Questions and Discussion of Nominations

Josh F

Level 2 Member
Charity Forum Mod
#1
Criteria for nominations:
  • Must be nonprofit or equivalent
  • Must be at least 3 years old
  • Must meet our quarterly focus
  • Should be at least 80% efficient (% of money that goes to program expenses)
    • Note: If your charity is less than 80% efficient, you can still make a case for why they should be selected.
Template for nominations:
  • Name:
  • Physical Headquarters Location:
  • Web URL:
  • Starting Year:
  • Efficiency:
  • Type of Charity:
  • Basic Description/Mission Statement:
  • Why you are nominating them?:
Suggested Resources:
 

Matt

Administrator
Staff member
#2
Please do not submit charities here, this thread is intended for asking questions about process, or any discussion on charities that have already been submitted.

For submissions, please use the format in the post above, and submit your charity HERE.
 
Last edited:

wasser

Level 2 Member
#3
Samaritan's Purse is run by Franklin Graham, who actively campaigns to stop the "homosexual agenda."
He supports Putin's anti-gay agenda, saying: "Isn’t it sad, though, that America’s own morality has fallen so far that on this issue—protecting children from any homosexual agenda or propaganda—Russia’s standard is higher than our own? In my opinion, Putin is right on these issues. Obviously, he may be wrong about many things, but he has taken a stand to protect his nation’s children from the damaging effects of any gay and lesbian agenda."
http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/march-2014/putins-olympic-controversy/

Samaritan's Purse also contributed 150K to support the political campaign for traditional marriage.
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012...nt-150k-on-marriage-discrimination-amendment/

It seems there has to be other hunger charities that don't have a political and/or a radical religious agenda.
 

Matt

Administrator
Staff member
#4
Samaritan's Purse is run by Franklin Graham, who actively campaigns to stop the "homosexual agenda."
He supports Putin's anti-gay agenda, saying: "Isn’t it sad, though, that America’s own morality has fallen so far that on this issue—protecting children from any homosexual agenda or propaganda—Russia’s standard is higher than our own? In my opinion, Putin is right on these issues. Obviously, he may be wrong about many things, but he has taken a stand to protect his nation’s children from the damaging effects of any gay and lesbian agenda."
http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/march-2014/putins-olympic-controversy/

Samaritan's Purse also contributed 150K to support the political campaign for traditional marriage.
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012...nt-150k-on-marriage-discrimination-amendment/

It seems there has to be other hunger charities that don't have a political and/or a radical religious agenda.
One distinction I would like to make is there is a difference between the good that people can do, and their underlying agenda.

The correlation I would draw with this is War. While I rarely agree with war as a concept, or the underlying agenda's behind military action, I will always respect our brave men and women who go out there to do the work. I mention this because Samaritans Purse was proposed by a reader here who was with them in the field doing good work - that shouldn't be discounted.

I do agree with the concern about supporting the overall agenda that you have highlighted in this post.
 

ElainePDX

Level 2 Member
Premium Supporter
#5
Samaritan's Purse is run by Franklin Graham, who actively campaigns to stop the "homosexual agenda."
He supports Putin's anti-gay agenda, saying: "Isn’t it sad, though, that America’s own morality has fallen so far that on this issue—protecting children from any homosexual agenda or propaganda—Russia’s standard is higher than our own? In my opinion, Putin is right on these issues. Obviously, he may be wrong about many things, but he has taken a stand to protect his nation’s children from the damaging effects of any gay and lesbian agenda."
http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/march-2014/putins-olympic-controversy/

Samaritan's Purse also contributed 150K to support the political campaign for traditional marriage.
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2012...nt-150k-on-marriage-discrimination-amendment/

It seems there has to be other hunger charities that don't have a political and/or a radical religious agenda.
I agree with Matt and also thank you for shedding more light on this organization. If I remember correctly, we get to vote. Certainly anyone who votes should consider this info when they make their choice.
 

smittytabb

Moderator
Staff member
#7
I agree with Matt and also thank you for shedding more light on this organization. If I remember correctly, we get to vote. Certainly anyone who votes should consider this info when they make their choice.
I am glad to see this information. This insight alone makes my vote an easy one.
 

Matt

Administrator
Staff member
#8
So I see 3 paths here:

  • Leave both charities in, include the data from Wasser.
  • Do not vote, and run with only other nomination, should it prove suitable.
  • Add in another charity to a vote with either of the above two options.

Thoughts?
 

wasser

Level 2 Member
#9
So as to not to slow things down, perhaps you could add some charities from the list you provided.
Even though I wouldn't vote for Samaritan's Purse, I think it should be on the list for those who may
want to support it.

Perhaps you could list the charities to be voted on as in the following example: (The links provide a mission statement, and in the case of CWS - a list of the church denominations that support it.)

Church World Service - International (Interdemoninational) http://www.cwsglobal.org/who-we-are/leadership/members.html
Samaritan's Purse - International (Evangelical Christian) http://www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/statement-of-faith/
Feeding America - USA (no religious affiliation) http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/about-us.aspx
Oxfam - International (no religious affiliation) http://www.oxfam.org/en/about
 

Josh F

Level 2 Member
Charity Forum Mod
#10
So I see 3 paths here:

  • Leave both charities in, include the data from Wasser.
  • Do not vote, and run with only other nomination, should it prove suitable.
  • Add in another charity to a vote with either of the above two options.

Thoughts?
While I won't be voting for Samaritan's Purse for Heterosexual People Only, I think they both should be left in, but the data regarding their views should be included in the voting thread. If we throw another charity or two into the mix that wouldn't be a bad thing either in my view to provide some additional options. It's too bad there were so few nominations in the end.
 

Matt

Administrator
Staff member
#11
While I won't be voting for Samaritan's Purse for Heterosexual People Only, I think they both should be left in, but the data regarding their views should be included in the voting thread. If we throw another charity or two into the mix that wouldn't be a bad thing either in my view to provide some additional options. It's too bad there were so few nominations in the end.
True. I hope we can make an impact in this quarter and cut a big check that might get more engagement on that side next time around.
 

Haley

I am not a robot
#12
I won't be voting for Samaritans Purse, but I think they qualify based on the guidelines.

I also think it is only fair to point out that Samartians Purse has been one of the few US groups on the ground in Liberia; one of the doctors that was infected with Ebola (who recovered after being evacuated to Atlanta) was working for them (and SIM).
 

smittytabb

Moderator
Staff member
#13
I was going to nominate Bread for the World http://www.bread.org/ but decided not to because it is a religious affiliated organization. It fits the original criteria for the nominations, however I was out of the country and didn't have the necessary time to fully research if there was anything that might be objectionable about the organization or those who run it. I just ran out of time before the nominations closed. It might be one to consider.
 

f0xx

Level 2 Ninja
#16
First blush is to look at firms like Charity Navigator et al for details, and then drilling down to that level as and when needed.
I say that because I like being able to see the break down of where their money is going. If it's actually going to places etc.etc.
 

Matt

Administrator
Staff member
#17
I say that because I like being able to see the break down of where their money is going. If it's actually going to places etc.etc.
Yep, as do we. The charity navigator angle is useful to give us a high level overview of that, if it passes that with flying colors we are likely in better shape to dig into the 990, if it fails, then it is likely that digging into the 990 is less necessary, unless it can be explained as to why and we can look further.
 

sriki

Level 2 Member
#18
A little late to this conversation.But here we go.

Unwarranted bias against a certain group of people will definitely not get my vote. But, I cannot say the same for religious group doing charity work. One group feeds to fear and hatred whereas the other (hopefully) tries to preach some good (though unsolicited)
 

f0xx

Level 2 Ninja
#19
It seems there has to be other hunger charities that don't have a political and/or a radical religious agenda.
Everyone has an agenda.
LGBT has an agenda.
Anti-Gay has an agenda.
Leftists have an agenda.
Right wing has an agenda.
Independents have an agenda.

I mean.... Seriously?
Charities have an agenda.
NGO's have an agenda.

Want me to continue?
 
#20
Everyone has an agenda.
LGBT has an agenda.
Anti-Gay has an agenda.
Leftists have an agenda.
Right wing has an agenda.
Independents have an agenda.

I mean.... Seriously?
Charities have an agenda.
NGO's have an agenda.

Want me to continue?
No! Human rights are NOT an agenda. Think what you want, practice what you preach, just don't try to impede the human and civil rights of others. They are NOT optional. (I'd add IMHO but I'm anything but humble and I'm expressing my opinion, figure it out!)
 

f0xx

Level 2 Ninja
#21
No! Human rights are NOT an agenda. Think what you want, practice what you preach, just don't try to impede the human and civil rights of others. They are NOT optional. (I'd add IMHO but I'm anything but humble and I'm expressing my opinion, figure it out!)
I'm all for human rights.... but you don't think there is a human rights agenda?
Did you not recently see the UN that just happened a few days ago where they addressed their agenda on human rights, especially women's right and homosexuality?

THAT is an agenda. It's an agenda that's being pushed from the top down. Look around you. Why do you think you're seeing it from the media? Social media? Blogs? etc.

It's an agenda.

Like I said. EVERYONE has an agenda whether you like it or not.
 

wasser

Level 2 Member
#22
Everyone has an agenda.
You're right, everyone does have an agenda. However, not everyone has a "radical religious" agenda. So, I would edit my sentence to say: It seems there has to be other hunger charities that don't have a radical religious agenda.
 
#23
I'm all for human rights.... but you don't think there is a human rights agenda?
Did you not recently see the UN that just happened a few days ago where they addressed their agenda on human rights, especially women's right and homosexuality?

THAT is an agenda. It's an agenda that's being pushed from the top down. Look around you. Why do you think you're seeing it from the media? Social media? Blogs? etc.

It's an agenda.

Like I said. EVERYONE has an agenda whether you like it or not.
Actually since I was out of the country and then dealing w/vacation trauma for several weeks I didn't see it. Moving on.

Unfortunately over the past several years the different definitions of "agenda" have been evolving and the second--or third depending on your dictionary source-- has become somewhat pejorative. Definition
#1) A list of items to be discussed at a formal meeting
#2)The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.
I believe you are dealing with #2 and the UN and other organizations are using it with respect to the first definition--or not-- but that doesn't really matter.

To quote Amnesty International, one of the oldest organizations working in the field of human rights: "Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.

Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, and the right to work and receive an education. Human rights are protected and upheld by international and national laws and treaties."

Lots of other definitions but you will find a common thread. Human rights are an idea, a concept, freedoms, moral precepts, a focus, principals or norms, define it as you will --rights inherent to all human beings. Period. It's false equivalency to compare it to an agenda.

Moving forward, we now have organizations that may have a mission statement, a goal, an objective, an agenda with regard to human rights. Just because various organizations have an "agenda" or mission with regard to human rights does NOT make "human rights" an agenda.

Many organizations around the world dedicate their efforts to protecting human rights and ending human rights abuses. Different points of view, different agendas and missions. There are various UN organizations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Human Rights Action Center, Human Rights Without Frontiers, etc. These are all advocacy organizations--advocating for human rights from their individual perspectives or points of view. It's controversial, lots of arguments and disagreements between first world and third world countries. HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT AN AGENDA.

Finally, I need to retract a statement I made previously with regard to the inclusion/exclusion in voting of charities with an agenda or those that discriminate. I get irrational when organizations (especially religious organizations who receive government giveway non-profit, non taxable status and are using my money/taxes to discriminate) promote discrimination against LGBT individuals. I get irrational when I hear LGBT "lifestyle"--how much research does one need, it's not a choice! Imagine if you woke up one day and being straight was illegal--put yourself (generic yourself, not f0xx) in those shoes.

However, I've been an ACLU member for more than 50 years and I've sat through many a board meeting where members and board members alike threatened to resign, to blacklist, threatened to do all sorts of things because ACLU was defending free speech and the free speech rights of neo-Nazis, Nazis or other proponents of hate speech. One either believes in free speech or not, no exceptions. As long the mission of a nominated charity passes the test of the committee and is clear and fully visible to voting members, all that past the guidelines should be available for voting. Then,if an organization that discriminates wins, it's up to Matt to decide if he can support it with his dollars.

soapbox.jpg Annie
 
Top