Slashdot Mirror
Charity Refuses Donation Because of D&D Connection
An anonymous reader writes "This year's GenCon Charity Auction
raised over $17,000 which they intended to donate to Gary Gygax's favorite charity,
Christian Children's Fund.
However, the charity refused the donation when they learned of its connection to Dungeons & Dragons." It seems to me all they would need to do is cast remove curse or dispel evil and the money would be fine to use.
In their rush to paint Christians as idiots, the editors failed to notice this addendum to TFA:
Some of my fellow faith-mates do make the rest of us look pretty silly. But the non-religious folks apparently have a knee-jerk reaction that would make Dr. Dobson proud.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
From the link:
Nothing to see hear, Move along.
Just to be clear - they did not turn it down because of the D&D connection but because of policies in place about how they filter the funds they take that may make them appear to endorse events they do not control. This is completely normal and sensible. I am sure they would love to have the money - but they aren't going to put themselves into a position that violates policies put into place for a good reason. And to save you the time of a click and page load:
Christian Childrenâ(TM)s Fund made the decision to decline the gift from Gen Con, LLC as the request presented to us gave the appearance that CCF (the organization) was an endorser or supporter of a gaming convention, which CCF was not. As many non-profit organizations, CCF is selective in its endorsements or support in order to maintain the integrity of its name and logo. We cannot lend our name to an event for which we have no involvement. This decision should in no way be interpreted as CCF holding an opinion on Mr. Gygax, gaming enthusiasts or the game Dungeons and Dragons.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
you're a bigger idiot for not realizing that this is yet more anti-christian fud by slashdot.
thanks for showing us that you're more than willing to drinking the kool-aide.
You're right - they should have checked with the policies of CCF before trying to make a donation and include them in an event. You would think they knew how to read by now, what with all their maps and strategies and characterizations and die casting and whatnot.
Even if the charity is refusing the donation on grounds which are nothing to do with D&D etc. it is still somewhat idiotic that a _charity_ is turning down a donation of any kind. I mean, I can understand if it came from the reincarnation of Hitler or something, but turning down a (high profile) donation because you don't "endorse" the event? What the heck?
Where does all the money go?
Hell, send the money to Child's Play. Great cause and run by gamers.
D&D supports creationism, why else would monsters get spawned? They are not evolved, but just appear in spots = intelligent design.
....idle is pants?
Please stop.
omg, even the comment box sucks on idle (twenty characters wide wtf) anyway, I digress..
you make it sound like christian-bashing is a bad thing.
however, "ooh, some christians have randomly chosen a course of action and now they appear to be bad ppl" isn't really news, is it? religious zealots aren't really known for their rationality.. are they?
btw, as far as I can tell without reading the summary or the article ;P - they appear to think that they're doing some group a favour when that group gives them money. lol.
Won't someone think of the children?
Requiem for the American Dream
I'm sure the kids that would have benefited from the money are completely behind this reasonable decision.
You just spoiled our fun!
I was hoping for a long thread bashing religion and its practitioners. But noooooooooo! You had to go and speak sense about this issue. Not only does it show the rationality of the CCF, but it also shows some rationality on the part of Christians - as much as you can show considering that you're a person that believes that a talking snake got a couple kicked out of the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago. And then later God...god's son...the holy,,,ah fuck it! .. came down and saved us by getting killed by the Romans.
Come on mods, the parent was pretty funny. First thing to make me laugh all day.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
People aren't really known for their rationality. I'm highly suspicious of atheists that claim that icky theists aren't qualified to enter their sacred tree-fort of rationality. Everyone is rational and irrational at various points in their life. I've met plenty of irrational atheists and rational theists.
I mean look at this story. A charity denies a donation because they felt it would imply an endorsement and its against their policy to endorse something that they have no participation in. Ok, I think thats a bad decision, but whatever. People get mad, so they clarify that it has nothing to do with the actual game. Whats the response? Call them a liar so that we have an excuse to break out the torches and pitchforks. Gee, that's so much more rational than, I dunno, taking them at their word and simply donation the money elsewhere.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Come on I knew about this over a month ago, its just now hitting /. ?????
I'm reminded of reporters slamming Ron Paul for taking money from white supremacists. He defended the action, his rationale being along the lines of "better I use it for my message than them for their white supremacy."
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Obama pals around with more than that!
His mentor and advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski created the Mujahideen in July 1979. The same Mujahideen that turned into Al-Qaeda.
He admitted to supporting Pol Pot through China. Pol Pot killed a larger percentage of his own people than anyone else in history.
Brzezinski said it was "one of the happiest days of my life" when he got a taxpayer supported grant and asylum for Chechen terrorist Akhmadov. Russia has wanted to extradite him since 2003.
Obama has stated since July 2007 that he would bomb Pakistan without their consent.
He has supported Georgia's President Saakashvili even though they started the conflict against Russia by firing and bombing civilians.
The last President who had no foreign policy experience and relied on his advisors was George W. Bush
McCain/Palin aren't any better.
I could see CCF's viewpoint if they were the ones giving money to Gen Con, or lending their logo as a sponsor/supporter, but instead, it's Gen Con giving CCF the money. How is accepting a donation supporting the donor? This sounds like BS to me.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
And yet.. an atheist is known as such because of their ability to be repetitively rational when it comes to the issue of whether they believe in some entity whose only purpose seems to be that of an all-powerful punisher should someone fail to comply with the rules provided by earth-based priests.
Likewise, a religious zealot is characterized by their repetitive willingness to abandon rationality.
*cough* idle sucks
Requiem for the American Dream
Jesus loves World of Warcraft, not D and D
"I'm highly suspicious of atheists that claim that icky theists aren't qualified to enter their sacred tree-fort of rationality."
"Gee, that's so much more rational than, I dunno, taking them at their word"
So you're suspicious of atheists but you take Christians at their word. Got it. Any other flagrant bias you'd like to display?
Maybe you should read that again buddy. I said that I'm suspicious of atheists that espouse a with-us-or-against us, we're-better-than-those-other-guys view. In other words, I dislike people that espouse an uninformed and hypocritical world view.
Given that I am an atheist myself, it would be rather odd if I were suspicious of myself.
Any other flagrant bias *you'd* like to display?
They should have the lawful good cleric make the donation next time instead of the chaotic neutral rogue.
Don't attach a name to it. Just submit the donation anonymously.
Bearded Dragon
can *never* be erased!
Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Given the history of D&D being the anti-christ can't you at least understand that people feel persecuted here?
Given the history I think the charity could have come out with something more tender then the "it's again our policy" line. Makes them sound like elitists and confirms to me that these Christian charities aren't really about helping people but about spreading their faith... Ok, well we all knew that from the start, but facts are now confirmed.
You forgot one:
An atheist on Slashdot is characterized by their remarkable ability to build and knock down ridiculous straw men for a religion of which they remain willfully and almost entirely ignorant, and yet continue to claim rationality as their guiding light.
A similar level of ignorance of any other subject on which one would claim to speak intelligibly would rightly result in that person laughed out of the room. Only here can we be so anal about parsing code correctly in joke posts and yet admire ourselves for so completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting all religious belief, belief which has claimed the adherence of many of the greatest minds the world has known.
Paint 'em all dumb, I guess, if it allows me to feel special and earn the fleeting respect of my fellow /.ers.
To reign is to serve.
The Gary Gygax (co-creator of D&D) donated to this group for quite some time without any issues, but after all that, when they don't accept the cash people hurl accusations of D&D hatred? Doesn't work logically imo. It's possible management (therefore their philosophy) changed, but I haven't heard anything about that. While I personally think it makes little sense, imo I think we have to simply accpept the "we don't endorse this game conventions" rationale. It makes more sense than the "we hate D&D, thanks for the cash Gygax!" kneejerk pov.
They ship books, DVDs and video games to US soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and they could certainly use the cash.
Donate Here
yes this is reasonable... i mean there are sick children dying and we don't want to appear to be connected to the "dark arts" so we let them die this is why nso amny people hate chiristianity the religion is to vain its an appearance nnow whether or not the realise it the number of christians is declining because of slack in care for humans
First, yes, this is stupid, but I think I understand what the reasoning might be.
You wonder why they would take Gygax's money, but not the money from the convention? Money from one individual donor is easily 'lost' in the noise, so they probably never knew about the connection. But, I suspect that CCF is worried that if they were publicly associated with taking a moderately large donation from a D&D convention, it would hurt their other donation streams from the conservative Christians.
Unfortunately, people running charities have to deal with all the baggage associated with their donors. They want to help children. You ask why they don't take the 17k and help the children? Because, honestly, taking the 17k now might mean losing 100's of thousands over the next year or two, if there were a backlash amongst evangelicals, so they have to weigh what helps the children the most over the long term.
Often, the evil Slashdotters are aware that the central tenet of at least one flavour of religion is a belief in an all-powerful entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever (indeed it's often claimed '<entity works in mysterious ways>' to disguise the fact that disparate actions attributed to <entity> are most likely unrelated and largely unpleasant). Moreover, despite such lack of evidence, certain religious practictioners set themselves up as having a direct line of communication with the entity in question. These chosen few are thus the natural choice when allocating earthly power; until the entity makes an appearence. How many poor souls have been captured by evil men and women who claim to speak for <entity> ?
Note: to all atheists: I challenge you to find a religious person and have them enlighten you on their chosen specialist subject.. In my experience, the chain of logic leading to '.. and so that's why I believe' breaks down after one step - somewhat far of the mark.
However, given that most of the basis for religion consists of impossible-to-prove and inconsistent hearsay, rightly, laughter finds the appropriate target.
Requiem for the American Dream
There's no way they should accept money from that evil group. Through their books they have corrupted generations and exploited them in pursuit of money. They have taken the minds of children and warped them into obsessive cultists...
Wait, hang on - silly me. I read the article backwards.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
When, in the history of charitable giving, has accepting a donation constituted an endorsement of the donor? They just don't want to have any perceived associated with D&D, at all, which is particularly vile for an organization that claims to be:
a) Christian
b) a Children's fund
This isn't about Christians being pariahs, it's about gamers being pariahs, and adding that statement to the very brief story summary would have in no way changed this fact.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
"I'm highly suspicious of atheists that claim that icky theists aren't qualified to enter their sacred tree-fort of rationality."
"Gee, that's so much more rational than, I dunno, taking them at their word"
So you're suspicious of atheists but you take Christians at their word. Got it. Any other flagrant bias you'd like to display?
Erm... what?!?
The only guys who know for sure why they refused it are the guys who refused it. Are you suggesting it is biased to believe these people over a few paranoid bloggers who have no first hand knowledge of the situation?
Web 2.0 democratic knowledge groupthink theory really has gone mad: the testimony of the guy who was there is now no longer considered of more worth than the guy who read about it several days later and hundreds of miles away.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
The whole stance taken by CFF may make us believe that the non profit organisation itself don't hold an opinion on d&d & related crowd, but they sure did take into account the opinions of their crowd and they truthfully reflect that opinion in their actions.
Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Do you believe in the FSF way of life/software? Do you believe in more of these unproven theories - could I go back through your posts and find you theorizing what would make a better political system, who would be the best leader, or the likes? Those too would be you beliefs in things unseen and unproven if they are at all true.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
WTF? "Persecuted?" PERSECUTED? The act of NOT taking a donation makes you PERSECUTED these days? I can understand that in the past (I'm a table top gamer) there were some religious nuts who promoted the idea that we were vile Satanists who would kill people or commit suicide. But this? This is nothing other than them making a business choice and doesn't even appear to have a damned thing to actually do with gaming at all - after all they were Gygax's favorite charity. The problem is that they used the CCF name without giving CCF the chance to get involved beforehand. Persecuted? *sighs*
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
There seems to be some reasons to choose Evolution as an explanation of how we came to exist. Darwin looked at the world around him and thought something along the lines of "given what I witness first-hand, this seems a reasonable explanation". Since then, that explanation has been demonstrated to be largely accurate, as far as I'm aware. Do you believe in DNA? Do you believe that genes express themselves physically and behaviourally and that these expressions make one more or less compatible with the other genetic expressions around oneself?
What *reasons* exist for choosing what is in effect a parallel of the relationship of parent to child for the whole of mankind? It's just soo tenuous and yet strangely familiar. You've all repeated the dogma so often you've stopped wondering why (IMNSHO tm).
Requiem for the American Dream
Of course I believe in those things though they may well be a case of someone viewing the evidence to support a theory instead of someone viewing the evidence to find the answers.
Also don't assume that I don't believe in evolution, I do though I have my doubts about the extent that people seem to think that it has to have had. It would not surprise me one bit (not much would) if, in the end, it turned out that there was a period of creation by a higher power and from that starting point creatures have continued to adapt or evolve.
I guess that I'm more agnostic and view the belief in evolution to be tantamount to religious beliefs. I know it is common for people here to propose solutions or to believe that they have the answers but, alas, I don't nor do I think one needs to know the answer in order to spot the problem.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No the idiot portion is refusing to accept a donation that helps starving children because of a stupid game. Jason who doesn't have anything to eat will not eat today because D&D money (which has nothing to do with anti-christianism)is unacceptable.
I repeat. ID10T ERROR. Whoever rejected it is a fucking idiot.
Yah yah, but what specifically is it in your experience that leads you to the conclusion that there's an all-powerful creator knocking-around, just beyond some veil of perception ? Hey, even take the reported experiences of others. You see what I'm saying? What *reasons* do you or anyone else have for all choosing the same belief based on the 'evidence'/your experiences?
Requiem for the American Dream
IF the donor really wants to support their fav charity,
let them put $17,000 into an plain, unmarked envelope
& ship it to the CCF's treasurer, marked "Anonymous
Donation" (or, to disguise the source further, they can
also slice that amount of money into parts, and ship
the parts in various, separate envelopes, variously
addressed by different hands and/or computer-labels
with various fonts/character attributes / sizes, etc.
Simple test...
Ah, now all those postings looking for someone who is D&D free make so much more sense.
It makes more sense to me, having looked at the evidence, that there was a creator. For there to be similar DNA or genetic patterns only means, to me, that there were some of the same building blocks. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence supporting that we arose from a primordial ooze and evilolved from single cell proteins. To think that that is the case is illogical without evidence. It is as illogical as my belief that there's some sort of creator.
Then again, well, my beliefs aren't exactly typical. The biblical description of the Earth's creation is, to me, unlikely. At the same time, that we came from the mysterious ooze entirely by luck is equally absurd and don't get me started on the whole Big Bang... People BLINDLY accept these as fact when they're just theories. They then turn into frothing zealots when they're called on it. It sort of reminds me of the religious folk Bible banging only with the Bible replaced with "science" dogma.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Ok, but why choose 'all powerful creator' rather than some other explanation ? Forgetting if you are able that that's exactly what everyone else chooses..
Requiem for the American Dream
Now if I could just type... *sighs* Pardon the typos.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I stated that already. It is more logical to me. We most likely came from somewhere, something, or somebody. That somewhere is unexplained by any of the theories out there. If it defies explanation then it must be beyond the scope of what we know at this time. Right now we don't know, this could change. Thus my belief is that we were created by something as that makes more sense to me than any of the other theories I've read. If someone provides conclusive evidence to the contrary then I'll certainly admit that I'm wrong but, until such a time, I'm quite comfortable with my process and the results.
And no, this isn't what everyone else chooses, it isn't even close to what most people choose I imagine. It isn't my belief that there's a heaven or hell. I have no idea if that Jesus dude actually rose from the dead or not. I don't offer prayers to this creator as I have no idea who/what he/she/it is. I figure the Bible, at least the New Testament, is a good way to live one's life but I'll be damned if I'm that good a person so I don't even bother trying really.
So no, I'm not at all like everyone else in my beliefs. You can, if you'd like, believe in the FSM, God as is Biblical, any ol' number of other gods, nothing, or scientific theories. So far as I know there's not a damned one of them right but with the lack of evidence that I have I've concluded that this makes the most sense to me for the reasons already listed.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that people who are scientists - who insist on PROOF before reaching a conclusion - believe in a theory as law? What's more absurd to you, coming from a creator or a puddle of goop? Those are questions for you - not for me. You can believe any ol' thing you want as far as I care. One theory is as good as any other.
Again, if you'd like you're free to espouse all sorts of things and such but without any proof I'm mostly going to view you as I do the Jehovah's Witnesses. I think most religious people (that includes those who's religion is atheist or pseudoscience) are a bit too zealous in *sharing* their beliefs and a bit touched in the head when they sit there and argue with each other trying to make the other person believe the way that they do.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Thats not cool. Racism against geekdom for sure. All people are not alike. It is unfair to categorize.
I for one find it high sport to bait anyone who has firm beliefs and challenge them in debate. It is highly enjoyable to have the oh so classic "quote the bible" duel when you yourself doesn't believe the dogma one bit. It just isn't near as much fun if you don't know the material in depth.
Oh yeah anyone wanna debate string theory with me? yes according to the math I am made of donut batter :P
Just have the money donated anonymously. CCF gets the benefit of the cash, GenCon gets the karma. Everybody wins, and nobody endorses anyone.
oz
Sorry to put this here but, I have to ask, did you see my response to you (the original one) as flamebait? I've got karma to burn and I don't even remotely get offended by that but if you personally did (you're the one I was responding to) saw it as such then I'm sorry for that but I was actually not trying to offend at all but rather asking what I feel are legit questions concerning your statements. Hell, I think I even played nicely throughout our conversation.
Hmm... I could say that I might have been seemingly trolling you but, really, I don't *think* I was, at least not intentionally. I was questioning what seemed rather presumptious statements to ensure that I had your viewpoint understood to the best of my ability. My own personal views/opinions/beliefs are so absolutely different that I don't think anyone would really want to know them or anything but you seemed to want to know so I asked and then shared. Meh... I hope you're not offended or the likes and you don't think I was flaming you or attempting to have you flame me.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Hmmn. You don't seem new (at least according to your user id) but perhaps you don't know that it's not possible to post and moderate to the same thread.. so it can't have been me.
Also, pay no attention to the flamebait moderation; everyone has different ideas about what is or isn't trolling/flamebait. I didn't for one moment think you were trolling; although I did think "please answer the damn question!" a few times :)
Requiem for the American Dream
Do you know what "irony" is? Making a strawman argument about people who make strawman arguments pretty much qualifies.
Not all atheists are ignorant of religion; in my experience more atheists have read the Bible cover to cover than religious folks. And the hilarity of asserting the misrepresentation of all religious belief - as if you, by virtue of being one religion, were automatically qualified to comment on all other religions. How naive is that?
There are intelligent, cogent, and powerful questions that atheists pose to religion. Epicurus asked a very valid question several thousand years ago, and to date there haven't been any good answers (by good I mean merely good enough to convince a majority of religious people). Before ranting about the ignorance of others, perhaps you should remove the beam from your own eye...
I'm an atheist becasue I have studied religion. Hell, I know many religuos texts better then the people that believe.
Not that showing them exactly why they are wrong in there own book of belief actually changes their mind.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The image of Jesus giving two thumbs up was the first thought. My second thought was "so what". In the worse case scenario the CCF thinks D&D is evil. It maybe sad but it's not a surprising stereotype being applied by both sides.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
You're hoping for some empirical basis for religious belief, I think, something that would pass muster in the lab. You won't find anything quite like that, but then again (as almost touched on by KGill) you won't find it for many things you already believe.
Do you believe that anything beyond your own mind actually exists? That people around you are real minds and that your experiences of the world represent genuine interaction with genuine things? What about something even more basic: that truth is preferable than falsehood, or even knowable at all? These things you cannot prove empirically, you have to take them on faith as starting points in order to get to empirical thinking in the first place. Anything beyond the most clean-lined solipsism is faith.
And speaking of empiricism and reason, a strictly mechanical naturalism is itself irrational, as it depends upon a logical fallacy. If you rely strictly upon empirical evidence to determine what is true, you must discard empiricism itself out of hand as being beyond empirical proof. If you take its principles as your starting point without first proving them, you are inconsistent. If you attempt by empirical means to prove empiricism, you beg the question. If, on the other hand, you accept empiricism as a useful tool for testing questions, you must allow for other means of knowing, or at least strongly suspecting, something to be true.
I have my reasons for what I believe, and they certainly do not include repeating dogma to myself over and over until I forget to question it. As Dostoevsky said, "It is not as a child that I believe and confess Christ Jesus. My Hosanna is born in a furnace of doubt." Long periods of my life have been spent navigating doubt, which is not (as is often said) the opposite of faith, for faith makes room for doubt even as it seeks to understand more deeply and more clearly. I have experienced small miracles and glimpses of mysteries that have been given as assurances to me when I needed them most, but none of these are matters either amenable to or requiring empirical investigation on my part, no more than I feel the need to investigate my wife's spontaneous kisses or gifts or her motivations in giving them.
Beware of buying into the horrible simplistic view of faith often promulgated in the media, here in comments on Slashdot, or from the loud obnoxious people on street corners. The vast majority of religious believers (Christian or otherwise) do not fit that stereotype, and many find it rather offensive. There are literally billions of Christians alone, and billions more of other faiths, all over the world, who deserve more consideration than to be painted with the same broad and inaccurate brush.
To reign is to serve.
As a rule I don't reply to anons, but you seem both sincere and intelligent so I'll make an exception.
/. picture of all religious people as blithering idiots unacquainted with rational thought is ridiculous, and is rooted mainly in a complete failure to even attempt to fairly understand what one would critique.
I didn't, and wouldn't, say that all atheists are ignorant of religion. I have atheist friends who are quite conversant in various religions from around the world. I think your experience is a bit skewed if it is really true that more atheists you know have read the Bible than religious (I assume you mean Christian) people, but I'll certainly allow that it could be an unusual but accurate assessment of people around you (then again, maybe you don't know many religious people well enough to make that statement?).
I'm certainly not qualified to make in-depth theological critiques of all of the world's religions, but I have a masters degree in theology and have a certain level and depth of knowledge--enough to know that the typical
And yes, there have been some great and difficult questions posed by atheists (including my atheist friends and colleagues) that should be taken seriously. If, however, the same consideration is not reciprocated, any semblance of a higher moral ground disappears pretty quickly--e.g., "sky wizard" and flat earth comments, which have manifestly failed to engage with actual (and ancient) Christian teaching and belief. By all means ask hard questions, but do so perhaps a bit less disingenuously.
To reign is to serve.
Jesus was the greatest priest ever dont let the bible fool you his stories and adventure all lie withing the D&D realms =D
Great minds are not exempt from great errs in judgment.