I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins and admire the work he does trying to spread knowledge around the world.

But this whole “Unbelievers Giving Aid” seems to me to be a tasteless political statement, when you consider the death toll and carnage that has transpired.

By all means donate if you want to, but don’t piggy-back off the good will.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Look, nobody has to sugar-coat the deal to align with your sensitivities.  It’s horrifying what happened in Haiti, and with or without this drive, people are going to be donating.  If, along with this donation, we can also quash the myth that only the religious are caring then that’s a no-brainer for me.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that a few atheists who might not have otherwise donated, will be spurred by the drive merely to ‘stick it to the religious’.  While some may view this as a travesty, I seriously doubt that any Haitian in need of aid could care less about the intention behind the donation.

The oft-wielded myth that only the religious are good will be further eroded once this drive is done, and for me, that’s only a good thing.  For those that can’t stomach that, please don’t use it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I really do not understand what objection Gary can have. I have not heard anyone complain when religious groups offer aid. So what is the objection to a non-religious group? Sounds like special pleading to me. 

Of course my argument fails if Gary’s point is t hat the non-religious are specially prevented from spreading their belief.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

quoting Christopher Hitchens in Slate:  “Currently, the cry is that…Christian charities that are doing the hardest work…However, the heaviest lifting will, in fact, be done by nonreligious outfits like UNICEF and the International Red Cross (which may sound Christian, but isn’t). The biggest work of all will be performed by carrier groups and airborne brigades of the United States, the taxpayer-financed forces of a secular republic.”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I am a very outspoken atheists and respect Richard Dawkins and his fellow scientists that work diligently to focus on reason and common ground for all humanity. However, I too think this “Unbelievers” push to say “look at us, we are good too” is a bit silly.  Why not just create the relief fund with all of the power players and when the dust settles look back and reflect on the good deed. 

It is a constant battle to infuse a non-theist approach to the world.  I don’t believe this particular incident is the time to fight the battle. Despite all of the differences between believers and non believers both groups are seeking to help their fellow human being at this particular moment.  Isn’t that the goal?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

He (Dawkins) happens to be a very prominent and influential member of a certain demographic and is using his influence to encourage that demographic to give.  How someone could see that as “tasteless” or “silly” is beyond me.

What WOULD be tasteless and silly would be for the charities themselves to be promoting a certain view, and in some cases, withholding certain types of desperately needed humanitarian aid as a result (I can’t imagine anyone actually doing this, oh wait…)

If, as a secondary effect, this “political statement” creates some kind of religious/non-religious disaster relief arms race then all the better in my opinion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Personally, I like giving through ‘atheist’ groups.  It’s like buying something you need anyway from a company you support.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

.Let R.Dawkins tag the aid group whatever he wishes….Afterall I expect Freedom of speech and expression in my everyday life..hence you are also well aware that Dawkins is looking to help those in need and not to make life more horrible….R.Dawkins stay FREE and keep voicing your opinion…Always gat your back…the world is full of Hypocrites and people who love double standards….

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with Kathy 100%...well said!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I really don’t disagree with much that was said in the replies.  I just think it’s like announcing “hey, look at me, I’m about to perform a good deed”.  Richard Dawkins could just announce he is founding a charity group and the atheists would support it. 
I have no qualms with fighting the good fight, spreading reason throughout the world, creating common ground for all humanity.  We are all united on that I believe.  However, the tactic we choose to employ is of utmost importance.  Bringing negative attention, whether you personally think the name of the fund is a good one, does seem silly.  The believers will certainly take offense and, even though I am far from a believer, I can see why. 

By quietly performing the good deed now the ammo becomes more potent later.  To draw attention to the act before it is done will undeniably bring scrutiny, whether it’s warranted or not.  I feel good about donating because I’m human.  I understand the importance of giving money to the group that is going to help more, but all things considered, it just seems a little trivial in perspective.  I mean, we live in a theist world every day.  It won’t kill us or lessen our aim to lay off every once in awhile.  We have to be better in our tactics or we are just like them in the end, just more grounded in reality.  Peace my friends.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“The believers will certainly take offense” - honestly, I’m tired of this attitude driving what people feel they should and shouldn’t do.  I find it offensive that someone would be okay with doing less than they thought they could to help the sick and dying because a name might hurt the feelings of first world believers.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t mean to imply we should puposely go out of our way to be offensive to anyone either, but having to put everything we do through a special ‘religious feelings’ filter is not something sensible people should have to worry about.  Cheers!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I never suggested we put everything we do through a special filter.  I constantly challenge the beliefs of the irrational.  I am viewed as abrassive on several social networks because I engage others and their ridiculous notion of how the universe works. 

What I did suggest though, is we show sensitivity when necessary.  When hundreds of thousands of human beings are suffering or dead I don’t think a filter is unreasonable in this specific situation.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I really don’t disagree with much that was said in the replies.  I just think it’s like announcing “hey, look at me, I’m about to perform a good deed”.  Richard Dawkins could just announce he is founding a charity group and the atheists would support it.”...

I must confess that because Richard is kicking in the Paypal fees was the main reason I gave my modest donation via his site. More bang for the buck. Wouldn’t have known if he didn’t “brag”... BTW, the assumption seems to be anyone who is a Dawkins fan must be an athiest. Ain’t necessarily so. Definitely not a fundamentalist though

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“What I did suggest though, is we show sensitivity when necessary.  When hundreds of thousands of human beings are suffering or dead I don’t think a filter is unreasonable in this specific situation.”

Hundreds of thousands were killed in Vietnam in an illegal war for profits and where were the Christians? Oh there were protests but only over the draft.

Most Christians will leave Haiti when the publicly is over. Where are the Christians demanding health insurance for all Americans? Hundreds of thousand are suffering due to lack of medical care and insurance and instead the so-call Christians are making mega profits off the sick and needy not just in providing medial care but for medical insurance for those that can afford it.

Churches hold a bake sale raise 400 dollars for a family that has a 120 thousand medical bill due to a not being able to purchase medical insurance due to pre existing conditions unheard of in other industrialized countries and this family loses its home and files bankruptcy.

Most of those Christians that held that bake sale will congratulate themselves and feel good all the way home and then will vote against universal health care for all.

This out pouring of help says more about most of those that rush to help then their love for all humanity. Feel good ego thing. The Christians have ignored this island for centuries and check its history at what a Christian gov in America did to these people decades ago.

This in no way is about all Christians. My experience with most Christians is on the surface they are very friendly and talk of loving others but seek deeper and you will find little of the teachings of their savior are practiced.

And the atheists want to do what the Christians do and the atheists do not claim to be a religion. Think again.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Non-Believers Giving Aid is a good and important development for two reasons.  First, it offers another opportunity to aid Haiti and others needing emergency relief.  Second, it is a helpful way to raise the awareness, ideas and practices of many nonbelievers for the general public.  American public awareness of the important social contributions of Enlightenment skepticism has dwindled since the ratification of the godless Constitution of the United States.  Non-Believers Giving Aid increases the visibility of religious skepticism, demonstrates its effective commitment to human compassion, and is a catalyst for nonbelievers’ further consideration of human need.  The practical perspective of religious skeptics in addressing human need is an important one, as evidenced by the American Bill of Rights.  It is especially important today, as the miasma of religious thought envelops more governments and engenders more conflict.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

When a priests molests a child it brings visibility to Catholicism.  Is that all we seek, visibility?  What about a gameplan?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Visibility is a central part of the game plan for religious skepticism.  It shows the world a set of people making compassionate choices based upon reason and human solidarity, and without reference to supernatural ideas.  The great number, reasonableness and compassion of religious skeptics was apparent to Americans during the Enlightenment.  That type of visibility is necessary again.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I absolutely agree with you Pursuit.  I just don’t think we need it at all costs and at all times.  That was the only point I was making.  And to deny this isn’t going to bring negative visibility, whether or not we thing it is warranted or not, is ridiculous.  The vast majority of believers will look at the purposeful attachment of non-believers to the name and find a lack of tact.  If we don’t care what they think about us then so be it.  I understand it is illogical for them to find the bad in the generous action, by the donator’s and Mr. Dawkins for paying the Paypal fees, but they certainly will.  And to expect logic from them, when we crusade against their illogical thinking, seems futile.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I guess it just causes me grief when, in trying to ‘rally the troops’ in support of a good cause a group is expected to go out of their way to hide what identifies them as a group.  This is the kind of thinking that has kept countless groups ‘in the closet’, looked down upon, and feeling ashamed for far too long (I’m sure you can think of several examples).  There are no strings attached with what Dawkins has done and there are not even any requirements to belong to his group… To insist he isn’t even allowed to say which group he is trying to motivate is just… wrong.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with Gary and Bluberry. I support Non-Believers Giving Aid, but I don’t like how Dawkins and others are flaunting how nice atheists can be without god. We make more of an impact by simply giving and letting people reach their own conclusions about atheists. We need to show them not tell them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Rigamortus; I’m struggling to understand the hyperbolic points you make here; please help me. You are caused ‘grief’ by commenters here making the points they make? Really? You must be heard from three blocks away whenever you stub your toe.

The language of oppression you use is totally inappropriate in my opinion; I can’t see anyone demanding that any group ‘hide’ their group identification; merely remark that by deliberately slapping the ‘Non-believers’ label prominently upon the website call for donations, Dawkins might have given PR ammunition to the religious side that needn’t have been handed to them. No more than this.

Equating commenters here for making what seems a reasonable point on a blog with repressive regimes seems to me a little far fetched as does your next step towards the margins of reality when you accuse them of causing feelings of shame. I humbly suggest that you yourself are in control of any shame you may feel.

To conclude your trip to the twilight zone with the point that Dawkins is not allowed to say what he has in fact plainly already said reveals the distance your thoughts have travelled away from the facts.

Yet I’d be very interested in your detailed explication of why it might be ‘wrong’ to make the points that Bluberry and others have been making here. Thanks.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Allan:  I didn’t say anywhere that it’s ‘wrong’ for anyone here to make the points they make.  I can absolutely see where Bluberry and others are coming from, I just think it’s long overdue that people stop giving religious feelings that extra respect which no other group enjoys.

To me, saying that Dawkins is allowed to make a group and collect donations, but not allowed to give it a name having anything to do with atheisn or non-belief IS demanding he hide their group identification (“Richard Dawkins could just announce he is founding a charity group and the atheists would support it.” - Bluberry).  There are probably a lot of ‘non-believers’ that would not know who he is or what he represents if he were only allowed to use his name.

I don’t feel shame at being an atheist, but ask one of the many people who do not believe in God but are forced to hide their identity, not let any of their friends or family find out, because they are told that it is NOT okay to be or say you’re an atheist.  Maybe I used the wrong word, but that’s what I was getting at.  Nobody should feel like they need to tip-toe around this, and people making concessions like this to religious sensibilities prolongs the issue.

Again, it’s not wrong to make the points (I never said it was), everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Sorry about the ‘hyperbolic’ language, but it’s very important to me.  Also, I’m not fully awake yet, so if this isn’t clear enough, let me know.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Bluberry, why would believers think the title “Non-Believers Giving Aid” is any more tactless than the titles “Catholic Charities,” “International Red Crescent,” and “Jewish Charities of America?”  If the nonbelievers’ title is tactless, then so must be the religious titles. 

Tact is not the issue - shock and stigma are the issues.  Some believers may be shocked by the title “Non-Believers Giving Aid” because nonbelievers have been stigmatized as amoral for centuries.  If unbelief is the equivalent of amorality, then it is shocking to find it in the title of a benevolent organization.  So, the Non-Believers Giving Aid website says that a secondary reason for the charity is to to “counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.”  http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/

Of course, we know that unbelief is not the equivalent of amorality.  To the contrary, non-believers have been key in the moral development of America, from the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women, and on.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Pursuit, you ask why would believers think…. Come on.  Why do they think an invisible entity hears their every thought and grants them eternal life after this one?  I already answered this question.  I already stated it doesn’t matter if their belief is warranted or not.  If you aren’t able to see how this will be viewed by them then you are looking through blinders.

And tact is an issue in my opinion.  Tact is an issue in everything in life.  So we no longer believe in tact because it isn’t reciprocated?  Does that make us any different than them?  We have to take the high ground.  Giving without seeking attention is the most noble way to embrace charity.  That there is a secondary reason for giving to the Haitian victims is slightly appalling to me. 

Thank you all for the discussion.  Peace my friends.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Well, obviously we don’t all agree on the methods, but I think we can all agree it’s where the money goes that really matters.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Tact is an important issue, but it is not always the issue in play.  “Catholic Charities” is not a tacky title.  It is a familiar name of a charitable resource.  Similarly, “Non-Believers Giving Aid” is not a tacky title.  It is a new name on the list of charitable resources. 

There is nothing noble about hiding the source or nature of charity.  To the contrary, diverse identifiable sources of human compassion are an inspiration and catalyst for greater good.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I am more inclined to give to secular organizations who do not have the proverbial dogmatic ideological strings attached. It amazes me that people give an invisible Daddy credit for sparing them from such disasters, but simply ignore that an omniscient and omnipotent God would have spared these people the earthquake in the first place. It’s like the bankrupt gambling addict who focuses on his wins, and ignores the countless losses that are sending him to the poor house. Human egocentricity knows no bounds for some.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This is exactly what is going to happen…. Problem is probably there will be a lot of blood on the floor….
That’s what I’m worried about

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I also agree with Kathy. I like the idea of contributing to help the people of Haiti through an atheist organization.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.