Atheist nonprofit scandals

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the United States, per capita atheists/agnostics give significantly less to charity (see: Atheism and uncharitableness).

Below are some recent atheist nonprofit scandals and incidences of financial mismanagement which received some publicity.

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science embezzlement allegation

See also: Richard Dawkins and morality

The Independent wrote about the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science:

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, has filed four lawsuits in a Californian court alleging that Mr Timonen, who ran its online operation in America, stole $375,000 (£239,000) over three years. It is claiming $950,000 in damages, while Mr Dawkins is suing him for $14,000 owed to him personally. Mr Timonen strongly denies the allegations.

In the 18-page complaint filed in a Los Angeles court, the foundation claims that Mr Timonen said the website he was running was just "squeaking by," making only $30,000 in three years, when in fact it was grossing 10 times that sum. The charity alleges that Mr Timonen pocketed 92 per cent of the money generated by the store, with his girlfriend spending $100,000 of the charity's money on upgrading her home before putting it on the market.

The funds apparently came on top of Mr Timomen's pay – of $278,750 over three-and-a-half years (£50,000 a year) – which legal documents filed by the foundation describe as "exceedingly generous and well above-market for someone of Timomen's age and experience...[1]

Atheist Hemant Mehta reported in 2011 that Dawkins ended his legal actions against Mr. Timonen.[2]

David Gorski at Scienceblogs wrote about this matter:

Timonen has responded. Although I find his denial self-serving, I do find it odd that there have been no arrests. After all, embezzlement is a criminal offense. If I ran a charitable organization and discovered that an employee had embezzled close to $1 million, I’d have called the police, not the lawyers. Something more than meets the eye appears to be going on here.[3]

See also: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence

Richard Dawkins' Foundation and charges of exploitation and cultish behavior

Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins

See also: Richard Dawkins' cult of personality and Atheist cults

On August 16, 2014, Andrew Brown wrote an article for The Spectator entitled The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins which declared:

...the Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak...

But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’

The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.

At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits.[4]

According to The Richest, "Richard Dawkins..has an estimated net worth of $135 million ($100 euro) according to the Sunday Times in 2012."[5]

Vox Day noted that the Richard Dawkins cult is similar to the cult of Scientology.[6] Dawkins was one of the founders of the New Atheism movement. The New Atheism movement, which has waned in recent years, was called a cult by the agnostic, journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 article in the New Statesman in which he describes the abusive behavior of New Atheists.[7] Although the New Atheism movement does not perfectly fit the various characteristics of a cult, it does fit some of the characteristics.[8]

We Are Atheism scandal

See also: We Are Atheism

Hemant Mehta wrote in 2015:

Earlier this year, I posted a series of concerns I had about a group called We Are Atheism.

The group raised money from atheists after tragic events and natural disasters, supposedly to help victims and their families, but the money didn’t always make it there. In some cases, it was given to people completely unaffected by the tragedies, unbeknownst to the donors at the time. The co-founders said publicly they weren’t taking a salary, even though they were. They said donations to the group were tax-deductible, even when they weren’t....

Several former board members of We Are Atheism later spoke up about why they resigned; their reasons included a lack of financial transparency in the organization.

Since all of that went down, Lee Moore took over as President of We Are Atheism and Amanda Brown stepped down from the board (she no longer has a formal connection with the group).

Moore vowed to get an independent tax firm to look over the group’s finances and pledged to make things right...

So what happened with that independent tax firm?...

Simply put: They couldn’t complete the audit. They asked Brown for access to certain accounts involving We Are Atheism’s money and they didn’t receive it.[9]

David Gorski at Scienceblogs on financial mismanagement in skeptic organizations

The Center for Inquiry was established by the atheist Paul Kurtz.

See also: Atheist Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of RDF and Center for Inquiry merger

David Gorski at Scienceblogs wrote about atheist/skeptic organizations and financial mismanagement:

In any case, this makes me wonder: What is it about rationalist/skeptic groups that make them seemingly have such a hard time running their organizations well from a financial standpoint? After all, just a couple of months ago the Center for Inquiry (CFI) sent out letters desperately begging for more contributions. The reason was that CFI had one large benefactor whose yearly contribution funded approximately 20-25% of the yearly CFI budget. As clueless as I may be about finances, even I know that you don’t use such donations to run the operating expenses of an organization, because you can’t count on them from year to year and it’s too big a chunk. You use this money for special short-term projects and a rainy day fund. Not surprisingly, when this mysterious donor stopped donating earlier this year, suddently CFI was in deep doo-doo from a financial standpoint, prompting the desperate plea for donations and deep budget cuts. I realize that the down economy has played havoc with many nonprofit and charitable organizations, but these issues with skeptical organizations seem to go beyond just that.[10]

Token efforts to extend racial minorities leadership positions in atheist organizations

See also: Western atheism and race

On October 9, 2014, the atheist Sikivu Hutchinson declared:

Despite frequent tokenistic calls for “diversity” within the “movement,” there are virtually no people of color in executive management positions in any of the major secular, atheist, or Humanist organizations —notable exceptions being Debbie Goddard of Center for Inquiry and Maggie Ardiente of American Humanist Association. People of color are constantly bombarded with claims of separatism, reverse discrimination, and “self-segregation” when they point to the absence of social justice, anti-racist community organizing, coalition-building, and visibility among secular organizations. After the Washington Post article, the vitriol and denialism among the “We are All Africans” white atheists was off the chain. This illustrates yet again that sticking a few of us on conference panels or secular boards is nothing but cheap appeasement.[11]

Atheist nonprofits and their lack of significant outreach to third world countries

Children in Malawi, Africa receiving a Manna Pack of rice from a partner of the Christian nonprofit Feed My Starving Children. In recent years, Christianity has seen a rapid growth in Africa.[12]

Western World atheists have not engaged in a significant amount of global outreach.

Atheist nonprofits in the Western World by in large have not had significant outreaches to spread atheism in poor, third world countries nor have they had a significant focus to improve their economic plight. See also: Atheism and uncharitableness and Atheism and social justice

Historically, Christians have made great evangelism efforts to reach every people group across the earth. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were Western World Christians.[13] Doing overseas evangelism/outreaches, often requires significant hardships/persecution and Western atheists have been unwilling to endure such hardships in order to spread atheistic ideology (see: Atheism and hedonism).

The current atheist population mostly resides in East Asia (particularly China) and in secular Europe/Australia among whites.[14] See: Global atheism

Atheist non-profit scandals, lack of critical thinking and lack of due diligence

See also: Atheism and critical thinking

People who think about donating priorities and perform due diligence are less likely to donate to organizations who engage in scandalous behavior.

The Skepchick writer Heina Dadabhoy wrote about atheists and charitable giving:

So many of us don’t critically examine to what we pay attention and why, to whom we give our money and why, of what sort of news we keep abreast and why, about what we find out and why. We fail to recognize the disturbing patterns indicating structural injustices that emerge when we consider all the factors at hand and how these sorts of situations play out.[15]

See also

External links

References