Skip to comments.Church Says Wounded Warrior Project Refused Their Money
Posted on 02/04/2013 5:30:34 PM PST by lqcincinnatus
A Christian church and school in Florida are devastated after they said Wounded Warrior Project refused to accept their fund raising effort because it was religious in nature.
We were heartbroken, said Wallace Cooley, pastor of Liberty Baptist Church and Academy in Fort Pierce, Fla.
Cooley said they had already paid a $100 registration fee to raise money for the Wounded Warrior Project and were about to launch the campaign when they received an email from the organization.
The church had planned on taking up a special offering on the last Sunday in February and students were collecting money from family and friends.
(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...
Steven Nardizzi, the $319k/year Executive Director of Wounded Warrior Project, fumbled badly out of the gate in his efforts to diffuse the brouhaha over his groups refusal to participate on Gun Talk Radio last weekend on Veterans Day.
The whole disaster was spurred when their communications director declined the invitation to promote WWP on Gun Talk Radio because of the gun-related content of the nationally syndicated radio show.
Late last week, WWP announced their executive director would appear on Greshams show to clarify the WWP position, in addition to offering some weaselese language that they respected everyones right to their rights to gun ownership sorta like President Obama begins his self-description. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but
Nardizzi, for being so well-paid, utterly fumbled.
He tried to spin his way out of the mess but only managed to spin himself in deeper, offering all sorts of weak excuses why WWP couldnt partner with gun-related sponsors. He cited sponsorships with cyclists and how WWP had cut back on those sponsorships because of some sort of inferior return on investment.
Gresham pressed Nardizzi, saying that WWP had even changed language on their website from firearms to the more incendiary word weapon.
Nardizzi offered every excuse imaginable, but in the end Gresham pinned him down as saying that while gun owners are absolutely welcome to send money to WWP, they could not use the logo.
Gresham said that sounds an awful lot like WWP not wanting to associate with gun owners. Well take your money, but we dont want to be seen with you, Gresham said, paraphrasing him.
Nardizzi tried to deny this, but it was a lost cause to anyone with half a lick of common sense and intelligence.
Well take your money and you can do fundraisers for us, but we wont let you use our logo! Tom says, mocking Nardizzis attempts to spin the truth.
Thanks, dd...although I admit it isn’t any clearer to me. Either they do or they don’t have a policy, and if they do have one, are they just trying to change it under the radar so they don’t attract attention?
This is something fishy about this to me.
If they do accept from religious organizations, there isn’t an issue.
If they don’t, why not? Non-profit regulations of some kind? Tax reasons? Atheist groups watching their every move, waiting to pounce? Leadership at WWP dislike religious organizations and want nothing to do with them?
From that story it appears they think churches will collect money under false pretenses.
Well, it is probably true there are at least a few “churches” out there that might, but I wouldn’t think that would be widespread.
Steven Nardizzi’s passion for helping wounded veterans began as a temporary job to help him afford night classes at law school.
Here’s MY “criteria”.
If you reject fundraising by organizations, religious in nature, I will find a different way to support those in need.
There was some sort of rift over firearms related donations as well. Seems odd to me.
I’m a disabled vet and I don’t think I’ll give to them anymore.
Good question. They seem to spend a lot on advertising - including a Superbowl ad if I’m not mistaken. How many vets could have been helped for life vs. the cost of one ad. Maybe they’ll raise 5 times the cost of the ad, who knows. But in my experience, charity is best when it comes from the heart at a personal level. No overhead, no politics.
The evidence points strongly to the contrary. Your position appears to be pulled from thin air.
My money will go to support organizations with a real agenda of helping those whom they profess to be helping.
WWP simply is not even close to being there. They have an agenda, maybe even a mission, but certainly not a cause,at least not the one they profess.
Seems they do not want support/donations from those of us that cling to our religion and/or guns. Where have we heard that before? Also seems the amount of money for their overhead is pretty high. I don’t think they need a donation from hubby and I anymore either.
“What is your take on this?”
Sounds a little funky to me, Bob. Don’t know those folks personally.
I’ve been getting by and thanks for asking. The young one has turned out to be a smart-ass, right-wing, war mongering little piece of work. What’s a proud Dad supposed to do?
“Good question. They seem to spend a lot on advertising - including a Superbowl ad if Im not mistaken. How many vets could have been helped for life vs. the cost of one ad. Maybe theyll raise 5 times the cost of the ad, who knows. But in my experience, charity is best when it comes from the heart at a personal level. No overhead, no politics.”
Yep. When my older boy got killed, I suggested that people donate to charities. But I did try and vet a few, even at that inopportune time. Fischer House, Navy and Marine Corps Relief Society and another that doesn’t come immediately to mind all checked out pretty well as far as percentage of funds passed through. My son was no fool and I wasn’t going to get duped at the time just because I was vulnerable.
And what does Trace Atkins get in return for his shilling for them?
“I remember a few months ago that WWP refused donations from a group that supported 2nd amendment issues.”
I believe you are correct. I think if a charitable organization doesn’t want my money because they don’t like me, my culture or my positions, some other charity at least as worthy will.
No big deal, just don’t call me in the future.
Does that mean his compensation is less than one percent or more than 50 percent of expenses?
At $319,692 I would have to think the latter since that would be a TON of “expenses” otherwise.
Awesome. I like the sound of that...:)
Really? The same Wound Warrior group that uses the song “Say a prayer for peace” won’t accept money raised by religious groups?
So they’ll use religion to get money but not accept money if it’s religious in nature... gotcha...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.