Chairity wont allow atheist to help.

[Esquilax]

Why? What if no help is needed? This soup kitchen can feed up to 350 people at a time and is open every day. Ten atheists on one Saturday are apparently insignificant to their operations.

Then they should have said that. But they didn't: instead, the atheists were told the reason they weren't being allowed to volunteer was because they were atheists. To try and spin this into a logistics issue is to ignore not only the words coming out of the organizer's mouth, but also the very reason this story became noteworthy at all.

No, you're assuming, and I'm actually researching. I quoted their website as saying that they're open to atheists, humanists, etc. They're excluding theists from membership.

Your assumption is that "open to atheists," is the same as "christians aren't allowed." Which it isn't. At all.

I've since found an announcement regarding their care package giveaway which specifically says they'll accept theist help. Call me a skeptic, but do you think it's possible that they added in this bit og hypocrisy as a CYA measure?

Right, so you found direct evidence contradicting your position, yet you refuse to abandon your original claim. Standard christian operating procedure, then.

The earliest mention of this I can find is the Friendly Atheist post. Do you think he was contacted by the atheist group, or the soup kitchen? Unless you can find something earlier than this which was more likely initiated by the soup kitchen, the evidence indicates that it's the atheists who are publicizing this, and the soup kitchen was likely responding to a request for comment.

The point isn't who started it, but what was done with the attention the story afforded. I thought that was pretty clear in the... exclusive focus I gave to the differences between the two group's approaches. But then... yeah, equivocator.

Actually their first offer had them wearing atheist t-shirts. When turned down, they said they'd do it without the shirts. But, they had already made it clear that getting their message out was part of their motivation.

And what part of "oh, we'll remove any mention of our group when we work there, so is that okay?" shows that the message was a part of their motivation? It's entirely understandable that they'd want to wear a marker of their group initially, you wouldn't slight a christian group for the same thing, but they sacrificed that immediately just so long as they got to help out anyway... and surprise surprise, John manages to accuse them of exactly the opposite of what that action implies.

Oh please, the Christians are clearly doing much, much more than the atheists in this case.

Again, I'm not starting a dick measuring contest. But you got on the atheist's back because they'd dared to get some media attention out of it, so I pointed out that that attention was solely directed toward gaining more help for the cause.

Why are you so desperate to find some non-charitable motivation out of this, but only from the people that aren't on your side?