Talk:Freedom From Religion Foundation

(create an archive)

Parody

Parody?162.82.215.199 15:01, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

unfortunately, no. olliegrind 15:03, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Sounds like a group i'd want to join.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:04, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

No, I think the FFRF actually instigates lawsuits, e.g., if a citizen mentions Jesus at a city council meeting, that citizen may face the wrath of the FFRF. Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:05, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Interesting..if a citizen commenting on an issue mentions Jesus, there is clear first amendment protection. If a city council member does, I want him out.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:06, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Yep, one Iran is enough. MiddleMan 15:08, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

If this is true, im into it.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:07, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

May be true, but you win some, you loose some. Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:08, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

A grim fairytale..., well some parts are grim and some parts are really fairytales. MiddleMan 15:12, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Also, I doubt the First Amendment discourages the FFRF. Liberals like to simply redefine the meanings of words (e.g., see 2nd amendment). Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:13, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Schlafly sock? olliegrind 15:23, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

HG is no sock. His/her views are always consistent and pretty well-reasoned, although I don't agree at all.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:24, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I know he isn't really Andy incognito, but his blanket liberal statement above is a schlaflyism. olliegrind 15:27, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Andy was the first to spout that kinda bs? --Arisboch (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a generalization, or a model, of liberal thought processes. Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Iran?

That is not even rational. Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:09, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Separation of church and state, they don't have that in Iran, and if no one tried to stop the evangelicals, well... you do the math. MiddleMan 15:12, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Did you know that Jews live and worship in Iran, as do Christians? Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:14, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

It's easy for religious folks to forget that those of us who are religious minorities really have suffered at the hands of the dominant religious forces in this country. I'll give examples if desired, however, any incursion of religion into public life is a disaster waiting to happen. That is why the founders decided to curb the "tyranny of the majority".--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:15, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

BTW, Jews are horribly oppressed in Iran...they are often arrested as "Zionist spies" and imprisoned indefinitely. Xtians don't do too well either.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:15, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

And neither group could aspire to any sort of political power in Iran either. _liessmoke^mirrors 15:16, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Jews, at least, are represented in Iran's parliment, if my information is correct (and I think it is). Not widely reported, but true, to the best of my information and belief. Heart♥Gold

I had a friend from Iran who was a Christian and thus wasn't allowed to go to college in Iran.

MiddleMan 16:03, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I know of a family who was persecuted in China because both mother and father came from wealthy (pre-1949) families, though the mother and father were children when the communists took over. I don't support such things. Communists do, however. Heart♥Gold ^tx 16:07, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, they tend to move to L.A., for good reason.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:21, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. Maurice Motamed has been the Jewish MP since 2000, and was re-elected again in 2004. In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimated that at that time there were still 30,000–35,000 Jews in Iran, other sources put the figure as low as 20,000–25,000.[1]

The first link reports that the Persian Jews are often accused of being in contact with Zionists...sounds like RobS is from Iran (regarding the M.O., not the specific accusation). Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:25, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

No, it's true. Big news stories. "Just because youre paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you".--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:35, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I understand that Jews are persecuted in Iran. Religious miniorities are persecuted, as are other minorities. Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:39, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

One seat. Not my definition of political power. _liessmoke^mirrors 15:24, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

They might do better if they were fruitful and multiplied. I wonder, by way of comparison, how many Christians wield power in Israel? Maybe more, maybe less, I should go look it up. Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:26, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

It's not much of an analogy, but fyi, most Christians (all, really) are Palestinian, and Arab Israeli citizens are represented in the Knesset.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 15:27, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, my personal view is let Israel rule as they see fit, and if Israelis don't like it, it is there problem--keep us out of it. Ditto for Iran. Too many foreign entanglements. But with regard to the U.S., I don't think we are anywhere close to Suadi Arabia as far as outlawing other religions. Heart♥Gold ^tx 15:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

No, fortunately not. Still, I support the FFRF when it comes to keeping education and government separate from religion, but I do think they're taking it a bit too far if they go after Christmas and 10-commandments displays. MiddleMan 16:07, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I agree to some degree that the government should not establish a religion, and completely concur on Christmas and 10-commandments. Heart♥Gold ^tx 16:11, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I disagree on the 10-commandments. A number of them are quite...bizarre by some standards. Taking the lords name in vain, no idols...these are hardly neutral, eceumenical rules.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 16:35, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, why on earth would any civilized nation want to follow the 10 (or 9, or 11 depending on the way you count) commandments? Some of them are OK but others are either irrelevant or weird.--Bob_M (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

A BON Bounces in

What if the ten commandments were part of a display showing replicas of documents(and tablets) that helped form the laws of today (this would include such things as Hammurabi's,Greek laws, ten commandments, The Magna Carta) what then should that not be allowed.

Also can a government not rent out its land to any organization?

Finally Who here thinks telling everyone else in the room who doesn't fallow their beliefs is deluded is completley fine?^{— Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs}

To answer out BON's points:

• If the government wants to include information about the ten comandments in some museum about the history of law, fine. But suggesting that modern law is somehow based on them is just weird. See our Ten Commandments article for the reasons why.
• Presumably the government can rent out land.
• Could you clarify your last point?

Cheers.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Our law is more down to a blend of pre-Christian Greco-Roman and Germanic traditions than to the Ten Commandments. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

but the abrahamic religions did influnce the laws did they not?. and the SCOTUS building was what I was talking about,

Re: point one, like the frieze on the SCOTUS building? ħuman 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Less than half the people on that wall are Judeo-Christians. Our courts are Roman, carried over to England by Germanic and Arabic nations. It is not a huge coincidence that an increase in formal law began in far Western Europe after the Crusades as large parts of the East and Northern Africa continued with Roman law and tradition. - π 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Essay contest

The winner in the graduate category isn't that bad, actually, although the to one from the 19 year old is less so but isn't terrible. Not entirely convinced the "creationist science fair" comparison is entirely warranted although I can imagine some entries would have read like that. ^moral 13:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This article

The FRFF isn't nearly so bad as the article makes it out to be. Plenty of the lawsuits seem frivolous, but they're about tearing down a culture of religion in government. There's a reason that SCOTUS had to rule on court cases about students wearing T-shirts in school: even little instances of free speech and censorship build up to cultures of free speech or censorship. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the United States was founded on the freedom of religion and choice but recently since Trump has been in there has been too much mixing of government with religion. You hear it all over the news now and that's not really a good thing, when religion and government mix most of the time the outcome can be bad. Just look at the time when Catholic church had influence over Europe in the middle ages, like killing people who don't believe as you do is good. Speaking of your faith is fine as long as you don't force it on someone, free speech should be allowed as long as it doesn't intrude on another person's rights. There shouldn't be a problem with publicly displaying your faith as long as you don't force it on others, putting a cross on a church isn't something I would do or I agree with but I'm not telling people that it offends me and they should take it down. If you don't like it then why look at it? Same with homosexual marriage, if you want to get married then don't try to find the people who don't agree with it and sue them for not doing it, that invades on their rights.--Rimuru Da Ninja 15:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey y’all, just looking at this article’s history...

I was just looking through the history of this article, and I was surprised to find that it was originally created by a right wing Xtian troll! As it evolved, I also noticed that it slowly became less and less untrue, and with my recent removal of the “general nuttery” section (an obvious straw man), it is now more true than ever before! Together we can clean up this once-Conservapedia-like article and remove the last vestiges of its troll-ish nature! Do research from more reliable and truthful sources! Keep it up!