Showing posts with label Philanthropy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philanthropy. Show all posts

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Daily Blend: Thursday, October 18, 2012

| | »
Alber Saber
Alber Saber
  • Deceased parent, leg injury, financial difficulties, and now (treatable) cancer: Please consider helping Greta Christina any way you can.

  • Egyptian lawyer’s rationale for arresting, imprisoning and brutalizing atheist Alber Saber [pictured]: He hurt people’s feelings and insulted God on Facebook. Or, Why Secularism Matters.

  • Christianist hate group goes antivaccination, fear-mongers about HPV vaccine to try and scare underage girls into not having sex.

  • Douche-meister Bradlee Dean is still very, very sore over losing his bogus defamation suit against MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

  • If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

    Thursday, August 23, 2012

    Daily Blend: Thursday, August 23, 2012 [1/2]

    | | »
    Tony Nicklinson
    Tony Nicklinson

    I managed to forget all about posting yesterday’s Daily Blend, so enjoy this double digest edition! (Part 1/2; stupid label length limits. Part 2 here.)

  • Not all evil originates in malice. Mindless adherence to heartless legal principles does the job just fine. (Update: Tony Nicklinson [pictured] finally passed away of pneumonia a week later.)

  • Meanwhile, British “pro-lifer” Richard Carvath devotes 2,700 “love”-filled words to calling Nicklinson a “selfish”, “dishonorable” “coward” and smearing those who wanted him to have the right to die on his own terms as a pro-“murder” “lobby”. Also, Jesus.
    (via @RichardDawkins)

  • Hearteningly positive and insightful write-up about Atheism+ at the New Statesman.
    (via @jennifurret)

  • Guess which virulently homophobic, “traditional values” preacher is now caught in a terribly embarrassing sex scandal today?

  • Once more debunking the patently false claim that nonreligious people are less charitable than believers are. Maybe if poll-takers stopped considering money given to fatten preachers’ wallets as “charity”?

  • Record-setting petty fascism leads an Oklahoma high school to refuse to give top student her diploma because she said “hell” in her valedictorian speech.
    (via The Agitator)

  • If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

    Tuesday, May 01, 2012

    Study: Nonbelievers more compassionate than believers?

    | | »
    Charity

    Interesting: New research seems to indicate that nonbelievers who help others are motivated more by compassion than are charitable religious folks:

    In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the most recent online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

    The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.

    "Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

    Note that this study doesn’t mention whether religious and nonreligious folks are more charitable in general others than one another, but merely looks at their motives for doing what they do. It’s also uncertain whether this study can be interpreted to mean that atheists, agnostics and religious “nones” are actually more compassionate in general than believers are, though I would personally reckon that any such difference, if statistically significant at all, would be too small to merit more than a footnote.

    Arguably, the idea is for people to be charitable and helpful regardless of their reasons for doing so. But it does fit within the general atheistic experience that religious folks who aid others are more likely to do so because of religious teachings – ie. habit, or a sense of responsibility – than purely out of the goodness of their hearts. Of course, this isn’t to say that theists can’t or don’t do good for goodness’s sake, but it does bear thinking that those brought up to believe in sin, penitence and post-mortem judgment may well have different ideas when it comes to how – and why – they should help others.

    (via RichardDawkins.net)

    Friday, March 16, 2012

    Fail Quote: Penn Jillette calls social welfare “immoral self-righteous bullying laziness”

    | | »
    Penn Jillette
    Penn Jillette

    I saw this quote being floated around by libertarian tweeps this morning, and while I was hoping it was quote-mined or otherwise fake, I was able to track it down to this CNN opinion piece, confirming its veracity – and the reason why, yet again, so many people hold libertarianism in contempt. From Penn Jillette (again, sadly), after explaining that he’s both an atheist and a libertarian because he “doesn’t know”:

    It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

    People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

    So, voting to have your elected representatives take a pathetically tiny slice of the overall financial pie and use it to provide critical assistance to the poor, homeless and starving is actually a form of “immoral self-righteous bullying laziness”. Because we’re all totally able to end poverty right this minute if only we’d stop being selfish prigs and give our own money to the poor. I mean, sure, ending government intervention in the matter and relying on private citizens to provide the only aid to the downtrodden would only result in a catastrophically inefficient quagmire with thousands and millions of the very poor suffering and dying in even greater numbers, but hey, at least we’d experience “great joy” for our “moral credit” in refusing to “forc[e] other people” – who we elected to do just that – to “do what [we] think is right”.

    Look, I’m all for encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their own actions and to do things themselves rather than rely on others, but this sort of libertarian “government is bad and shouldn’t be relied on for nothin’!” rhetoric is as ridiculous as any other fringe schtick. Living in society is a contract: You are protected and served by the collective, with your interests watched over by an overarching organization of, by and for the people; and in turn, you must donate some of your own resources (in time and money) in order to keep the wheels turning for everyone. Of course, there will always be faults and points of failure – that’s inherent to any system that relies on people, and the bigger the system (and the more people in it), the greater the problems. But acting like it’s morally condemnable for the more helpless classes of people to rely on said system to do essentially the very job it’s intended to do – keeping them alive and safe to the best of collective’s ability – is more than just irrational; it’s frankly bizarre (not to mention incredibly petty).

    The government is, essentially, an extension of all of us, formed by people we select to work for us. What sense does it make to then turn around and condemn this very group we create and task with the responsibility of watching over us for doing just that – and even moreso, to accuse those who demand just that from it of being “lazy”, “immoral” “bullies”? Or do libertarians really believe that we’d all be better off without any real governing entity and left to our own devices? As caricaturized as that sounds, it’s increasingly similar to the inevitable logical outcome of so many of these ridiculous deregulation and “free market” arguments. (No, the people will not always choose the right thing. In fact, they mostly seem not to. Seriously, what planet do these naive bozos come from?)

    It’s becoming remarkably difficult to defend libertarians when the irrational attacks aimed at them are proving increasingly on the mark.

    (via @maysae)

    Friday, January 27, 2012

    Daily Blend: Friday, January 27, 2012

    | | »
    Rep. Larry Pittman (R-NC)
    Rep. Larry Pittman (R-NC)

    If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

    Thursday, October 27, 2011

    Daily Blend: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 – Late (again), I know!

    | | »
    Tony Perkins (President, Family Research Council)
    Tony Perkins

    I make the effort of turning this into an evening feature and I still keep forgetting to post it. Gah.

    If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

    Thursday, June 17, 2010

    Daily Blend: Thursday, June 17, 2010

    | | »
    Warren Buffet
    Warren Buffet

    There definitely needs to be more websites that allow membership subscriptions through PayPal and the likes rather than relying solely using credit cards. *sighs*

    As always, if you have any story suggestions, feel free to send them in.