According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

The story here is misleading. What this was about is that they wanted to be one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. They were making a large cash donation specifically to be listed as one of those teams. So, they could have donated anonymously if wanted to; this seems to be more about their image. And yes, I agree with you that those listed in the rolls probably had other motives. Charitable giving by organizations and corporations is definitely more political than anything else, as QM was saying.

Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.

I agree with you that public giving is a big part of how these charities are able to operate. It is good in that it gets money to those in need, but bad in my view because it is promoting that we do good works for selfish reasons, for mere appearance. It is a superficial generosity, and I am sure many people after giving a large donation to a charity are patting themselves on the back for it all year, feeling that their good person quota has been filled up.

My two main points are this. One, that their motivations were not purely altruistic, as was being implied. Two, that if by giving you are seeking to get glory from men, you will have received your reward.

I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

Sadly, I think you're right. Probably not from the people at large, but definitely from large organizations and corporations. It's all about image in that world. The reason they make large donations is because it is an investment in their brand. If public recognition were outlawed, I'm sure it would leave many of them saying "Why bother?"

>> ^00Scud00:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.
According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people.

According to the story as it was presented the American Cancer Society turned down the money, they didn't say they would accept it if the group remained anonymous, they just flat out turned them down. And at any given time I bet we could find numerous other organizations, religious or otherwise listed on these ballots and you think that those organizations were acting purely out of the goodness of their own hearts?
Granted, charity is at least part of the motivation but the whole reason this system works is because research needs money and there are many groups and individuals looking to brighten their public image by such conspicuous giving. At worst I'd say that the Foundation Beyond Belief is no worse than anyone else who gave and at least expected to be treated with the same respect as everyone else.
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if we outlawed all public recognition for charitable giving, and while I hope I'm wrong, I'd bet that we would see a drop in giving if it really happened.