Good Without God, Part 2

The community of atheist activists, who are constantly and self-righteously judging religion as evil, seem to be plagued with some very serious and persistent ethical problems.  First there were the accusations of embezzlement associated with Richard Dawkins Foundation, then the accusations of embezzlement associated with the Secular Coalition for America. 

Next come the accusations of the embezzlement associated with the Apostacon.

Then along comes the accusations of the sexual harassment against Richard Carrier associated with his work for the Secular Student Alliance, made more troublesome by the fact that Carrier is sleeping with the wife of the man who heads the SSA. 

Starting to notice a pattern?

And now we have atheist Neil Carter’s lengthy account concerning his work with the Recovering from Religion. Carter wrote a blog post that is quite long, but well written and worth the read.

He puts his finger on something that is indeed odd with so many of these atheist activist organizations:

The longer I’ve spent interacting with people active among the many orgs and non-profits within the secular community, the more I noticed thateverything seemed to be shrouded in secrecy.

Every organization seemed to blanket their dealings with nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), which would make sense for large media-related organizations which require embargos on important press releases and other creative projects. But why would so many smaller nonprofits include NDA clauses covering financial dealings, donation records, receipts, and other such matters of public interest? Why the distinctive lack of transparency, and I mean across the entire secular movement?

Great questions.

Carter tells his story is quite a bit of detail.  Rather than having me summarize it,  take the time to read it.  Here are a couple of excerpts to spark your interest:

I see. So let me get this straight. The board of Recovering from Religion loves me, and values what I have to bring to their organization. They feel I’m a rock star with their base and they want us to partner up together for the foreseeable future. If I reject their offer, however, they are going to come after me and it’s going to get ugly. They aren’t going to be gentle, whatever that means. But let’s not talk about that right now. If I will simply agree to join back up with them, all of these disputes will simply go away and we can all be friends again. Everybody wins.

[…]

So in other words, I would be completely at his mercy, without a written agreement of any kind, pursuing a new relationship performing functions previously not included in the already completed contract, but for no compensation, and with no discernible expiration date whatsoever. And if at any point he personally (rather than any legal officer of the organization) felt I wasn’t performing to his own satisfaction, they would take their grievances against me onto their social media spaces, written entirely by him (not the board and staff of RFR), in order to discredit me among our mutual supporters via email and Facebook rather than through the legally prescribed avenues of arbitration spelled out in my previous contract.

[…]

In fact, I’m almost certain there is a word for this. What do you call it when you threaten someone, using language clearly meant to intimidate them, but then offer to forgo the retribution as long as the other party surrenders a portion of some good or service from which they ordinarily derive their livelihood? The term has slipped my mind, but maybe it’ll come to me.

[…]

Over the past few months of working within the atheist movement I have begun to detect a pattern. The revelations of the last couple of weeks have made it clear to all of us that a whole lot of organizational work within the secular movement happens without a lot of standard safeguards to ensure that people don’t misbehave, or take advantage of other people. This creates a breeding ground for unethical behavior, not only on the part of individuals who would take advantage of the situation, but also on the part of organizations who find ways around their own rules (rules which they probably wrote themselves anyway) in order to do whatever they want to do.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, atheist activism, atheist news, atheist wars, Morality, social justice atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Good Without God, Part 2

  1. Kevin says:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2016/06/response-to-neil-carters-rebuttal/

    Looks like JT tried to counter Neil and is getting eviscerated in the comments. Reason and rationality to the rescue once again.

  2. Michael says:

    Wow. Thanks for posting that link.

  3. Dhay says:

    > The community of atheist activists …

    As “Godless in Dixie” blog author Neil Carter says in passing in his “lengthy account” linked in the OP that, “… the atheist movement is a tiny bubble …”; and in a later blog post he answers a responder with, “But this is a tiny bubble of a subculture …”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/06/01/telling-the-truth-but-telling-it-slant/#comment-2724026799

    Hmm, Jerry Coyne keeps crowing about how the percentage of “nones” keeps growing; but the opinion of a fairly prominent atheist activists is that the atheist movement is “a tiny bubble.”

  4. TFBW says:

    #TroubleIn #Rationalia

  5. Dhay says:

    “Generally speaking any charitable/non-profit organization who spends less than 2/3 of it’s income on expenses other than the programs for which they exist is highly suspect. In this case, RfR spends roughly 20% of it’s income on programs, and about 80% on administrative and other expenses.”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2016/06/my-final-report-on-neil-carter-and-recovering-from-religion/#comment-2707366701

  6. Dhay says:

    Neil Carter assesses that “… the atheist movement is a tiny bubble …”.

    Contrast that with the theist movement, which in Carter’s USA is a vast network of congregations, which is a metaphorical ocean.

  7. stcordova says:

    Thanks Kevin for the link. Oh my science, that was hilarious:

    “You’re asking a bunch of skeptics to believe you when you say you have proof if only you could let us see it. From my perspective, until that happens, you are simply a biased source asking everyone to trust you.”

    also this:

    “My Humanist group had a couple of treasurers over the years abscond with the group funds”

    Ouch!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s