Did the American Cancer Society Refuse Atheist Money?

KilljoyKlown

KilljoyKlown

Whatever
Valued Senior Member
If this article is true, there is something really wrong in our society.

Charities that depend on donations and fund-raising to survive have it hard enough in the best of times. But in this depressed economy, it must be more difficult than ever. The obvious conclusion, I would think, is that if you represent a charity and a donor gets in touch offering to give you a lot of money, you don't delay, you don't put obstacles in their path, you don't make excuses: you do everything in your power to make that donation happen!

Unless, it seems, the money is coming from atheists.

This story started in early September, when atheist philanthropist Todd Stiefel, together with the Foundation Beyond Belief, contacted the American Cancer Society with an offer. If the ACS would add Foundation Beyond Belief as a national fundraising team in their Relay for Life program, Stiefel would contribute up to $250,000 to match money raised by local groups working under the auspices of the FBB. That's half a million dollars, and all the ACS had to do in exchange was add Foundation Beyond Belief to the list of national teams on their website.

You can probably guess where this is going.

After an initially enthusiastic response, the ACS suddenly and strangely went silent, and then stonewalled for weeks. Finally, after repeated attempts by Stiefel to contact them, they explained that they couldn't accept his offer because they were discontinuing their national team program for non-corporate partners. Stiefel pointed out in a letter that the FBB is a legally recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. No response.

Earlier this month, the plot thickened further. As Greta Christina subsequently reported, after intense pressure to explain their actions, the ACS gave two conflicting answers as to why they turned down the money. First they said that they weren't able to come to an agreement on terms with FBB; then they said that they were phasing out their partnership program with non-profits. As Greta points out, these explanations are mutually exclusive: If you want to explain to someone why you didn't
sell your house to them, saying, "We couldn't reach an agreement on the terms of sale" isn't the same as "I decided not to sell after all."

And last week brought the most stunning development yet. In response to people continuing to mention that the ACS' own website still lists their partnerships with other non-profit entities, like the Girl Scouts of America, the ACS hid the page on their website that lists them. This created a massive inconvenience for all the other confused non-profits who suddenly couldn't find their pages on ACS' website, which they use to track donations.

The only way I can think of to explain this bizarre behavior is that someone highly placed in the ACS is dead-set against taking money from atheists. Given the shifting excuses they've offered so far, it's all but certain that we haven't heard the real reason. Do they think it would drive away other donors? Are they bigoted against atheists and don't want to give us an opportunity to do good because it would tell against their own stereotype? We may never know the truth.

Of course, if the ACS doesn't want to take our money, it doesn't harm us. All that happens is that they get some well-deserved bad publicity and some other worthy cause will get the money instead. But still, this is emblematic of how much prejudice still exists against atheists: some people are so convinced that atheists are bad, wicked and immoral, they turn us away even when we try to do something good because they can't tolerate the idea of being associated with us. As Foundation Beyond Belief explains, this isn't the first time they've been turned away by a charity they offered to support.

There's no easy solution to this problem, but in the meantime, we should keep donating, volunteering, and partnering with worthy charities. It's the right thing to do for the sake of this world, and it also helps dispel the senseless prejudices that prevent religious believers from cooperating with us even to do good works. The more visible we can make atheist generosity, the more ignorant and prejudiced those who snub us will come to look.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40745
Click to expand...
 
The only way I can think of to explain this bizarre behavior is that someone highly placed in the ACS is dead-set against taking money from atheists.
Click to expand...
There's no evidence in the article to suggest this is the reason, and if the author really does think it is "the only way" then it speaks more to the author's bias than anything else.

The article doesn't explain too much, so there is probably far more to it than is detailed. But the article drips of an atheist jumping to unfounded conclusions, and using it to play the "we poor atheists!" card.

To be honest I find it rather poor journalism, and clearly pandering to a crowd.
I wouldn't be surprised if they try to blame everything bad that happens to atheists on the fact that they're being discriminated against for being atheist.
 
Sarkus said:
There's no evidence in the article to suggest this is the reason, and if the author really does think it is "the only way" then it speaks more to the author's bias than anything else.

The article doesn't explain too much, so there is probably far more to it than is detailed. But the article drips of an atheist jumping to unfounded conclusions, and using it to play the "we poor atheists!" card.

To be honest I find it rather poor journalism, and clearly pandering to a crowd.
I wouldn't be surprised if they try to blame everything bad that happens to atheists on the fact that they're being discriminated against for being atheist.
Click to expand...

When you think of it, any money a charity turns down should have an obvious reason that should be very clear to all. The fact that the American Cancer Society hasn't provided a good reason for not taking the money is enough to cause controversy.
 
^
Interest (as to why), sure. Controversy? Perhaps not.
Perhaps out of principle they don't accept any money that forces them to operate in a certain way, but didn't articulate this well to the journo.
There are numerous possibilities.

My point is that the article jumps to rather obviously biased conclusions, and tries to score points on those conclusions, without providing sufficient detail for the reader to make their own judgement.
It is not a balanced article... and clearly has an agenda.
It should be read and understood as such (in my view).
 
Sarkus said:
^
Interest (as to why), sure. Controversy? Perhaps not.
Perhaps out of principle they don't accept any money that forces them to operate in a certain way, but didn't articulate this well to the journo.
There are numerous possibilities.

My point is that the article jumps to rather obviously biased conclusions, and tries to score points on those conclusions, without providing sufficient detail for the reader to make their own judgement.
It is not a balanced article... and clearly has an agenda.
It should be read and understood as such (in my view).
Click to expand...

The fact that atheist philanthropist Todd Stiefel was involved was enough. I don't know much about this guy, but apparently he likes being an outspoken atheist. I have to wonder if he's not behind this article for his own agenda. When you consider there's only about 3% of the population that's atheist, why bother with making this an issue? I just don't see any upside to it.
 
:)
It's a possibility.
I don't know anything about the website/journo but if they are a known supporter of his then it might explain the bias.

The upside to the article is in their ability to portray the atheist as a minority that either suffers themselves or, through the discrimination of the majority, causes suffering to the whole... and thus provokes sympathy for the minority.
Classic tactic, to be honest, albeit driven mostly by logical fallacies and unjustified assumptions. ;)
 
@Klown --

Actually we're up to about ten percent now. We're still a minority(and still discriminated against), but we're a fast growing minority.
 
Arioch said:
@Klown --

Actually we're up to about ten percent now. We're still a minority(and still discriminated against), but we're a fast growing minority.
Click to expand...

The following information looks bad for us atheist. Maybe having an atheist billionaire philanthropist on our side will help change the polls in our favor.

Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists

Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm
Click to expand...
 
"Atheism is the new Black!" as a saying possibly goes! :D

Maybe... one day... we can look forward to the dawn of a new age with the election of an openly Atheist US President.

Fortunately in the UK we're rather closer to that position already - the Prime Minister seems to be someone who realises that religions can get things wrong but that the teachings of Jesus, as well as other religious figures, can provide a useful guide - and the Deputy PM is openly a non-believer.
 
Sarkus said:
"Atheism is the new Black!" as a saying possibly goes! :D

Maybe... one day... we can look forward to the dawn of a new age with the election of an openly Atheist US President.

Fortunately in the UK we're rather closer to that position already - the Prime Minister seems to be someone who realises that religions can get things wrong but that the teachings of Jesus, as well as other religious figures, can provide a useful guide - and the Deputy PM is openly a non-believer.
Click to expand...

I found a link that gives more detail about Todd Stiefel (I think I'm going to like him)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/18/90609/nc-philanthropist-uses-funds-to.html
 
From the ACS dated 14th of October 2011:

“The American Cancer Society did not turn down a $250,000 donation from Foundation Beyond Belief. Todd Stiefel, a humanist philanthropist and supporter of Foundation Beyond Belief, offered a $250,000 matching gift in 2012 if Foundation Beyond Belief teams could raise $250,000 at 2012 Relay events. In 2011, Foundation Beyond Belief had one team participate in Relay For Life.

The matching gift offer from Todd Stiefel was dependent on his and the Foundation Beyond Belief’s request to become a Relay For Life National Team Partner as part of Relay’s National Team Partner program for clubs and organizations. The American Cancer Society eliminated the National Team Partner program for clubs and organizations program at the end of our fiscal year (August 31, 2011) in order to put more resources into community-based efforts.

We have notified the former clubs and organizations which were National Team Partners of this decision and are working with each of them to ensure their continued participation in Relay For Life and the Society’s mission. For this reason, we respectfully but regretfully declined Todd Stiefel’s and the Foundation Beyond Belief’s request to become a National Team Partner.

The Society maintains a National Team Partner program for commercial entities. We do not have a National Team Partner program for youth organizations. We do have some existing relationships with nationally recognized youth academic, honorary, or fraternal organizations. Collegiate/university student groups are welcome to participate in Relay For Life through collegiate Relays or community Relays across the country.

Our representative offered alternatives to the National Team Partner program that are consistent with the way Relay For Life is working with other clubs and organizations across the country that do not meet the criteria of the National Team Program. Our representative encouraged participation by Foundation Beyond Belief in Relay For Life at the community level and offered to make introductions to local Relay events in communities wherever the Foundation has affiliates across the country. The Society has similar working relationships with many clubs and organizations nationwide.

There are some recognition benefits available to commercial organizations who are National Team Partners that are not available to clubs, organizations and other similar groups. We regret profoundly that some people may feel offended that the Foundation Beyond Belief would not be eligible to take advantage of those benefits.

We have remained committed to discussing with Todd Stiefel and the Foundation Beyond Belief ways in which we can work together. We have and continue to encourage the group’s participation in Relay For Life. We are grateful for Mr. Stiefel’s and the Foundation’s interest in saving lives from cancer. In managing Relay For Life, with thousands of community events and millions of passionate participants nationwide, we strive to deal fairly and consistently with everyone.”

[Source]
Click to expand...
 
From the Alternet article:

Their first answer to this question: "We tried to figure out a way for the Foundation Beyond Belief to participate in this program, but weren't able to come to an agreement."

Their second answer: "We're phasing out participation in this program from non-commercial organizations."

Those aren't the same thing at all. In fact, they're directly contradictory. If the American Cancer Society was already phasing out participation in this program from non-commercial organizations... then how is it that they tried, for months, to find a way for the Foundation Beyond Belief to participate in it?

And more to the point: If the ACS really is phasing out participation in this program from non-commercial organizations... why didn't they just say that when the proposal was first made? It would have saved everyone a lot of time and heartache. FBB: "The Foundation Beyond Belief would like to sponsor a national team in the upcoming Relay for Life, with a matching offer of $250,000." ACS: "You know, we greatly appreciate your very generous offer, and we'd love to have you participate, but we're phasing out participation in this program from non-commercial organizations. Let's find another way that that the FBB can participate in this program, or find another public program that the FBB can participate in." End of a nice, simple story. Instead of the beginning of an ugly, convoluted one.

And when questioned about this matter by AlterNet... why didn't they give this answer the first time around? Why did they initially respond with a vague, evasive, generic non-response that ignored the questions actually being asked?

Given all this... does it seem likely that "We're phasing out participation in this program from non-commercial organizations" is really the answer? Or does it seem like an excuse hatched after the fact to cover a situation that had become an embarrassment?

I realize this is harsh. I want to be fair here, and I want to be clear. So I will say it again: The American Cancer Society did not explicitly reject a massive donation offer from a non-theistic organization, on the basis of them being a non-theistic organization.

It's just difficult to reach any other conclusion.
Click to expand...
http://www.alternet.org/story/15268..._for_the_american_cancer_society/?page=entire
 
Bells said:
From the ACS dated 14th of October 2011:
Click to expand...

The matching gift offer from Todd Stiefel was dependent on his and the Foundation Beyond Belief’s request to become a Relay For Life National Team Partner as part of Relay’s National Team Partner program for clubs and organizations. The American Cancer Society eliminated the National Team Partner program for clubs and organizations program at the end of our fiscal year (August 31, 2011) in order to put more resources into community-based efforts.
Click to expand...

So did Todd Stiefel make his offer before or after August 31, 2011 and did the ACS publish this information about eliminating the National Team Partner program for clubs and organizations, so that this kind of problem wouldn't happen? This still looks like CYA by the ACS to me.
 
Doesn't money go to science who are often atheists? One possible explanation are some people who have money, don't understand the nature of charity, but are ace holes who try to buy into clubs. Charity is about giving and not about political lobbying. ACS may have had to tell him to give to a politician for that. The question shoul dbe what was he lobbying for to get his moneys worth?
 
@Bells
Bells, it sounds like you understand this. I don't.
Could you explain it simply?

The only reason why an organisation like this would reject money would be if the people offering the money had some ulterior motive, or were supporters of something vehemently rejected by the organisation.

So if, taking an extreme example, the group offering money supported euthanasia of all cancer sufferers with a life expectancy of five years or less. Yes. rejection.
But non belief in a creator? That's why they won't take the money?
Doesn't add up.
 
An Open Letter to Reuel Johnson of the American Cancer Society from Todd Stiefel

Why is there no mention of the matching gift that we had offered? Was it not important? Why are you not thanking a donor for offering a major gift that could save lives? I felt stung and appalled. I understand business reasons for eliminating programs, but I do not understand the above complete rejection of working with us on a national level and the complete ignoring of a huge donation that had been on the table. Your message basically said that ACS could not afford to help us raise money for you. There is more than a touch of irony that finances and potential growth were the reasons listed for this program suddenly being shut down, given that we were about to bring you both money and growth. In the tough “current charitable giving climate,” it is shocking to see no effort whatsoever from you towards trying to close the deal on a $250,000 matching challenge. You blew it off as if it did not matter or was unwanted. Which is it? If it mattered and was wanted, you would find a way to give recognition similar to what you give other groups.

After this message, I talked to you via phone and asked if we could have a corporate national team instead, because, in fact, Foundation Beyond Belief is a corporation. You refused. I asked how it hurts ACS for to have such a team and you refused to answer the question and dismissively told me that it was ACS decision and that we could not have a corporate team. I then asked about your youth partner national team program. You pointed out that this program was exciting and “accelerating” (I took a note of the word choice). I pointed out that we have over 400 college groups between the two national organizations that were going to help us recruit FBB teams and then I requested a youth partner team. You rejected that idea immediately and said that you were de-emphasizing that program. Which is it? Is it accelerating or being de-emphasized?

In your Facebook post, you said, “The Foundation sought to participate in Relay For Life’s National Team Program, which is a program for corporate donors and supporters. The Foundation Beyond Belief is not a corporate entity, so our representative offered alternatives to the National Team Program that are consistent with the way in which Relay For Life works with other foundations, student groups, social and philosophical organizations, and other types of groups across the country that do not meet the criteria of the National Team Program.” The reality, Reuel, is that you moved the goal post on us. You agreed we could have a team and then rather than working with us on our matching challenge, you chose to eliminate the non-corporate national program and refused to give us any kind of other national partner team. Why? You claimed in your post that FBB is not a “corporate entity” even though you knew that was false because I had explained to you on the phone that FBB is a corporation. If you prefer your corporate program be for businesses, why could we not have a youth partner team instead? That is what you offer to other foundations and student groups, yet, contrary to your post on Facebook, you did not offer us this equal treatment. Instead, you offered to work with us in many different ways, but none that would give us equal recognition.
Click to expand...
 
He needs to shut up now and just organize for the money to go to another deserving charity. He might end up harming his foundation if he doesn't tone down the politics.
 
Leave 'em to hang

As the ACS doesn't want money from these sorts of organizations, I say leave them to hang.

There are plenty of other charities in need of funds; there are plenty of cancer charities in need of funds.

Knowing that the ACS only wants my money if it comes in through certain organizations tells me that they don't really want my money. Not that I have any to give, but that won't always be the way of things. When it's my time, I'm happy to leave ACS off the list.
 
Tiassa said:
As the ACS doesn't want money from these sorts of organizations, I say leave them to hang.

There are plenty of other charities in need of funds; there are plenty of cancer charities in need of funds.

Knowing that the ACS only wants my money if it comes in through certain organizations tells me that they don't really want my money. Not that I have any to give, but that won't always be the way of things. When it's my time, I'm happy to leave ACS off the list.
Click to expand...

It isn't as though I can say "Well, there goes my donation to the ACS." I've never donated to them, and never really had any intention of doing so. I've never broken the 40k a year mark, and all of my charitable donations are to members of my own family (and some close friends) who are less well off than I am. Their treatment of Mr. Stiefel has them off my list for the future though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top