Check out Non-Believers Giving Aid, a new initiative from RichardDawkins.net. They have chosen Doctors Without Borders and the International Red Cross as the two organizations they think are best suited for secular aid giving.
Here are the advantages in donating through them:
1. 100% of your donation will be go to these charities: not even the PayPal fees will be deducted from your donation, since Richard will personally donate a sum to cover the cost of these (capped at $10,000). This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.
2. When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.
I’m sure most of us have already donated something (I donated to Red Cross), but most of us can do more. I hope you’ll consider donating through this new non-religious initiative.
“When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.”
Yeah. I guess I worked as a Special Education teacher for three years just for the sh*ts and giggles. Each of my kiddos required at least 3 diaper changes a day (and I had 9 students in total)– funny how much sh*t I cleaned up, seeing as how I have no compassion for other human beings.
Thank you for your work, one of my friends does the same and I’ve helped a few times. It is hard work and often stressful but someones got to do it. Thanks for helping the helpless. Takes a special kind of person to do that work day in day out.
Aww! Thanks!
I guess I just think that helping others is even *more* imperative when you realize that this is all there is. If there is no afterlife, then peace on earth and good will toward others becomes even more important. Heaven or hell is here and now.
I know what you mean. I worked with developmentally disabled adults for 20 years. Low pay, difficult work. But of course since I was doing it just to help people rather than to “give glory to god” it makes me a jerk.
Why would non-believers donate to the christian organization red cross?
The American Red Cross fired an employee, Michael Hartman, for expressing his disagreement with homosexuality. I’d consider the red cross to be unrelated to any religious meaning. The Red Cross does not represent itself as a Christian organization, but as a humanitarian organization. Unlike the Salvation Army which represents itself to be a Christian organization, but does not tell donors that it is a church and that donations for all causes go into a general fund which also helps support their churches. They are very, very liberal. They do not believe in baptism or communion. Some christian web site like to claim it is, as you will see if you research a bit, but i think we all know how accurate christian data is. hehe.
But they are called “the red CROSS”, that’s for sure.
It’s not a Christian cross. All sides are the same length. They wanted a distinct emblem that was easy to draw, since the original purpose was to offer a protective sign for medical personnel on the battlefield.
They added a new symbol, a red diamond on a white field. They had concerns about the cross being seen as religious before. As I recall, they had similar concerns recently, and decided to create a symbol that would not be mistaken for the Christian cross.
One of the organization’s principles is to be neutral on all issues of politics and religion. As far as I can tell, they are entirely secular.
There’s a station in London called King’s Cross, but I don’t think that’s Christian either.
The cross has no religious meaning.
Only the red moon the Islam version of the red cross do not like the red cross because of some religious opposition since it shows a cross and they don’t want to walk around with such a red cross.
The cross emblem did possibly evolve from the insignia of a religious group that provided nursing for the impoverished sick and wounded (Knights Hospitaller,) but today they are a secular organization. I have an atheist friend who deployed to Haiti with them on Friday. No doubt there are party and religious leanings in every regional office, just as in every commercial office, but the international agency has the ability to get stuff done.
The red cross emblem is an inversion of the Swiss flag, which shows a white cross on a red background. This recognises the historic connection between Switzerland and the original Geneva Convention of 1864.
But while the red cross emblem has no intentional religious meaning, the symbol reminded soldiers from the Ottoman Empire (modern-day Turkey) of the crusaders of the Middle Ages and so in 1876 they began using a red crescent instead.
(From the Red Cross website)
The red cross is a NONE-RELIGIOUS and NEUTRAL organisation.
When I started with the red cross they actually educated us what is acceptable and what not.
You might be religious as a volunteer, but you are in no way allowed to express this when you are in Red Cross uniform. You might be for some political party but when you are in uniform you must set aside your political views.
But this is reality so once in a while you get some red cross volunteer moron that misbehaves. These are kicked out.
I think the organization was the International Red Cross, wasn’t it? ( I may be mistaken…)
We already made two donations but if we come into some more money we’ll definitely give some more to this. It’s a great idea.
My company does it pretty good – they match whatever employees donate. Perhaps that’s something that people could suggest at work, as part of corporate social responsibility.
Dawkins is such an unmitigated and self-centered ass that he can’t even permit a natural disaster to take place without attempting to turn it into a statement about atheists. If you want to help someone, then just shut up, do it, and spare the press release. Let not your right hand etc etc. The point is: it’s not about you or your godless ideology, you narcissistic twat..
Right – he’s been SO much worse in this respect than, say, Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh…
I suppose because Dawkins pissed you off, you’re definitely not going to give any money for the relief effort, right, Jenny?
And, btw, what the frak does Dawkins have to do with what Daniel posted? In other words, do you have a use for that red herring you threw in here?
If it weren’t for an amazing number of prominent people constantly slandering atheists by claiming we are immoral, cold, uncaring, and secretly overjoyed by the evil of the world, push-back wouldn’t be necessary.
Alas, it is.
He’s a “narcisistic twat” and yet you felt the need to come and rant about it offensively and publicly? Hmmm….. Hello Kettle, Hello Kettle, this is Pot. You are black. Repeat, you are black, over.
“Jenny is such an unmitigated and self-centered ass that he/she can’t even permit a natural disaster to take place without attempting to turn it into a statement about God. If you want to help someone, then just shut up, do it, and spare the press release. Let not your right hand etc etc. The point is: it’s all about me or my godbot ideology, you narcissistic twat.”
Fixed that for you Jenny.
Thank you, Sunny Day.
Thank you, thank you so much. I have been looking for a way to show that atheists care for such a long time. I love to volunteer and fund raise, but I am always surrounded by people praying whenever I participate. I always want to say ‘I’m doing this because I’m human, that’s all, end of story’.
BTW Jenny you are totally missing the point. Dawkins is doing this for me and my godless ideology, plus countless others, so that we can show people that atheists care.
I spent every year about 2700 euro’s now to help someone out there.
I am also a volunteer of the red cross with no payment or promise a seat in heaven.
Since 1992 I have been donating for Plan International, it started with 250 euro’s a year.
The last 3 years I have been donating 2600 euro’s a year to pay for someone’s education where I have no direct relationship with except for giving her a chance.
My parents also paid the University education for someone they met that was in a wheelchair in Ukraine they met when they were bringing clothes and stuff for the poor.
We do this out of complete free will without any reward or promise for a pleace in heaven.
To Mike – the actual reason why the Ottomans used the Red Crescent during the Russo-Turkish war in 1875-76 was that an equilateral red cross on a white background had been used as an emblem of rebellion against the Ottoman Empire in Serbia in 1815 – hence they could not accept it as a symbol of neutrality on the battlefield 60 years later. They understood that the red cross was the reversal of the Swiss flag, and decided that the neutral emblem for their purposes should be the reversal of the Ottoman white crescent on a red background, and for good measure they reversed the direction of the crescent as well. Later, when former Ottoman possessions became independent they re-reversed their red crescent, which is why some countries have their red crescent facing west (like Turkey) but most have it facing east (like Egypt). But the fact is that it is entirely non-religious, and both the Iinternational Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are careful to point out that neither emblem has any religious significance. But, because misunderstandings persist, there is a third option also available, the Red Crystal, which is a diamond shaped red frame on a white background. It is currently used by Israel, but others are thinking about it too.
Thanks Chris – this seems to be a much better explanation than the Red Cross themselves are offering – perhaps you should contact them and get them to change their website.
Pingback: What To Do About Haiti? | Miscellanea Agnostica
Geez! Who cares who you give to as long as you know it will get there??? I would gladly give to MSF (Doctors Without Borders), the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Sharing Way if I knew that all or most would go provide aid. People are dying in Haïti for #@%^$ sake! We know that there is always some cost of admin that goes into every donation we make. (Workers who process donations have to eat too.) It’s the percentage that counts.
Yeah, that’s kinda the bulk of the conversation, just with a side of interesting historical curiosity and discourse. And no, there isn’t always “a cost of admin that goes into every donation we make.” If we can trust the info on this site–which I have ‘faith’ (tee hee) we can, “100% of your donation will be go to these charities: not even the PayPal fees will be deducted from your donation, since Richard will personally donate a sum to cover the cost of these (capped at $10,000). This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.” But I’m guessing you were in too much of a hurry to take shots at others to read a bit first. At least neither the RDF nor Non-Believers Giving Aid are taxing our donations.
Donate blood too!
I am not an atheist myself, but if that’s how you feel, it’s your right. Glad to see people from all groups pitching in. As a side note, in the circles that I hang around in, I don’t think the general view is that atheists are terrible people or anything. There is more of a general distaste for people who claim to be God loving people who are assholes (Pat Robertson and friends). Quite often the “face” of a religion is not a accurate representation of those who take it seriously, a fact that rings true with most groups. It’s a pity that the most mixed up get the most attention in a lot of cases.
In any case, good work.