Thanks for the entertainment. It's the "probably" I object to! Otherwise I think Fabio is right, and I think Adam is again guilty if putting forward views that many might deem "political". But what they hey, just as there's no large "P".

I have just been reading the donation comments on the justgiving website and I am amazed. Not only are they donating to advertise other humanist type organisations, some .people are giving multiple donations to have a debate about the campaign.

The minimum donation is £2, would be interested to see how of the ad campaign is fuelled by the power of a decent debate.

Imagine that Adam, people paying to contribute to your blog...might have to lower the minimum donation.

catman 

Martin "I would be insulted as a Christian to be put on the same level as these people."

That is why I never put you on that level.

Firstly, you made this statement "I don't like the atheists, their religion is too extreme for my tastes."

Extremism (where religion is concerned) is commonly associated with the FANATICS who strap bombs to their chest and beat so-called demons out of kids, etc. There is nothing EXTREME about an atheist criticizing that behavior - it's quite simply the right thing to do. Of course, you claim to dislike these "extreme" atheists who criticize religious extremism. Very odd indeed!

"...Folks who strap bombs to their chests are not true Muslims, and folks who beat so-called demons out of kids are probably not true Christians and certainly not representing Jesus in doing so."

It seems to me that all believers like to think they are true-believers. It also seems to me that all true-believers claim the other is wrong. It really is a waste of time discussing this.

"There's quite a lot of us, you know, who agree with you on this point. I'd stick my neck out and say most of us."

I totally agree.

"You don't hear about us because we're busy trying to live lives of love, not commit criminal offences."

Most people, whether they are token believers, moderate believers or atheist, get on with their lives without trying to cause problems for others - atheists understand this. Unfortunately, because of the nature of religious teachings, true-believing fanatics will constantly be produced. Atheists view these people as a danger to us all and while token/moderate believers continue to enable these people by not criticizing their religions divisive, ignorant and biased texts, then the fanatics will continue to grow in power and become an even bigger danger.

"but most Christians don't want anyone to go to Hell and so are simply trying to warn people not to end up there if they can help it!"

If Christians didn't want people to go to their mythologies hell, they wouldn't give birth to Children, would they!

Anyone in the know, understands that the origin of the Christian hell was based on "Gehenna" - a rubbish dump outside of Jerusalem where the bodies of criminals were disposed of. Christians concocted the mythological hell using Gehenna and pagan concepts of hell as a template - they did this to terrorize the uneducated, superstitious peasants into their doomsday cult. The Christian hell is a lie! In fact, I thinks it's criminal that Christians continue to spread such nonsense especially when they haven't a shred of evidence for its existence.

"That's not what God wants you to hear."

Sigh! Another Christian who claims to know what his god wants. I'm quite sure many true-believers would claim the opposite to your claim.

"So do I - that is certainly an opinion which atheists can't claim exclusivity over! All the Christians I know find that just as frustrating as you do."

Obviously, a true-believer would never criticize the use of those verses. It's nice to know you aren't one.

Sean,
No problem with an advert isn't the same as supporting it.

I've no problem with my local football team either but I don't support them.

I'm not so sure about the ad being positive.
Has anyone said how they came up with that particular ad?

Martin

As Gift Aid is signed up for by each individual donor stating that THEY have personally paid enough tax to cover the Gift Aid on THEIR donation, then THEy have already made the choice to support the campaign.

I would hate for MY tax money to be gifted back to any charity I didn't support, but seeing as I wouldn't be giving them a donation in the first place, then MY tax contributions aren't being given to them.

Seems a very pointless argumentative point made for the sake of being controversial!

And no, I haven't supported the atheist campaign, but I'd be far more likely to than most religious ones.

Sean,

"I find it quite insulting when you try to put atheists on the same level as those true-believing fanatical religious folk who strap bombs to their chests or beat so-called demons out of kids for Jesus."

I would be insulted as a Christian to be put on the same level as these people. "Folks who strap bombs to their chests" are not true Muslims, and folks who "beat so-called demons out of kids" are probably not true Christians and certainly not representing Jesus in doing so.

"The atheists you are trying to place on the same level as these folk, criticize that behavior, the scripture and religious institutions that encourage it. Are they extreme for doing this?"

No more extreme than the majority of sensible, peace-loving Muslims and Christians who criticize that behaviour, the scripture and religious institutions that encourage it. There's quite a lot of us, you know, who agree with you on this point. I'd stick my neck out and say most of us. You don't hear about us because we're busy trying to live lives of love, not commit criminal offences.

"OK, from what I can gather, the ads featured a link to a website which threatened vulnerable (and non-believing) people with eternal torture."

I don't want to open a totally off-topic can of worms here, and I haven't seen the website, but most Christians don't want anyone to go to Hell and so are simply trying to warn people not to end up there if they can help it! No threats intended - it's SUPPOSED to be a loving warning, not a threat. You may have experienced otherwise - I'm sorry if you have. That's not what God wants you to hear.

"Now, I've seen church signs (which are ads) in this country making claims of eternal damnation. I've also seen signs citing Psalm 14:1 which claims non-believers are fools and can do no good. Now, I think signs or ads of that nature are damn right nasty and should be stopped."

So do I - that is certainly an opinion which atheists can't claim exclusivity over! All the Christians I know find thatj just as frustrating as you do.

Martin "I think you'll find a true atheist as religious as any true Muslim or Christian."

I find it quite insulting when you try to put atheists on the same level as those true-believing fanatical religious folk who strap bombs to their chests or beat so-called demons out of kids for Jesus. The atheists you are trying to place on the same level as these folk, criticize that behavior, the scripture and religious institutions that encourage it. Are they extreme for doing this?

"I have no problem with the bus advert. I've also no problem with the BHA - I agree with them on some issues.
Humanist isn't the same as atheist though."

I understand that you don't have a problem with the ad - which is why I only quoted you on the "I don't like the atheists, their religion is too extreme for my tastes." bit. As for "Humanism isn't the same as atheist" - well, Humanism is a philosophy. Many activist atheists (the same ones you say you dislike and are too extreme) are Humanists and members of the BHA and other Secular Humanist organizations. These people fight for the rights of others throughout the world and are opposed to religious privilege and extremism. If this makes them "extreme" in your eyes, then perhaps you should have a re-think.

"You know, I've never seen an ad threatening eternal torture in this country (though have in the Middle East one time seen threatening ads)."

OK, from what I can gather, the ads featured a link to a website which threatened vulnerable (and non-believing) people with eternal torture. So in this case, the ads themselves didn't feature the fire and brimstone nonsense.

Now, I've seen church signs (which are ads) in this country making claims of eternal damnation. I've also seen signs citing Psalm 14:1 which claims non-believers are fools and can do no good. Now, I think signs or ads of that nature are damn right nasty and should be stopped.

Anyway, I think this campaign is a good thing. It's more positive message than the usual fire and brimstone nonsense that many believers often push.

It's nice to know you support it.

I think you'll find a true atheist as religious as any true Muslim or Christian.

I have no problem with the bus advert. I've also no problem with the BHA - I agree with them on some issues.
Humanist isn't the same as atheist though.

Now if the BHA wanted to be brave, they could run the ad on buses in Rome. If they wanted to be stupid they could run the ad on buses in Iran.
Here, most groups can run adverts in public. Would any of us prefer particular groups being banned from doing adverts?

You know, I've never seen an ad threatening eternal torture in this country (though have in the Middle East one time seen threatening ads). Did the advertising standards people agree to it?

"result of god botherers thrusting their beliefs in our faces"

Some people are a bit more in your face than others.
I love a captive audience.
Just don't get into a lift with me.

People tend to turn and face the door. I stay by the door, face them all and say 'I bet you are all wondering why I called this meeting'.

Seriously, in our society we get many messages. Some we will agree with, some we won't. Some we will tune out, some we will respond to.
At this moment in time, the campaign has raised over £104k.
Which shows how it has used the free advertising its getting plus its supporters passing on the site info.
Now if only others could do the same......

Martin

Martin said "I don't like the atheists, their religion is too extreme for my tastes."

Atheism isn't a religion - it is a lack of belief a god. You too are atheist when it comes to countless other gods. I also don't see what is extreme about an ad saying "There probably is no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". It seems a positive statement to me - for better than the criminal ads threatening vulnerable people (and non-believers) with threats of eternal torture for not being a member of their religion.

Adam,

I missed the first set of posters and will probably miss the second. Do you believe that anyone will change their religious beliefs because of a sign on a bus?

And Ian is right, there are many charities like IG that annoy me but do I begrudge them receiving gift aid? No. If they can somehow justify their existence to the Charity Commission then they can collect gift aid.

Also, I don't believe that the huge amounts donated prove that online fundraising is amazing. Instead it proves that the internet is great funnel for donation, but the reason for the donations was a result of god botherers thrusting their beliefs in our faces. I was quite tempted to donate myself.

catman

Adam, I am hurt

I don't think I have even been rude to you. Constructively criticised and poked fun at, yes, but rude? Surely not.

Thanks for that, Ian - much obliged. You haven't been rude about us for at least a couple of months, and I really was missing your thoughtful words.

For everyone else, I would thoroughly recommend one of Ian's recent blog posts, if you want to find out The Real Truth behind IG - over at Fundraising.co.uk.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Intelligent Giving is a charity and therefore eligible for Gift Aid. Personally, I'd object to 'public money' subsidising you lot, but, heigh ho, that's how the system works.

Gift Aid doesn't come directly from any of our pockets... I don't think we should be allowed to pick and choose which charities get Gift Aid relief.

Even if that choice were put out to public discussion, I think we should err on the side of generosity, since the Gift Aid scheme is partly about encouraging people to be more generous, by supporting their donations. Anything that encourages the general public to be more giving is a good thing, I think!

One point I should make in addition to my earlier comment is that I donated to the Atheist Bus Campaign.

The one thing I'm uncomfortable with is that 'atheist' is an oversimplification of my position on the existence of God; I'd rather the whole thing were called the 'Humanist Bus Campaign', humanism and atheism being similar, but not necessarily related, concepts. One can, as in my case, call oneself a humanist while being not an atheist, but rather an agnostic in the correct, Huxleyan, sense of the word.

I regard atheism as equally irrational and logical indefensible as belief in a personal God. If I think about it, I do think it's unfortunate that money that would otherwise be spent on public services is diverted to causes that take a political or philosophical position, even if it's one I have some sympathy with.

There: I'm sure that's made my view *much* clearer...

I don't really have a strong position on subsidising atheism or religion - I guess as long as I'm supporting both camps it's OK!
:)

Charity Chris: Yes, I think GA should count as a subsidy, as any tax-break should. That's what it says on Wikipedia too (more-or-less), if that means anything (!). 

Howard/Martin/Bill: I agree with you all that the current charity setup in this country means GA supports a bunch of causes which aren't exactly uncontroversial. Even we at IG benefit from GA - which I know a fair few people wouldn't be happy about. But, like you, I don't really know if there's anything we can (or even ought) to do about it.  I did wonder whether having a bus-advert-war was truly "charitable" in the legal sense of the word, and whether the Charity Commission might have anything to say about it, but then thought that it probably was charitable - and that this was something of a legal curiosity, more than anything else.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

The donation isn't an expense the taxpayer's incurred in earning their salary, though, is it? The reason why the tax is refunded to the charity is the notion of public benefit as a result of the donation (as with agreements to donate works of art "to the nation" in return for adjustments to death duty).

You can't offset just any old thing against tax, or it would be possible to give money to your local football club and let them reclaim the tax.

I'd say the sensible rationale for letting the Humanists do this is either fairness, or a claim that they have an educational role (like a society for advancing philosophy or archaeology).

Do you really believe that it is a subsidy? I'm not sure how that idea works.

Gift aid is paid back to charities only if the taxpayer making the donation has paid sufficient tax in the first place to cover the amount of tax the charity reclaims, and is directly related to the size of the donation.

I don't think you can claim it is public money - the reality is that it is a refund of overpaid tax, as the donor's tax bill is reduced by the charitable donation, which is offset against earnings before tax; thus, it doesn't belong to the public purse.

"While I'm glad to see public debate on this issue, couldn't one argue that the BHA might have taken the moral highground and instead ignored the ads and donated the money to something more human-focused and secular.."

 You could, but then who would know?  For the amount raised, this has certainly given the BHA a huge boost in awareness and debate, and that. after all is what they want.  Beisdes, would channelling their own funds to another charity be a) efficient or b) within their articles and aims?

Perhaps their next campaign could be a mixture of the two.

You're right Adam, but that simply reminds us that the furtherance of religion is still a charitable object under law.

You could remove that of course to ensure that no taxpayers' money is directed to religious (or anti-religious) campaigns. But the issue of religion as a charitable object didn't even seem to be raised when the Charities Act was recently updated.

So I reckon we as taxpayers will be contributing indirectly to all kinds of organisations whose views and very reasons for existence a whole group of people will find irrelevant at best.

One other thought. While I'm glad to see public debate on this issue, couldn't one argue that the BHA might have taken the moral highground and instead ignored the ads and donated the money to something more human-focused and secular, like malaria nets, child poverty, or hospice care?

Whats the problem Adam?
Churches get gift aid. Charities get gift aid.
I don't like all types of charity, some I'm totally against. Yet I won't say they shouldn't get gift aid.

Whats next? Subsidizing homeless organisations with taxpayers money being a problem? How about subsidising overseas aid with taxpayers money?

I don't like the atheists, their religion is too extreme for my tastes.
But I can't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to meet the same criteria as others.

Though funny how you never hear an atheist who hurts themself cry out 'Oh outmoded-belief-system-in-a-non-existant-deity'.

Martin

Gift Aid comes with charitable status - any charity can claim it. You could make a similar argument about many other charities: ASH for example, is preaching at us not to smoke, and we're subsidising through Gift Aid it whether we like it or not.

I agree with you that it's not a great situation. But either we have to say that organisations that promote a particular philosophical or metaphysical point or view can't be charities, or we create two classes of charity: the uncontroversial type that feeds starving kiddies and therefore would qualify for Gift Aid, and the controversial type (in the sense of 'engages in controversy'), which woudn't.

The difficulty would be in drawing the line.

The British taxpayer subsidizes many things that may make them feel uneasy. This post begins to meander into almost Daily Mail territory and could easily be read as a criticism against gift aid itself.

There are plenty of charities that I wouldn't wish to subsidise (like donkey charities which are, in my opinion, useless) but that's not how taxation works.

Incidentally, if your point is more about 'propaganda' then surely that refers not to gift aid but to what constitutes charitable status...something I happily know little about.

x