Opinion of Freedom from Religion Foundation?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:39:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Opinion of Freedom from Religion Foundation?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Opinion of Freedom from Religion Foundation?
#1
Freedom organization(D)
 
#2
Horrible organization(D)
 
#3
Freedom organization(R)
 
#4
Horrible organization(R)
 
#5
Freedom organization(I)
 
#6
Horrible organization(I)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 29

Author Topic: Opinion of Freedom from Religion Foundation?  (Read 589 times)
James Monroe
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 18, 2021, 02:33:00 PM »

Quote from: Wikipedia
The FFRF was co-founded by Anne Nicol Gaylor and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976 and was incorporated nationally on April 15, 1978. The organization was supported by over 19,000 members in 2012 and operated from an 1855-era building in Madison, Wisconsin, that once served as a church rectory.

In March 2011, FFRF, along with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, began The Clergy Project, a confidential on-line community that supports clergy as they leave their faith. In 2012, it gave its first Freedom From Religion Foundation and Clergy Project "Hardship Grant" to Jerry DeWitt, a former pastor who left the ministry to join the atheist movement.

FFRF provides financial support to the Secular Student Alliance, an organization that has affiliate groups for nonreligious students on college campuses.

In 2015, FFRF announced Nonbelief Relief, a related organization that obtained and later gave up its federal tax-exempt status. Nonbelief Relief was unsuccessful in a lawsuit against the IRS because it lacked standing to challenge the Form 990 exemption that applies to churches. Nonbelief Relief is a humanitarian agency for atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and their supporters. Nonbelief Relief was created by the executive board of FFRF to remediate conditions of human suffering and injustice on a global scale, whether the result of natural disasters, human actions or adherence to religious dogma.

This seem like a wonderful group of people who have been battling against the Trump right in our urgent times. Dan Barker has been putting the fight against the American Taliban in their adherence to surpassing the rights of women and science in America.  Look at the charity rating and you know how a secular organization is doing the justice for goodness in the world than the churches have done in a lifetime.

A huge freedom group.
Logged
vitoNova
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,267
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2021, 08:57:57 AM »

Massive FF only because of its stellar guest speaker list.  Like Sean Carroll.
Logged
Bismarck
Chancellor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,342


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2021, 09:46:38 AM »

I have no problem with atheism although I do not consider myself as such. People who are actively anti-religion are pretty annoying though. Even Richard Dawkins who is a quite intelligent and interesting thinker can get pretty lazy and cringe when it comes to critiquing religion.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,196
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2021, 10:21:41 AM »

I have no problem with atheism although I do not consider myself as such. People who are actively anti-religion are pretty annoying though. Even Richard Dawkins who is a quite intelligent and interesting thinker can get pretty lazy and cringe when it comes to critiquing religion.
Not to mention he has become a grumpy reactionary these days with a unhealthy obsession with Muslims migrants and Trans people
Logged
James Monroe
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2021, 10:29:15 AM »

I have no problem with atheism although I do not consider myself as such. People who are actively anti-religion are pretty annoying though. Even Richard Dawkins who is a quite intelligent and interesting thinker can get pretty lazy and cringe when it comes to critiquing religion.
Not to mention he has become a grumpy reactionary these days with a unhealthy obsession with Muslims migrants and Trans people

I would not call Dawkins reactionary, the man is just not a fan of the crazed SJW movement. It's a thing with many rational people right now, where they're seeing the religious cult being replaced with the secular cult of cancel culture effecting even sensible liberals. If you think this is being made up read Jeremy Coyne blog post which address the strangle hold the Regressive Left has done to diminish any dissenting viewpoint that is not popular with the woke crowd.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/02/11/cancel-culture-alive-and-well/
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/12/02/is-cancel-culture-coming-for-you/
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,196
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2021, 10:37:24 AM »

I have no problem with atheism although I do not consider myself as such. People who are actively anti-religion are pretty annoying though. Even Richard Dawkins who is a quite intelligent and interesting thinker can get pretty lazy and cringe when it comes to critiquing religion.
Not to mention he has become a grumpy reactionary these days with a unhealthy obsession with Muslims migrants and Trans people

I would not call Dawkins reactionary, the man is just not a fan of the crazed SJW movement. It's a thing with many rational people right now, where they're seeing the religious cult being replaced with the secular cult of cancel culture effecting even sensible liberals. If you think this is being made up read Jeremy Coyne blog post which address the strangle hold the Regressive Left has done to diminish any dissenting viewpoint that is not popular with the woke crowd.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/02/11/cancel-culture-alive-and-well/
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/12/02/is-cancel-culture-coming-for-you/
You mean the “sensible liberal” position of “Muslims should be banned from entering Europe because the concept of democracy is impossible to comprehend and thus they are a fundamental threat to our way of life”?
Logged
James Monroe
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2021, 10:47:21 AM »

I have no problem with atheism although I do not consider myself as such. People who are actively anti-religion are pretty annoying though. Even Richard Dawkins who is a quite intelligent and interesting thinker can get pretty lazy and cringe when it comes to critiquing religion.
Not to mention he has become a grumpy reactionary these days with a unhealthy obsession with Muslims migrants and Trans people

I would not call Dawkins reactionary, the man is just not a fan of the crazed SJW movement. It's a thing with many rational people right now, where they're seeing the religious cult being replaced with the secular cult of cancel culture effecting even sensible liberals. If you think this is being made up read Jeremy Coyne blog post which address the strangle hold the Regressive Left has done to diminish any dissenting viewpoint that is not popular with the woke crowd.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/02/11/cancel-culture-alive-and-well/
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/12/02/is-cancel-culture-coming-for-you/
You mean the “sensible liberal” position of “Muslims should be banned from entering Europe because the concept of democracy is impossible to comprehend and thus they are a fundamental threat to our way of life”?

Not to take away the Muslims away from their religion, what I feel Dawkins is doing justifiable is not backing down on the backward nature of the Islam religion, because liberals/leftists should ought to be more aggressive about the problematic tenants than acting it's just hick Christians who have it wrong. Women and gay people are far more oppressed in the Islamic faith that it would make Pat Robinson seem like a bleeding heart liberal. The way of Islam is different from the moderate West,  which one can see in how technological advance our nations are compared to the Middle East, which most of the region is straight out of the 1930s.  What we need to see is not banned the religion outright or make it inaccessible for Muslims of entering the country, but we do need a mandate on the extremist who are a national threat to the well-being of all citizens of the world. Our government should let the sensible Muslims into the nation if they want to escape. What we don't need are a group of radicals who are threatening the humanist way of living.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,196
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2021, 10:57:30 AM »

I have no problem with atheism although I do not consider myself as such. People who are actively anti-religion are pretty annoying though. Even Richard Dawkins who is a quite intelligent and interesting thinker can get pretty lazy and cringe when it comes to critiquing religion.
Not to mention he has become a grumpy reactionary these days with a unhealthy obsession with Muslims migrants and Trans people

I would not call Dawkins reactionary, the man is just not a fan of the crazed SJW movement. It's a thing with many rational people right now, where they're seeing the religious cult being replaced with the secular cult of cancel culture effecting even sensible liberals. If you think this is being made up read Jeremy Coyne blog post which address the strangle hold the Regressive Left has done to diminish any dissenting viewpoint that is not popular with the woke crowd.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/02/11/cancel-culture-alive-and-well/
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/12/02/is-cancel-culture-coming-for-you/
You mean the “sensible liberal” position of “Muslims should be banned from entering Europe because the concept of democracy is impossible to comprehend and thus they are a fundamental threat to our way of life”?

Not to take away the Muslims away from their religion, what I feel Dawkins is doing justifiable is not backing down on the backward nature of the Islam religion, because liberals/leftists should ought to be more aggressive about the problematic tenants than acting it's just hick Christians who have it wrong. Women and gay people are far more oppressed in the Islamic faith that it would make Pat Robinson seem like a bleeding heart liberal. The way of Islam is different from the moderate West,  which one can see in how technological advance our nations are compared to the Middle East, which most of the region is straight out of the 1930s.  What we need to see is not banned the religion outright or make it inaccessible for Muslims of entering the country, but we do need a mandate on the extremist who are a national threat to the well-being of all citizens of the world. Our government should let the sensible Muslims into the nation if they want to escape. What we don't need are a group of radicals who are threatening the humanist way of living.
That’s utterly ridiculous. You are calling for governments to somehow have the power to tell what a person is thinking or not.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2021, 05:56:19 PM »

This seem like a wonderful group of people who have been battling against the Trump right in our urgent times.

Nothing listed in your Wikipedia quote occurred during the Trump administration.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2021, 06:36:15 PM »

One of my favorite organizations.
Logged
If my soul was made of stone
discovolante
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,261
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2021, 07:03:31 PM »

I have no problem with atheism although I do not consider myself as such. People who are actively anti-religion are pretty annoying though. Even Richard Dawkins who is a quite intelligent and interesting thinker can get pretty lazy and cringe when it comes to critiquing religion.
Not to mention he has become a grumpy reactionary these days with a unhealthy obsession with Muslims migrants and Trans people

I would not call Dawkins reactionary, the man is just not a fan of the crazed SJW movement. It's a thing with many rational people right now, where they're seeing the religious cult being replaced with the secular cult of cancel culture effecting even sensible liberals. If you think this is being made up read Jeremy Coyne blog post which address the strangle hold the Regressive Left has done to diminish any dissenting viewpoint that is not popular with the woke crowd.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/02/11/cancel-culture-alive-and-well/
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/12/02/is-cancel-culture-coming-for-you/
You mean the “sensible liberal” position of “Muslims should be banned from entering Europe because the concept of democracy is impossible to comprehend and thus they are a fundamental threat to our way of life”?

Not to take away the Muslims away from their religion, what I feel Dawkins is doing justifiable is not backing down on the backward nature of the Islam religion, because liberals/leftists should ought to be more aggressive about the problematic tenants than acting it's just hick Christians who have it wrong. Women and gay people are far more oppressed in the Islamic faith that it would make Pat Robinson seem like a bleeding heart liberal. The way of Islam is different from the moderate West,  which one can see in how technological advance our nations are compared to the Middle East, which most of the region is straight out of the 1930s.  What we need to see is not banned the religion outright or make it inaccessible for Muslims of entering the country, but we do need a mandate on the extremist who are a national threat to the well-being of all citizens of the world. Our government should let the sensible Muslims into the nation if they want to escape. What we don't need are a group of radicals who are threatening the humanist way of living.

As I have said here before, there is no real fundamental difference between Muslim-bashing over "islamogauchisme" fearmongering and this warmed-over Pim Fortuyn-type Muslim-bashing. Both are expressions of a sort of bigotry that people like you vociferously deny in your aim to appear Supremely Rational (when we are not fundamentally rational beings) but cannot escape. You surely must also recognize how much of the "backwards" nature of the Islamic world that you deplore, insofar as it actually exists outside of the mind of those with agendas to push, is the result of a long tradition of the Enlightened Rational Secular Western Powers meddling there.

Anyway, the Freedom from Religion Foundation represents exactly the sort of smug sophistry that we should've left in the Bush era. The evangelical right wing in this country is not an singular institution that can be neutralized through litigious assholery and one-liners. Atheists, contrary to their belief, are not a virulently oppressed people in this part of the world and should not claim the victim mentality, especially compared to the religious minorities that you were justifying bigotry against above.

And yeah, as a trans person that sours my opinion on Dawkins and much of his cohort as well.
Logged
James Monroe
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2021, 09:16:24 PM »

I have no problem with atheism although I do not consider myself as such. People who are actively anti-religion are pretty annoying though. Even Richard Dawkins who is a quite intelligent and interesting thinker can get pretty lazy and cringe when it comes to critiquing religion.
Not to mention he has become a grumpy reactionary these days with a unhealthy obsession with Muslims migrants and Trans people

I would not call Dawkins reactionary, the man is just not a fan of the crazed SJW movement. It's a thing with many rational people right now, where they're seeing the religious cult being replaced with the secular cult of cancel culture effecting even sensible liberals. If you think this is being made up read Jeremy Coyne blog post which address the strangle hold the Regressive Left has done to diminish any dissenting viewpoint that is not popular with the woke crowd.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/02/11/cancel-culture-alive-and-well/
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/12/02/is-cancel-culture-coming-for-you/
You mean the “sensible liberal” position of “Muslims should be banned from entering Europe because the concept of democracy is impossible to comprehend and thus they are a fundamental threat to our way of life”?

Not to take away the Muslims away from their religion, what I feel Dawkins is doing justifiable is not backing down on the backward nature of the Islam religion, because liberals/leftists should ought to be more aggressive about the problematic tenants than acting it's just hick Christians who have it wrong. Women and gay people are far more oppressed in the Islamic faith that it would make Pat Robinson seem like a bleeding heart liberal. The way of Islam is different from the moderate West,  which one can see in how technological advance our nations are compared to the Middle East, which most of the region is straight out of the 1930s.  What we need to see is not banned the religion outright or make it inaccessible for Muslims of entering the country, but we do need a mandate on the extremist who are a national threat to the well-being of all citizens of the world. Our government should let the sensible Muslims into the nation if they want to escape. What we don't need are a group of radicals who are threatening the humanist way of living.

As I have said here before, there is no real fundamental difference between Muslim-bashing over "islamogauchisme" fearmongering and this warmed-over Pim Fortuyn-type Muslim-bashing. Both are expressions of a sort of bigotry that people like you vociferously deny in your aim to appear Supremely Rational (when we are not fundamentally rational beings) but cannot escape. You surely must also recognize how much of the "backwards" nature of the Islamic world that you deplore, insofar as it actually exists outside of the mind of those with agendas to push, is the result of a long tradition of the Enlightened Rational Secular Western Powers meddling there.

Anyway, the Freedom from Religion Foundation represents exactly the sort of smug sophistry that we should've left in the Bush era. The evangelical right wing in this country is not an singular institution that can be neutralized through litigious assholery and one-liners. Atheists, contrary to their belief, are not a virulently oppressed people in this part of the world and should not claim the victim mentality, especially compared to the religious minorities that you were justifying bigotry against above.

And yeah, as a trans person that sours my opinion on Dawkins and much of his cohort as well.

Our species are named Homo Sapiens for the element you pointed out against, which is Man is not rational but the name implied "Smart Man." Beyond the point, my take on the Islamic religion is that many of the forfeiters have pushed an aggressive reactionary agenda that would make the Evangelical Wingnut right blush. The education in those nations have been worse than the West through the control of theocracy. Liberals have been battling for the "Islam as religion of peace" for so long that it needs combating from the rational community, which I am glad Dawkins takes it on equally as Christianity. It's all superstitious junk anyway, all just a contest of my invisible man in the sky is better than your invisible man in the sky. We need more Dawkins and Sam Harris engaging the public on tell the truth about a religion that has gripped the Middle East for centuries but has been defended by the liberals and left-wing.

You can act the Freedom from Religion Foundation has been an non-entity in the years after the Bush administration, it's impact couldn't be more justifiable. Ron Reagan provocative ad gives a good dose of satirical humor that launches agains the absurdity of Hell. Fighting against the Religious Right is a institution that is still needed when half of the country is gullible to superficial supernatural elements ranging from the all-mighty religion to telepathy.

Dawkins comment was not the best use of words, to address it lightly. What I wouldn't put up is he and many rational people would treat you more fairly than just about any major religion in the world.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2021, 03:58:05 AM »
« Edited: December 23, 2021, 12:03:12 PM by Butlerian Jihad »

I've been a critic of what our own Al has called the "what appears to be extremely conservative is in fact not, and to say that it is, is a hate crime" Western approach to Islam--indeed, my current display name is in part a reference to that sorry phenomenon. But where the Dawkinsian "Muslimophile" "oh, I'm just saving the poor harem girls from themselves! Smiley" approach falters is in its refusal to recognize that while someone's religious beliefs might, technically, be "chosen", that doesn't actually make bigotry against very conservative religions as much of a non-issue as "bigotry" against, say, Twitter tankies or people who like Disney-era Star Wars. Religion, in most of the world, is connected to other facets of personal and group identity in ways that make religious prejudice much more similar to racial or nationality-based prejudice than to prejudice against other types of chosen beliefs or opinions. To deny that is to be pigheaded, ideologically blinkered, and, dare I say it...irrational.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,832


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2021, 10:41:04 AM »

I think the difference is contextual. 'Discrimination' against Christianity in the US (on the whole) for example is similar to (and often coterminous with) say, racial discrimination against whites. In that it is 'a thing' but it's also not a substantive thing and we should be equally wary of those who push that narrative. What Team USA Christianity generally wants is to be framed as persecuted, while disproportionately protected by the first amendment, in order to freely discriminate against others or to place 'first' in the pantheon of American religion. It shouldn't be better armed at this, or have legislators ears more than any other group. Now of course the context is entirely different with say historically black churches, who haven't had that access, or insular 'white' faith groups like the Amish (though without outsiders acting as 'saviours' for them) or more 'recent' established nationwide faith groups such as Islam.

Indeed FFRF in it's FAQ's states it acts on public complaints and in short, there isn't much coming from other faith based groups, or access related legislation for the public to complain about.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2021, 03:48:57 PM »
« Edited: December 23, 2021, 03:53:00 PM by Butlerian Jihad »

I think the difference is contextual. 'Discrimination' against Christianity in the US (on the whole) for example is similar to (and often coterminous with) say, racial discrimination against whites. In that it is 'a thing' but it's also not a substantive thing and we should be equally wary of those who push that narrative. What Team USA Christianity generally wants is to be framed as persecuted, while disproportionately protected by the first amendment, in order to freely discriminate against others or to place 'first' in the pantheon of American religion. It shouldn't be better armed at this, or have legislators ears more than any other group. Now of course the context is entirely different with say historically black churches, who haven't had that access, or insular 'white' faith groups like the Amish (though without outsiders acting as 'saviours' for them) or more 'recent' established nationwide faith groups such as Islam.

This is similar to why in that other thread I agree with the idea that the "greatest champion of secularism" right now is probably someone in the Arab world. Reducing the influence of a hegemonic or socially dominant religion is way more impressive of an achievement than imposing additional social and legal disabilities on religious minorities.

My previous post was meant primarily to comment on the Fortuyn-Dawkins-Talk Atlas Elections Blogger James Monroe treatment of Islam in the West, even though I was laying out more general principles. I think Christianity in the West, and Islam in the Middle East and North Africa, can handle a little criticism!
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 14 queries.