Some thoughts on Modern Philanthropy & Humanist Values in a Winners Take All World

by Gary Berg-Cross (WASH Board Member)

The super wealthy are meeting in Davos again and as one context Oxfam notes that the wealth gap widening. This is not a new topic for Oxfam but this year they observe that around the world wealth inequality is what they call "out of control." They observe that it is doing particular harm to women and provide a report with these stats:

“billionaire fortunes increased by 12 percent last year—the equivalent of $2.5 billion a day—while the 3.8 billion people who make up the world's poorest half saw their wealth decline by 11 percent. “

So while we live in what seems a productive time all around us there is also failure (like students learning less), along with but expensive new things like American medicine and its drugs that more people are being shut out from. Sure there has been a tremendous amount of innovation over the last 40 years but still there are stats that show that half of Americans, the bottom half of Americans, 117 million Americans, literally have no more money in their weekly paycheck after this 40 years of innovation. Why?

It doesn seem to be an innovation shortage. Heard about the latest AI renovation? What we have may be a progress shortage. Meaning that in this wealthy era the wealth is not trickling down in a progressive fashion to help the common need.

As Oxfam's report suggests the poorest half of the global population is actually seeing its net worth dwindle so it is also a gap era like the 1920s & the Gilded Age. It's an argument that economist Thomas Piketty, author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, makes and explains why is simple terms. It's about the growing inherited wealth via return on investment.

The ratio of wealth to income is rising in all developed countries and absent extraordinary interventions, we should expect that trend to continue. But if it continues, the future will look like the 19th century, where economic elites have predominantly inherited their wealth rather than working for it. Since this wealth does not rely on work, or work's values it may not even care about the quality of life of those who do the work. And that is a problem.

This point is also made by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Both warn of the socio-economic impacts of a widening gap. Among those problems are changes in the lives of working-class Americans, rooted in policy choices and shifts in technology as well as the world situation. Shifts include outsourcing to poor parts of the world without union protection, stagnant wages, erratic hours, defanged unions, deindustrialization, ballooning debt, nonexistent sick leave, dismal schools, predatory lending, and dynamic scheduling. All problems.

But wait. There is mitigating charity and philanthropy. Can the super-rich and their companies may save us through enlightened charity? Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft has unveiled plans to commit $500 million to advance affordable housing solutions across the city of Seattle, Washington. The money, to be distributed as loans and grants, will kick-start new solutions to the city’s housing crisis, where income increases have lagged behind rising housing costs for professions like teachers. Good.

But is it good enough and the right stuff?

Some think not. Philanthropy of the super-rich may not be an inadequate substitute for a fairer world – it may actually be intentionally and unintentionally part of the system that perpetuates the gross unfairness of mass inequality. That is the argument made in Anand Giridharadas “Winners take all.” He argues that you can inspire the rich to do more good but never tell them to do less harm (such as moderating the wealth gap by imposing inheritance taxes). And he goes to argue that you can inspire the super-rich to give back in a personal charity say, but not to take less by such things as providing a living wage or keeping jobs in the US.

And you can inspire them to join a benign, light solution, but never accuse them of being part of the problem (how come you let foreign sources run free on your web site?)

As Stiglitz insists we need to ask more of the wealthy and have them understand the larger non-economic picture. A humanist picture if you will.

It starts with us all understanding that inequality is not just the result of bottom line economic forces. It is soceo-political and always has been. With current Citizens United type rulings and policies that give wealth political influence we are stuck with the problem. It isn’t inevitable that return on large capital will also be greater than overall economic growth. It is targeted political policies, processes and laws themselves currently make this so. And these policies are affected by the historical level and nature of built in status, political and economic inequality. Greater inequality entrenches greater power in the wealthy, who will reflexively use that greater power to double-down on policies (low capital-gains rates, low inheritance taxes, low barriers to campaign finance itself) that ensure greater inequality, and so on, in a vicious cycle.

So sure, economic charity may patch things up here and there, but in a wider view only an enlightened politics can correct for the depredations that the super-rich's gobbling wealth growth promises.

As a Humanist these problems trouble me. And these things are part of a rationally compassionate future that we envision (as discussed in a September – Is this a Humanist Century). They are important for all Free Thinkers to consider. Humanists need to concentrate on improving the things of this world rather than simply combating the illusions of supernaturalism. As secular humanists we may applaud some charitable efforts, but question them from a deeper look at a deeper constellation or system based on humanist values and principles. These including promoting fairness, truth and justice.

Who can we partner with us and how can be shape philanthropy to take on some of these issues we value like the separation of church and state? This would include the continued problem of the massing of wealth and power by religious and ethically religious groups.

We can also ask, “Does a notable amount of philanthropy support value free inquiry & truth, as a norm?” or

“Does a notable amount of philanthropy support ethics based on critical intelligence and critical thinking to establish truth?”

And what about supporting a moral education, that the value of a person is not entirely based on their group identify?

These and other issues such as how hard a sell is it to promote action that will mitigate likely problems and advance the common good will be discussed at the January 26^th meeting of the WASH Maryland-DC chapter at the Maryland Chevy Chase library (1:30 -3:30).

All are welcome.

Americans United Remains Committed To Protecting The Rights Of Non-Believers ( a response to Mathew Goldstein's Post)

By Rob Boston

I wish to respond to Mathew Goldstein’s recent criticisms of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on this blog.

I have worked at Americans United for 26 years. In that time, I have observed the organization work repeatedly to protect the rights of all Americans – religious and non-religious – to be free from government-sponsored theology. I resent my organization and the good people who work there being called "hypocrites." Such a characterization is not only untrue, it is offensive.

There are many non-believers among AU’s membership, and over the years we have, time and again, stood up for the civil rights and equality of humanists, atheists, agnostics and non-believers. Non-believers have been plaintiffs in just about all of our major cases, among them the challenge to “Ten Commandments” Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, the fight against “intelligent design” in Dover, Pa., and most, recently, our lawsuit against official prayers before municipal meetings in Greece, N.Y.

Americans United is a coalition. Some of our members are religious and some are not. All are dedicated to the principle that government must never impose religion onto the unwilling nor treat anyone as second-class citizen based on what they believe, or don’t believe, about god. We frequently work with religious and secular groups to achieve this goal.

Mr. Goldstein is disappointed in the way that AU dealt with a matter he brought to our attention. Rather than assume that Americans United had abandoned its commitment to protecting the rights of non-believers, perhaps he should have asked if the situation he raised was a strong church-state violation. As it turns out, it may not be.

According to his complaint, Mr. Goldstein is upset because he believes the Maryland Department of Natural Resources is sponsoring a Boy Scout troop. AU’s intake attorney did investigate the matter and was unable to find strong evidence that the department does in fact sponsor the troop. However, after Mr. Goldstein provided some additional information, the attorney referred the matter to AU’s full Legal Department for further review.

That process is ongoing. While things may not be proceeding at the pace Mr. Goldstein would like, it’s important to remember that Americans United receives complaints concerning church-state violations every day. We examine each one, and this can occasionally create a backlog. The file on this matter remains open.

I share the frustration many humanists feel over issues related to the Boy Scouts. Last year, the BSA changed its policies and now allows gay Scouts, but it hasn’t budged on atheists. The BSA’s policy of excluding non-believers is reprehensible, but it has proven a difficult issue to challenge in court. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is a private organization that may legally deny membership to gays and atheists.

After that ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue public schools and other units of government that sponsored Boy Scout troops. In 2005, the BSA recommended that government entities stop sponsoring Boy Scout troops. The BSA was worried that public schools and other arms of government might get sued. Many schools and government offices, worried about the time and expense of a lawsuit, did indeed end sponsorship of Boy Scout troops.

No court ordered them to do this. Thus, there is no case law explicitly stating that units of government may not sponsor BSA troops. From a legal perspective, this is a murky situation.

I am sorry Mr. Goldstein is disappointed, but I want to assure him and others that Americans United has not deviated from its willingness to assist freethinkers. In reality, we’re more than willing to help non-believers and do it all of the time.

For more information about Americans United and the work that we do, please visit www.au.org or email me directly at boston@au.org.