Mandisa Thomas on Secular Leadership, Black Nonbelievers, and the Fight for Church-State Separation

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/24

Mandisa Thomas (she/her/hers) is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam. 

Mandisa has many media appearances, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as NPR’s Code Switch and 1A and the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa serves on the Board for Humanist Global Charity and previously served on the Board for American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, Foundation Beyond Belief (now GO Humanity), and the Secular Coalition for America.

In 2022, Mandisa was featured on the Atlanta billboard and newspaper ad for the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “I am Secular and I Vote” campaign. She has also received multiple honours, including the 2022 Wolfson Award. She is a co-recipient of the 2020 Harvard Humanist of the Year.

Thoma shares insights with Scott Douglas Jacobsen into the organization’s ongoing fundraising efforts, mission, and challenges as a secular nonprofit. She discusses the disparities secular organizations face compared to religious institutions, especially in funding and visibility. Thomas emphasizes the importance of inclusive support, joint fundraising, monthly donations, and the impact of large grants. The conversation also addresses church–state separation issues and how current policies threaten public education and secular values. This interview highlights Thomas’s leadership, advocacy, and the vital role of Black Nonbelievers in promoting equity and representation in the secular movement.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here once again with the lovely Mandisa Thomas, a longtime and well-known leader in the secular and atheist activist community, particularly in the United States. It is fundraising season, so what is currently happening with Black Nonbelievers and its fundraising efforts? 

Mandisa Thomas: Thank you very much for speaking with me again, Scott. Black Nonbelievers, like many nonprofit organizations, is in the middle of our mid-year summer fundraising campaign. Much of the support we raise goes toward the co-sponsorship of the Zora Neale Hurston Scholarship, which we administer in partnership with the Secular Student Alliance. The funds also help cover ongoing operational expenses, such as streaming services, Meetup group fees, and materials needed for outreach and tabling at events.

This summer has been especially active. We were exhibitors at several key events, including the American Humanist Association’s annual conference, the protest at the Ark Encounter in Kentucky, the Secular Student Alliance’s national conference, and NanoCon (the Nashville Nones Convention). All of these initiatives—travel, booth supplies, merchandise restocking—require significant resources, which makes our summer fundraising drive essential.

We host this campaign each year to replenish our funds and sustain both our direct operations and the broader support we provide to individuals and partner organizations. While many nonprofits follow a standard fundraising cycle, this midyear appeal is significant for our work to continue smoothly through the rest of the year.

Jacobsen: Now, when it comes to funding strategies, my impression of you over the years is that if there is a viable path to raise funds—no matter how unconventional—you will explore it. Would you say that is accurate?

Thomas: Absolutely. I believe in using every available avenue to raise support. For instance, last year we achieved YouTube monetization thanks in part to our debate video featuring Kent Hovind, which drew significant attention. Since then, we have started asking for Super Chats during live streams, and we accept donations through most of our YouTube content.

We also pursue grants—even smaller microgrants—and encourage supporters to give whatever they can, even a few dollars. Earlier this year, we officially launched our membership program. While we are still finalizing elements like physical membership cards and a dedicated member platform, people have already signed up. Members receive perks like discounts on merchandise and events, plus early or exclusive access to news and updates.

And so, we like to incentivize our fundraising. Of course, donations are considered gifts—there is no exchange of goods for them. However, membership is different, which is one reason we ask for donations in addition to membership dues. It is a great way to keep our supporters engaged and invested in the work we do.

Any opportunity to raise funds—whether it is being invited onto different platforms, through interviews like this one, through my writing, or tabling at events, selling merchandise, and collaborating with other organizations—we take it. We tend to leave no stone unturned when it comes to fundraising.

Jacobsen: For secular organizations, is there a general sense that they operate on a shoestring budget? Are they able to do a lot with the relatively small amount of funding they typically receive? Also, is the style of income from fundraising quite different from traditional religious institutions?

Thomas: It is quite different. First, secular organizations tend to be significantly underfunded compared to religious institutions. Most churches and religious groups have institutional support built over centuries. People are more likely to donate to them, whether voluntarily or because they feel socially obligated. That model is familiar to people.

For nonreligious nonprofits, the landscape is different. We are very much cause-driven. There are nonreligious nonprofits that focus on specific missions—especially humanitarian ones—that people are more inclined to support because they feel an immediate connection to the impact.

However, many secular organizations—especially those led by marginalized communities—face additional barriers. The broader nonreligious community still reflects a disproportionate representation of white males, similar to what we often see in leadership within religious spaces. As a result, those organizations frequently receive more financial support.

That does not mean Black Nonbelievers do not receive support—we do—but there is an apparent disparity. Data indicates that minority-led and especially women-led organizations face greater challenges in securing funding in today’s fundraising climate.

Overall, we are still playing catch-up. Even some of the larger secular organizations—like the Freedom From Religion Foundation—operate on budgets that pale in comparison to major religious institutions.

Jacobsen: In terms of demographic equity, what are some ways we can bridge that gap in funding and representation? How do we move toward a more equitable distribution of support so that the vast diversity within nonreligious communities can be reflected in resources?

Thomas: That is a critical question. We need more intentionality in how support is distributed. Funders and supporters should look beyond name recognition and focus on the impact of organizations, especially those working in underserved communities. More collaboration, awareness-raising, and capacity-building for smaller groups can help. Moreover, overall, it is going to take a cultural shift in how the secular movement values diversity, not just in words, but in actual funding and sustained support.

So, of course, the ideal response is to continue encouraging people to donate to the work that we do, especially when we clearly outline our mission, our focus, and our strategies. However, when it comes to addressing disparities, it takes more than just internal effort. We rely on our partner organizations, allied entities, and individuals to help spread the word about Black Nonbelievers and to encourage others to donate and support us.

If there are leads on funding opportunities—particularly those that prioritize women- and minority-led organizations—it helps tremendously when those are passed along to us. I have written grant proposals before, and so have members of our team. I enjoy that work and am willing to put in the effort to secure funds.

However, it can be incredibly exhausting, especially when the workload falls on just one or two people who are also balancing family responsibilities, other professional obligations, and the day-to-day operations of the organization. Grant research and writing take time, and that time is a limited resource.

So, if people can send us leads or help identify relevant grant opportunities, that would be a tremendous support. And of course, we’re always interested in appealing to larger donors. I’ve made more personal appeals to major donors in recent years. I understand that people get busy and forget, and that following up is necessary.

At times, this part of the work can feel frustrating or intimidating, as I dislike the feeling of begging. But I’ve come to understand that asking for donations and support is a key part of my job. So I do make an effort to reach out directly to our supporters, allies, and partner organizations—especially if they have connections to funding sources.

Even if those opportunities are competitive, sharing them goes a long way in my book. A little help can make a big difference.

Jacobsen: What about joint fundraising drives? Are there times of the year or specific events where it makes sense to collaborate with others in the secular fundraising space, where joint outreach is more effective than each organization working alone?

Thomas: Yes, that happens. In 2023, for example, we partnered with the Atlanta chapter of The Satanic Temple for a Halloween event. We combined resources to raise funds for Black Nonbelievers. Some organizations are more partnership-driven than others, and we’ve found that joint efforts like that can be beneficial.

That said, many secular organizations still tend to conduct their fundraising independently. We’ve certainly done both. We’ve hosted livestream fundraisers in collaboration with others, bringing in more well-known voices from both within the secular community and the broader public sphere.

We’ve had guests like Dr. Leo Igwe on two of our livestreams, as well as Dr. Anthony Pinn, historian Dr. Chris Cameron, author and therapist Candace Gorham, and others who are well known in the secular community. They’ve joined us not only to talk about their work but also to highlight the importance of supporting an organization like Black Nonbelievers.

So, joint partnerships and fundraising collaborations have become a bit more common, though every organization is ultimately responsible for raising its funds, which we understand entirely. We do the best we can within our capacity. That said, we are not opposed to partnering with other organizations to fundraise. It’s not off the table at all, and we genuinely appreciate the partners who have supported us in this way.

For example, the Atheist Community of Boston held a weeklong fundraising drive for us in 2021. We’ve also had support from various platforms with strong engagement that have helped raise funds on our behalf. We’re incredibly grateful for those opportunities.

So, going back to your earlier question—if anything is off the table when it comes to fundraising—the answer is no. While joint fundraising ventures may not be as frequent, we’ve certainly participated in them before, and we remain very open to those opportunities in the future.

Jacobsen: What about personal donations that come unexpectedly, like a bequest? Some organizations, such as international nonprofits, often receive legacy gifts when someone includes them in their will. Have Black Nonbelievers experienced anything like that yet?

Thomas: We’ve had inquiries about how to do that, but we haven’t received a bequest yet. However, we are working toward that. We do have language on our website for anyone interested in including us in their estate planning or will. It starts with having our tax ID number available, which is necessary for whoever is handling the estate—whether an attorney or someone with power of attorney—to make the distribution.

That’s the basic requirement to include us in a will or trust. Some organizations also provide a dedicated form to simplify the process for supporters, and we may explore that in the future. In many cases, though, these gifts come unexpectedly, which would be a fantastic development. Many long-standing nonprofits and churches have received significant funding this way, with members choosing to leave part or all of their estate to a cause they care about.

While we haven’t received any legacy gifts yet, we do benefit from other structured giving options. For instance, we accept donations through workplace contribution programs. Some employers offer matching donations for charitable contributions made by their employees, and we regularly receive monthly donations through those platforms.

We also receive contributions through donor-advised funds. Many people with investment accounts designate a certain amount—usually annually, semiannually, or on a set schedule—for the nonprofit of their choice. Organizations like Fidelity Charitable, Schwab Charitable, and Vanguard Charitable allow donors to give directly from their investment or retirement accounts, and we’ve received support through those channels as well.

So, while we are still actively pursuing and hoping for future bequests, we’re very appreciative of the many ways people choose to support us, whether through our website, workplace giving, or donor-advised funds.

Jacobsen: So those are just other ways that organizations can receive the support they need. If you were to break down how much each funding stream brings in—just so other organizations looking to chart a similar path can get an idea—how does that divide? How much comes from memberships, merchandise, grants, and other sources, proportion-wise?

Thomas: Yes. So for Black Nonbelievers—and I can only speak for us, since every organization is different—here’s how it generally breaks down.

Larger organizations often receive significant portions of their funding through extensive checks or major donor gifts. And while we do accept checks and have reached out to major donors—those capable of giving five- or six-figure contributions—for us, the majority of our support comes through monthly giving, especially via PayPal.

We also get a good amount of support through in-person tabling at conferences and conventions. We receive a bit through platforms like ActBlue—some donors give monthly or on an annual basis through there.

So, it varies, but most of our consistent revenue right now comes from monthly PayPal donations, which people can set up directly through our website.

Our official membership platform is still growing. We hope that, in the future, it becomes a significant source of revenue. But currently, it’s those monthly contributions and periodic fundraising campaigns—like our midyear summer drive, mybirthday campaign, and our end-of-year appeal—that bring in the bulk of our support.

Jacobsen: Are there particular projects or areas of expansion for a secular nonprofit where small donations just won’t cut it, where you do need grant-level or major-donor funding to move forward? And on the flip side, where do regular, periodic monthly donations come into play, just in terms of keeping the lights on? Is that an important distinction to make?

Thomas: Absolutely—it is a crucial distinction.

For example, I would love for my position as president to be a salaried one. That would require grant-level funding or a significant major-donor contribution. Being able to hire someone full-time—or even part-time officially—would also require those larger funds.

Right now, we rely on contractors or short-term help, which is primarily made possible by our monthly donors. That support allows us to pay for assistance as needed and handle regular operational costs.

But for long-term sustainability—things like staffing, infrastructure, and more advanced programming—we would need a significant grant or a major donation. Something in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 would be transformative. That kind of funding would allow us to streamline our communications, expand outreach, and provide more consistent engagement with members and donors. It would also help us develop and distribute more resources to our community.

And if we were ever looking to secure office space or a permanent physical location for operations, that would require a larger grant or capital campaign.

Some grants are tied to special projects, like research, focus groups, or community studies. Several initiatives could benefit from larger grants to fund their efforts.

That said, smaller contributions can still have a significant impact. For example, if we had a network of 5,000 people each giving $10 a month, that would total about $50,000 per month, or roughly $600,000 per year. That’s a significant amount, and yet, when compared to what many larger nonprofits or religious organizations bring in, it still pales in comparison.

So while that level of support might feel big, in the larger nonprofit world, it’s not massive, but it would go a long way for us. If Black Nonbelievers were to receive a $500,000 grant or endowment in 2025, that could sustain us for multiple years. It would allow us to fund salaried positions, upgrade equipment, improve our streaming platforms, and expand our infrastructure.

That kind of multiyear, multipurpose funding is what we’re working toward through grants, endowments, and sustained donor support.

Jacobsen: What specific fundraising projects are underway right now? Can you give some details?

Thomas: Yes. As always, one of our key initiatives is co-sponsoring the Zora Neale Hurston Scholarship with the Secular Student Alliance. That scholarship typically ranges from $1,500 to $2,000, and we help fund it annually.

Beyond that, our general operations require ongoing support. This includes maintaining our website, covering costs for our event platforms, purchasing supplies and merchandise, and supporting our presence at conferences and tabling events. All of that falls under what we call our general operating fund.

Some people might see that as “overhead,” but general operating costs are essential for keeping the organization running, especially if we want to continue offering both in-person and virtual events. Those platforms cost money, and we depend on fundraising to keep them going.

Jacobsen: What else should we discuss before we wrap up today?

Thomas: One crucial issue is the growing concern around religious encroachment in public spaces, particularly in the workplace, especially on the federal level. The previous administration encouraged more open religious expression in those settings, which has broader implications.

Jacobsen: There’s been a noticeable erosion of church–state separation in the U.S. What does that look like on the funding level, specifically regarding the advantages religious institutions have gained under recent administrations?

Thomas: That’s an excellent question. We’ve seen increasing efforts to direct public funds toward religious entities—including churches, private religious schools, and homeschooling initiatives rooted in religious ideologies.

There’s a push to privatize education by redirecting public taxpayer money to religious institutions under the banner of “school choice” or “parental rights.” It’s framed in seemingly innocuous terms, but the implications are profound. It undermines secular public education and tilts the balance in favour of religious institutions that already benefit from significant tax exemptions and built-in financial advantages.

This trend not only challenges the constitutional principle of church–state separation but also creates further disparities for secular and nonreligious nonprofits trying to operate in the same space without the same privileges or access to public funding.

What we’re seeing now is a strong push to divert public funds to private religious education, which erodes the separation of church and state. If churches want to fund religious schools, they should do so through tuition, donations from parishioners, or private endowments—not through public taxpayer dollars.

To use public funds to promote specific religious beliefs—particularly Christianity—is a clear constitutional violation. It’salso deeply troubling. This current administration is accelerating the erosion of church–state separation and undermining constitutional protections like freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

What we’re witnessing is essentially an end run around long-standing legal boundaries, which not only weakens public education but sets a dangerous precedent. There’s already a sustained attack on public education at the federal level, and that trickles down to state, city, and local governments. Meanwhile, specific interest groups are pushing their religious agendas directly into public policy, infringing on fundamental human rights.

We’ve always dealt with religious majorities trying to inject their beliefs into public life through language, holidays, or community traditions. Many nonbelievers tolerate this, even when it’s frustrating, because we understand we’re in the minority. But now, when there’s any kind of pushback, we’re seeing an aggressive counter-response. They’re pushing back harder, and in real time, we are witnessing what the erosion of church–state separation looks like.

Sometimes, it feels overwhelming—even hopeless. But we can’t give up. We have to continue pushing forward, reminding the public that inserting religious beliefs into public policy is unconstitutional. It also violates workplace guidelines and the rights of all employees, not just religious ones.

Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t make it right. The soft, coded language used to justify these actions is manipulative. It’s subtle—but strategic. And if we don’t stay vigilant, those promoting this agenda will succeed. We cannot let that happen.

Jacobsen: Lisa, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it, as always. 

Thomas: There are never any surprises with you—always thoughtful answers. Thank you so much, Scott.

Jacobsen: Bye-bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.