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.
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).
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.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
@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.
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.
"Atheism is the new Black!" as a saying possibly goes! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
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 Alternet article: http://www.alternet.org/story/15268..._for_the_american_cancer_society/?page=entire
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.
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.
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.