Talk:Freedom From Religion Foundation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Logo

I swaped out the blurry logo of theres for an edited clip of the logo on there website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micov (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FFRF Criticisms

My main criticism of this article is that I think there should be some examination of the various criticisms of the FFRF group. There is a list of what may constitute "successes" from the organisation's point of view, but little else. The general tone of the article, to me, seems biased in favour of the FFRF.

One problem I personally have with the FFRF website is that they at one point suggest on this page:

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/scripts/bquiz_results.php

that "You may be better off not knowing much about the bible." Well, maybe, maybe not, but the general context in which this is written to me seems to be promoting ignorance rather than "freethought". I'd be interested, also, in knowing if the FFRF acknowledge, at any point the many *good* things that religion has brought to the world, and not just the bad things. I think that would make a much more interesting site than one that just criticised religion one-sidedly.

Absence of criticism is not the same as endorsement of a particular viewpoint, so I disagree that this article is POV. As for their website, that is beyond the purview of this encyclopedia, regardless of how extreme its positions may be. -Wiccan Quagga 09:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FFRF isn't really a "freethought" website, except insofar as "freethought" is a euphemism for atheism. Their point of view is specifically anti-religious. Freedom From Religion. They basically want religion to leave them alone--generally their point of view is "if I wanted to hear about religion, I'd go to a church--now leave me alone." Rob 14:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a full rebuttal to that FFRF quiz. The quiz is very leading and misleading. You can see it here: www.jcsm.org/Education/FFRFQuiz.htm --Jason Gastrich 17:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you found another Wikipedia article into which you can jam in a link to your ad laden, commercial site where you hawk your wares. Mark K. Bilbo 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's removed...I can't see how this can be justified at Wikipedia, and it's typical of Gastrich to keep trying to put in free advertising for his site(s), which, itself, is laden with spam advertising and with mechanisms for planting data miners. WarriorScribe 18:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still trolling me, eh? You're going to wear the Wiki admins out. You really oughta do something about this and this. If either of these were mine, I'd consider my Wiki life a depressing, pathetic failure. --Jason Gastrich 18:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich would like to represent it as "trolling." I have another thought, and that is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as a resource, unimpeded by Gastrich's attempts at self-promotion. WarriorScribe 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read that "rebuttal". When it talks about God commanding his followers to kill people, it's little more than "he was only trying to scare them" or (worse) "That was then this is now." That's not a rebuttal. Harvestdancer 17:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pointless in the first place because it should be clear to anyone paying attention that the FFRF site is trying to be funny and sarcastic when it says "you may be better off not knowing much about the bible." Don't take things so literally, I'm sure is what they would say.VatoFirme (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I took a look at that quiz, and this discussion is EXTRA pointless because not only do you have to take the entire (long) quiz to see the screen that reads "you may be better off not knowing", but all of the answers are given and explained at length on that same screen, so it's clear they intend people to learn about it.VatoFirme (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deism

Do they promote deism? God and religion are distinct. 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only thing they promote is separation of religion from government in America. They mostly find themselves fighting the intrusion of Christianity in government, but if deism or any other religion started intruding into government, they'd probably fight that too. johnpseudo 15:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm sure they would. Though I haven't heard of many deists pushing their beliefs on others, I have heard FFRF speak out against intolerance and civil rights infringement by non-Christian theists such as Muslims - but on the other side of that, they have a positive attitude toward anyone, including deists and theists, who also want to keep church and state separate. They just spoke at my husband's friend's Catholic church, and she said they were very respectful and were concerned with infringements on the first amendment, not with debating the Catholics' beliefs.VatoFirme (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IL/Legal Bible Instruction in Public Schools

There was an edit by 68.6.58.171, which removed the use of "illegal" to describe Bible teaching in public schools, claiming the "Constitution does not make public Bible instruction illegal". This claim is not entirely true. There are legal and illegal forms of allowable Bible instruction in public schools, and the use of "illegal" is needed to distinguish between them.

For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution deems certain methods as illegal, such as in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) where children were forced to recite Bible prayers read over the intercom. The case won by the FFRF was brought against explicitly illegal instruction, not all forms of Bible education.

The specific case the article blurb refers to is Doe v Porter. In the ruling, the court found that the instructors were not teaching "history" but claiming as fact that "The Lord Jesus Christ is the only Savior." That kind of indoctrination was explicitly deemed illegal by the Supreme Court in 1948, and so is fair-game to describe as "illegal" in this article. See [1] for FFRF's summary of the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceran (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree and I'm going to try and add some better wording to explain it.VatoFirme (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founding date

When was the foundation founded? What were the dates of the important legal outcomes? Nohat 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly question the neutrality of this article. A cursory glance of the first few paragraphs should explain why.140.88.84.200 04:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please explain why, otherwise you're just making an empty complaint. --69.91.88.221 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

the only freethought newspaper the nation's only radio program for atheists and agnostics This sound like commercial, there is bunch of similar freethought organizations.--N Jordan 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your complaint? If the FFRF really did publish the only freethought newspaper and radio program, then these are facts that bear no relevance on whether there are "similar freethought organizations" or not. The point is that there may be other organizations, but do they publish newspapers and broadcast radio programs? --69.91.88.221 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about http://freethoughtradio.com/? --N Jordan 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Maybe because freethoughtradio.com is streaming on the internet and not on the real radio? Or maybe because it plays a variety of clips and essays, but isn't one consistent "show"? Those would be my guesses. According to their website, the newspaper is the only freethought newspaper in north america.VatoFirme (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pending litigation

Johnpseudo, if "they have lots of pending litigation" you should list them instead of just removing "none".--N Jordan 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get around to it. But it's a misleading, unsourced, and incorrect statement to add "none". johnpseudo 17:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Capitol sign

I'd like to suggest adding a citation to the article section titled "State Capitol sign". The FFRF has a few press releases on their website:

http://ffrf.org/news/2002/solsticesign.html

http://ffrf.org/news/2002/signphotos.html

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/janfeb02/solsticesign.html

As well, there are photos of the sign itself at:

http://ffrf.org/news/images/Sign.jpg

http://ffrf.org/news/images/Signfront.jpg

http://ffrf.org/news/images/Signback.jpg

I would also be curious to see a reference to any kind of legal battle they may have gone through in order to get this sign posted in the Capitol building.

Caen 01:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any legal battles, because from what I remember all religions/POVs get to post something around the holidays if they want. We usually just get conservative lawmakers speaking out against them on local news, but it seems like it's more for show or to pander to religious voters - they don't take any real legal action against FFRF because that would be a blatant violation of religious liberty (which would only give FFRF work and fuel their cause).VatoFirme (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting one of these references as a citation in the text at the "citation needed" tag might justify removal of the tag? I suggest "Signfront." Dr. Perfessor (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]