they have “Doctors Without Borders, USA”, not the overall organization. Still, it’s a favorable percentage of funds going straight into their mission, so they’re a good choice.
Charity Navigator: Help Survivors of the Earthquake in Haiti
January 19th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Phil – Just a quick followup – Did PayPal charge transaction fees on the donations that have been processed to the “Non-Believers Giving Aid” 3rd party brokerage website?
January 19th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Alternatively you can give to Humanist Charities at http://www.humanistcharities.org/
January 19th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Calli @104 said
“especially since as noted earlier, it would be better to put Dawkin’s $10,000 straight into those two charities.”
And also as noted earilier, it doesn’t matter. Dawkins will give 10k that will result in 10k more going to help Hatians independent of whether he says he is paying for paypal fees or not. Even though paypal is waiving the fees, I would guess that Dawkins still plans on donating.
January 19th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Ian Says:
“Sorry – but why is this needed? If people are concerned about money going to charities affiliated to a faith group (get over it – they’re helping everyone as always not just their own!) then what about DEC?
Surely Dawkin’s $10,000 to cover paypal fees would be better spent going to DEC!”
For the most of you that are unfamiliar with DEC – DEC http://www.dec.org.uk is the British Disasters Emergency Committee which is the only appeal (more or less) seen in UK media. I refused to have anything to do with DEC during the post Tsunami effort and indeed spent a lot of effort fundraising and raising awareness outside DEC.
Just as last time, the DEC appeal is a conglomerate appeal which then distributes money raised to in this case 13 charities of which 6 have a CLEAR religious agenda. This is not generally known in the UK.
As last time, I’ve encouraged people instead to give to any of a list of named non-religious charities – whichever ones they prefer. If the religious thing doesn’t bother you – fine. But it certainly bothers me.
DEC fronts for god-botherers with their particular agenda.
[I haven't formed a conclusion about what Dawkins is doing but I certainly don't condemn it out of hand.]
January 19th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
@TEL 84
“Why not donate anonymously? Why would you need public recognition for giving money to a worthy cause?”
How do you organize a big benefit dinner anonymously? How do you make sure no one who attends knows anyone else who attends?
Requiring all charity work to be done anonymously only makes charity work harder.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
I don’t like this division, we are all humans and we should help whether we are religious or not. This is not the time to prove who is more moral believers or disbelievers!
I think we should donate to the place where donations would reach faster to people of Haiti!
January 20th, 2010 at 12:49 am
Flower, would you want your money going to an organization that is just as likely to use it to ship a box of bibles as canned goods? I happen to believe the bibles != help.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:09 am
@Lonley flower Says:
“I don’t like this division, we are all humans and we should help whether we are religious or not.”
I would be interested to see your evidence for that.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Hello Sandra,
If there are some organization are doing that in the time of crisis, surley they are wrong.
May be I should change my statment to” « Dontaions should be sent to trusted orgainizations and most fast in giving aids to Haiti”
January 20th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Hi Simon Gardner,
I am not sure if I understood well what you have said.
But may be I can clarify my comment again.
I find that helping haiti people is a human duty regardless being believer or not!
I think that all humans believe in morals and leaned towards good, even if they do the opposite like committing crimes for example.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:30 pm
How to donate from Russia? Please, duplicate your answer to zxxcvbn0010@yandex.ru
February 8th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Millions have lost everything in the quake – homes, food, jobs! For the next 12 months, the World Food Programme says 2 million people will need critical food assistance! If you want to help and learn more about the crisis response, go to: http://wfp.org/crisis/haiti> or you can text FRIENDS to 90999 to make a $5 donation.