MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
The Wounded Warrior Project, citing a conflict with the fundraisers policies, refused what was potentially $50,000 in donations from the Liberty Baptist Church and Academy in Fort Pierce, Fla.
"We must decline the opportunity to be the beneficiary of your event due to our fundraising event criteria, which doesn’t allow community events to be religious in nature,” read an email from the WWP community events team. “Please note your registration fee will be refunded within the next 7-10 business days.”
This is friggin ridiculous. If I were laid up in a hospital and receiving treatment for losing both legs, for instance, I wouldn't care if the money came from a religious event. I would just be happy I'm receiving the treatment. Hopefully this church can find another charity that caters to a similar cause. Maybe The Fisher House or something like that. This is a sad display of political correctness IMO.
Church Says Wounded Warrior Project Refused Their Money | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes
So as long as it is premeditated, it's okay. That makes sense........:shock:If that is in their charter the administrators have no legal recourse but to follow it. I would have a problem with it if it were just an arbitrary decision by the administrators.
Well, seeing as how they recently refused the donation from a fundamentalist church, I think that would make sense. Wouldn't you?I can understand the founding Veterans reasons for wanting the charity to be non-partisan. From what I can tell from my internet searches, this only appears to be an issue with the far right, many of whom are associated with fundamentalist churches like Liberty Baptist Academy.
That's the point of this entire thread. It is in violation of their charter and it shouldn't be. Helping wounded vets is the point of their charity and they refused what could have been $50,000 for a useless policy.
So as long as it is premeditated, it's okay. That makes sense........:shock:
Well, seeing as how they recently refused the donation from a fundamentalist church, I think that would make sense. Wouldn't you?
Come on Catawba. You are arguing this point strictly for the fact that what you perceive to be a "right wing" organization gave money. If this were an Islamic group donating, you'd either A) Have no comment of B) Lament the WWP for not taking an opportunity to to bridge the gap between muslims and vets. This is a ridiculous argument. The WWP refused a potentially large donation to avoid any sort of "heat" from the media about being associated with a church, no matter the religion. That it is a Christian church is nothing but a happenstance. Their purpose is to help vets. That just made their job harder. Churches, regardless of the religion, are big money makers for charitites. Many of them may hesitate to give to WWP anymore simply for the fact that they will be refused.
So if Al Queda donated 50K, they should take it?
Your insults are noted. Now back to the topic: Having their organization set up as a non-partisan organization also eliminates the possibility they would be associated with an Islamic Fundamentalists, just as it eliminates them from being associated with Christian Fundamentalists.
I think the founding Veterans were very wise to structure the organization in a non-partisan manner.
Oh he's a master of fallacies. That's why he never receives a response from me when he practices his version of digital diarrhea ie posting.Nice fallacy. Let's say for some reason Al'Queda (a known terrorist organization) wanted to donate 50k, they could not legally take it. It is against the law.
Next fallacy!
IMO, a donation does not associate someone with an organization. If it did, many of our politicians (including your boy Pres Obama) would have a lot of questions to answer. Money is money and that's all there is to it.
Nope, sure wouldn't. As long as they don't sponsor terrorism. As stated before, that would be against the law. Why would I?You would have no problem accepting money from an Islamic Fundamentalist group to fund your organization?
Nope, sure wouldn't. As long as they don't sponsor terrorism. As stated before, that would be against the law. Why would I?
I'm assuming you meant Westboro. Correct? I don't think we'll be seeing those guys donate to WWP anytime soon. And, I can't speak for the founders of WWP. All I can say is that I think their policy is stupid, which it is. They turned down a lot of money from a group of people that did nothing wrong. Unless you consider their gathering to worship their God wrong.What would you call what Westlake Baptist did? Tell me, why do you think the Veterans that founded Wounded Warriors wanted the non-partisan funding policy in their charter?
The Wounded Warrior Project, citing a conflict with the fundraisers policies, refused what was potentially $50,000 in donations from the Liberty Baptist Church and Academy in Fort Pierce, Fla.
"We must decline the opportunity to be the beneficiary of your event due to our fundraising event criteria, which doesn’t allow community events to be religious in nature,” read an email from the WWP community events team. “Please note your registration fee will be refunded within the next 7-10 business days.”
This is friggin ridiculous. If I were laid up in a hospital and receiving treatment for losing both legs, for instance, I wouldn't care if the money came from a religious event. I would just be happy I'm receiving the treatment. Hopefully this church can find another charity that caters to a similar cause. Maybe The Fisher House or something like that. This is a sad display of political correctness IMO.
Church Says Wounded Warrior Project Refused Their Money | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes
I'm sure it will too. It's a reputable church from what I understand. However, the WWP set a bad precedence with this. It may deter other religious groups from giving to them.Just because they aren't working together doesn't mean they aren't both trying to help wounded vets. I'm sure that money will be put to good use.
I'm sure it will too. It's a reputable church from what I understand. However, the WWP set a bad precedence with this. It may deter other religious groups from giving to them.
Many organizations accept donations from churches without being branded "religious". I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's money. The "religious" people's money isn't any different from a private citizen's money. I see what you're saying, but, I think WWP is making a mistake with this.Maybe. I think WWP is simply trying to avoid being branded as a religious organization itself.
I'm assuming you meant Westboro. Correct? I don't think we'll be seeing those guys donate to WWP anytime soon. And, I can't speak for the founders of WWP. All I can say is that I think their policy is stupid, which it is. They turned down a lot of money from a group of people that did nothing wrong. Unless you consider their gathering to worship their God wrong.
Many organizations accept donations from churches without being branded "religious". I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It's money. The "religious" people's money isn't any different from a private citizen's money. I see what you're saying, but, I think WWP is making a mistake with this.
I can't think of any charities off the top of my head that have been criticized for taking money from a church. Do you have any examples?Yes, I meat Westboro, my mistake. IMO, they would have had more people complain if they had not founded their organization on a non-partisan basis.
So if Al Queda donated 50K, they should take it?
Exactly, so what's the difference in relgious people doing it and religious groups? All they are is groups of religious people. Charities like WWP are beyound partisanship I believe. What right minded politician or pundit is going to criticize an organization like WWP for taking that money? None that I know of. WWP and charities like it are almost in the realm of untouchable, policially speaking.Religious people donate all the time. They just have a policy of not accepting donations from religious organizations. In the hyper-partisan country we live in, I can understand why. Tell me, how do we even know this happened...and why do we know it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?