![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is incomplete, outdated, and not written in NPOV--it is decidedly opposed to FFRF
From the intro and sidebar box: an "American freethought organization based in Madison" makes it sound as though FFRF is only in Madison. FFRF is a national organization with 18,500 members, including members in every single state. It also has several local chapters - http://ffrf.org/about/ffrf-chapters/
Foundation is a lay term, but not the legal status. Legal Status is 501(c)3 educational charity. A Foundation in the legal sense is an entity that distributes money for charitable purposes.
Purpose/Focus: FFRF is not a humanist or atheist group. It is a Freethought and State/Church separation group.
FFRF has no official language although it operates in English. Dan Barker, Co-President, is fluent in Spanish and often uses his skills to speak to bi-lingual groups. ````Constitutional Scholar Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
FFRF has over 18,500 members now. This can be checked in any of the legal letters that FFRF sends out which can be found on their website. The FFRF staff has two co-presidents, four attorneys, and six other staffers. Not to mention an executive council and honorary officers. http://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/
The wording chosen to discuss FFRF's finances is not neutral or accurate. The 2011 Form 990 ( http://ffrf.org/uploads/files/2011-990-form.pdf) reveals $201,572 spent on legal actions; $508,367 spent on educational events, convention,etc.; and $455,748 spent on publishing, broadcasting, etc. See page 2 of PDF. The current wording makes it appear that that the group has far more liquid assets and interest in litigation than is accurate. Last year they spent under $1.3 million total.
Annie Laurie Gaylor is also the editor of an anthology, Woe to the Women ISBN: 1877733121 and author of a nonfiction book exposing clergy pedophilia scandals (out of print) , Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/betrayal/
Ms. Gaylor was editor of Freethought Today until 2008 when Bill Dunn took over in July, 2008. Dan Barker is also the author of Godless: How and Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists ISBN: 1569756775, and The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God ISBN: 1569758468, and Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children http://ffrf.org/shop/books/Just-Pretend-A-Freethought-Book-for-Children/
Dan Barker was not a Pentecostal preacher; he was an traveling evangelical preacher who, for a time, held a position at a Pentecostal church- http://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/dan-barker/
FFRF has an annual conference, including in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and in October of 2012--Richard Dawkins will speak. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There is much wrong with this page. For instance:
This is a fabrication. First of all, it is rare that courts do anything swiftly, it was almost 18 months after the case was filed that Shirley Dobson was removed from the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on October 3, 2008 ( http://ffrf.org/news/2008/dayPrayerComplaint.pdf) and the court dismissed Dobson in an order filed on March 2, 2010 ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/27742422/FFRF-v-Obama-3-10). The challenge was to the National Day of Prayer, a government sanctioned religious event. In a later opinion the Judge found that the national day of prayer was unconstitutional. This decision was never overturned on the merits (i.e., the judge’s arguments were sound) but because the appeals court thought FFRF did not have standing to challenge the prayer. See this unbiased site (written by a Law Professor) for a more accurate description http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/03/plaintiffs-have-standing-to-challenge.html http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2011/04/7th-circuit-no-standing-to-challenge.html Here is a link to a description of the case at the district court level http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/04/national-day-of-prayer-declared.html
This is also repetitive of the loss that says “In April 2011, the FFRF’s challenge to the National Day of Prayer….”, is a more accurate statement . This repetition makes it look as though FFRF lost two cases which is simply untrue. Furthermore, it is standard for lawyers to include all possible defendants in a lawsuit and let the court sort out who should stay.
This lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice because FFRF did not demonstrate Article III standing. ayersopinion_20100930.pdf
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that taxpayers do not have standing to allege violations of the constitution. Defeated does not sound neutral
Again, this is misleading. The decision was not based on the merits of the arguments, but solely on standing. That is a crucial difference.
This is very premature. This should be in the pending litigation section. The district made questionable procedural errors in addition to legal and factual issues. The case is ongoing and will be for some time, FFRF appealed to the Sixth Circuit. Why is “Loses” capitalized?
This is not true. The citation is to group intervening in the lawsuit, and the “loss” was no loss at all. FFRF is engaged in a lawsuit right now and nothing has been decided. “Preliminary Battle” is nonsense.
Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
For this section there are a number of errors:
The lawsuit against Gov Richardson was voluntarily withdrawn some years ago. It is not pending or ongoing, nor was it lost--even though it is listed under losses to (just under a different name). http://ffrf.org/news/releases/pennsylvania-restaurant-offers-unlawful-church-discount-/
This is not true. An FFRF member is bringing an administrative action against Prudhommes on his own. FFRF is only providing advisory support and is not named or involved in the litigation as a party. FFRF did write three letters of complaint prior to the member filing the suit, but FFRF is not a named party.
This is not litigation. FFRF wrote several letters but no action has been filed.
This is not true. FFRF has written two letters : the first can be seen here ( http://ffrf.org/legal/SteubenvilleLogo.pdf), the second can be seen here ( http://ffrf.org/legal/SteubenvilleL2.pdf). Read them for yourself. At no time does FFRF threaten litigation, the first letter explains the law and that the city was violating the law then ask the city to change their logo, nothing more. The second letter addresses the costs of litigation because the city received an offer of “free” legal representation. FFRF pointed out that if the city were to lose, which was likely given the state of the law, they would still have to pay significant costs even with free legal representation. The image on the logo is not the Franciscan University of Steubenville, it is Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan University of Steubenville—an significant difference.
If non-litigation actions are going to be included for the sake of completeness and accuracy this page should be viewed: http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes/ Most of the entries on this page link to documentation that shows the victory. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
FFRF does not treat all mixture of politics and religion equally. On their own website, they single out the so-called "religious right" as the target of their efforts: http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/ 97.83.104.146 ( talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a criticism section in this article. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms out there. How about the outcry against their billboard campaigns? How about the fact that they target small towns who are unable to pay large legal fees? Without a criticism section, this is yet another article that shows the fundamental flaw in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.51.194 ( talk) 23:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Do they promote deism? God and religion are distinct. 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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).
When was the foundation founded? What were the dates of the important legal outcomes? Nohat 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
How about http://freethoughtradio.com/? -- N Jordan 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is mostly written in a subtle but unfriendly way. The organization does much more than the article suggests and the tone is not friendly. I think the warning at the top of the article stating that it reads like a press release is misleading. It reads like a press release the ACLJ or ADF would release about FFRF is they were trying not to be obvious about their dislike.
Constitutional Scholar (
talk)
20:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
There are a number of citations to articles that are not neutral.
Citations 8, 9, 12, and 15. 8 - CBN is the Christian Broadcasting Network, "a global ministry committed to preparing the nations of the world for the coming of Jesus Christ through mass media." http://www.cbn.com/ 9 - The Christian Science Monitor, Mary Baker Eddy's media outlet owned by a church. They are not as bias as CBN, but we could find a better citation for that. 12 - the ACLJ and FFRF are opponents on every issue. This cannot be neutral. 15 - Formerly the Conservative News Service, this is not a neutral outlet.
Citations 23 and 25 are to Fox News which is not really fair and balanced. In fact, Dan Barker, FFRF co-President, was kicked of Fox News during a segment about the Athens TX nativity scene. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK7XHEm7BE8 Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
FFRF has an annual essay contest with scholarship prizes. They also give out student activist scholarships for "brave" students. They just gave out one to a 12 year old. http://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-awards-12-year-old-freethinker-for-student-activism I suggest a new section on the article about this. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how to deal with the 2007 convention information. It is good information but FFRF has a convention with speakers every year I'd like to suggest a new section "Conventions" and move the information there. We can include date, place, and speakers. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 12:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the atheist group label for FFRF is incorrect. The group has two purposes A) to keep church and state separate (B) to "educate the public on matters of nontheism." I understand that Wikipedia should not just accept any group's self-identification, but atheist is a pretty narrow term. It also suggests that the members and employees are all atheists which is not true. The rejection of religion and religious dogma as a way of thinking is simply not atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Freethought on the other hand is a positive (as in standing for something and not the absence of something) definition that encompasses atheism, agnosticism, nontheism, and even state/church separation. "Freethought group" is a broader term that encompasses all of FFRF's stated goals and purposes whereas "atheist group" doesn't really encompass any. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Annie Gaylor has jewish ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.19.183 ( talk) 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
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:
As well, there are photos of the sign itself at:
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)
If this article is to have a State Capitol Signs section there should be a billboard section and newspaper section too. FFRF's "It's time to quite the Catholic Church" Ad was very controversial and got lots of media attention this year. It ran in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA times.
FFRF also has a blasphemous manger scene in the Madison, WI. state capitol. It was first placed in 2011. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/article_ba2a0390-267e-11e1-9cba-001871e3ce6c.html http://www.channel3000.com/news/Another-Nativity-Scene-To-Be-Displayed-At-Capitol/-/1648/8298288/-/mh76l6/-/index.html http://www.channel3000.com/news/Alternative-Nativity-Scene-Set-Up-At-Capitol/-/1648/8298248/-/15rk1dxz/-/index.html http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/wisconsin/capitol-nativity-display-has-company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constitutional Scholar ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I'm going to remove the Nativity Scene photo from the page, seems kind of silly to advertise a Nativity on an freedom from reli Cap020570 ( talk) 18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)gion page...
I feel that the religion wikiproject is inappropriate for the FFRF and should be removed, in that atheism/agnostic is not a religion and I believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Atheism would be more appropriate, that and the article already has atheism portal boxes on it. Cap020570 ( talk) 13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This section is woefully incomplete and what is complete is very misleading. FFRF has far more victories than losses in litigation (some can be viewed here: http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes/) FFRF also has far more victories than are listed that did not require litigation ( http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/other-legal-successes/ )
Citations 8, 9, are to religious sites which actively oppose FFRF’s work and cannot be considered neutral sources.
The first four cases under losses are either un-cited or cite to organizations opposed to FFRF’s work. The tone of these is clearly not neutral and hostile to FFRF. Someone is trying to make them look bad. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I am starting to think it would be better to list this chronologically as opposed to breaking them up into wins and losses. In some of the cases both sides will declare victory (most recently the Whiteville TN case). I suggest we eliminate the wins/losses and just have it a chronological list of litigation the FFRF is involved with the outcome in the description itself. This would also be better becuase some of the cases are not really losses in a meangingful sense, i.e., the court did not decide on the constitutional merits of the argument, rather it stated that FFRF did not have standing. This is an important distinction. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I propose to archive this talk page using MiszaBot per example 2 incremental archives but setting the old parameter to 90 days. Please comment. MrBill3 ( talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor (71.139.156.133) made substantial changes to the references section. I don't think it is appropriate to change a reference unless one actually reads the reference and is citing what one read. If it is a website for a newspaper that is different from reading the newspaper itself. Examples:
Why change the date format? The format in use was acceptable per WP:DATEFORMAT.
Changes reverted.
Third Party References
The same IP editor placed the third party ref tag. The article currently has 28 references which are news items, cites 14 court cases including a Supreme Court case and a book from a university press as well as several journal articles (some in a journal published by FFRF). The majority of self pub citations are to provide details of convention dates, locations, speakers and awardees and fall within WP:selfpub guidelines. - -
MrBill3 (
talk)
05:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one who has been expanding the convention section. I guess I don't understand how that got the article tagged. I thought I was following the WP:SELFPUB guidelines. Cap020570 ( talk) 14:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
In the next week or so I'm going to remove the 'convention table' that got this page tagged for sources. If anyone else finds outside sources for conventions, speakers, awardees, etc.. feel free to leave it here or on the page in the appropriate spot. Cap020570 ( talk) 13:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing research on The Clergy Project which redirects to this page. I think there are enough sources and information to merit a new page entirely for the Clergy Project. So I'm going to alter the redirect page. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey @ Harizotoh9: why did you revert the edits including the charity stats, etc? Those seem like useful information to me.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is incomplete, outdated, and not written in NPOV--it is decidedly opposed to FFRF
From the intro and sidebar box: an "American freethought organization based in Madison" makes it sound as though FFRF is only in Madison. FFRF is a national organization with 18,500 members, including members in every single state. It also has several local chapters - http://ffrf.org/about/ffrf-chapters/
Foundation is a lay term, but not the legal status. Legal Status is 501(c)3 educational charity. A Foundation in the legal sense is an entity that distributes money for charitable purposes.
Purpose/Focus: FFRF is not a humanist or atheist group. It is a Freethought and State/Church separation group.
FFRF has no official language although it operates in English. Dan Barker, Co-President, is fluent in Spanish and often uses his skills to speak to bi-lingual groups. ````Constitutional Scholar Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
FFRF has over 18,500 members now. This can be checked in any of the legal letters that FFRF sends out which can be found on their website. The FFRF staff has two co-presidents, four attorneys, and six other staffers. Not to mention an executive council and honorary officers. http://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/
The wording chosen to discuss FFRF's finances is not neutral or accurate. The 2011 Form 990 ( http://ffrf.org/uploads/files/2011-990-form.pdf) reveals $201,572 spent on legal actions; $508,367 spent on educational events, convention,etc.; and $455,748 spent on publishing, broadcasting, etc. See page 2 of PDF. The current wording makes it appear that that the group has far more liquid assets and interest in litigation than is accurate. Last year they spent under $1.3 million total.
Annie Laurie Gaylor is also the editor of an anthology, Woe to the Women ISBN: 1877733121 and author of a nonfiction book exposing clergy pedophilia scandals (out of print) , Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/betrayal/
Ms. Gaylor was editor of Freethought Today until 2008 when Bill Dunn took over in July, 2008. Dan Barker is also the author of Godless: How and Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists ISBN: 1569756775, and The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God ISBN: 1569758468, and Just Pretend: A Freethought Book for Children http://ffrf.org/shop/books/Just-Pretend-A-Freethought-Book-for-Children/
Dan Barker was not a Pentecostal preacher; he was an traveling evangelical preacher who, for a time, held a position at a Pentecostal church- http://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/dan-barker/
FFRF has an annual conference, including in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and in October of 2012--Richard Dawkins will speak. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There is much wrong with this page. For instance:
This is a fabrication. First of all, it is rare that courts do anything swiftly, it was almost 18 months after the case was filed that Shirley Dobson was removed from the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on October 3, 2008 ( http://ffrf.org/news/2008/dayPrayerComplaint.pdf) and the court dismissed Dobson in an order filed on March 2, 2010 ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/27742422/FFRF-v-Obama-3-10). The challenge was to the National Day of Prayer, a government sanctioned religious event. In a later opinion the Judge found that the national day of prayer was unconstitutional. This decision was never overturned on the merits (i.e., the judge’s arguments were sound) but because the appeals court thought FFRF did not have standing to challenge the prayer. See this unbiased site (written by a Law Professor) for a more accurate description http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/03/plaintiffs-have-standing-to-challenge.html http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2011/04/7th-circuit-no-standing-to-challenge.html Here is a link to a description of the case at the district court level http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/04/national-day-of-prayer-declared.html
This is also repetitive of the loss that says “In April 2011, the FFRF’s challenge to the National Day of Prayer….”, is a more accurate statement . This repetition makes it look as though FFRF lost two cases which is simply untrue. Furthermore, it is standard for lawyers to include all possible defendants in a lawsuit and let the court sort out who should stay.
This lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice because FFRF did not demonstrate Article III standing. ayersopinion_20100930.pdf
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that taxpayers do not have standing to allege violations of the constitution. Defeated does not sound neutral
Again, this is misleading. The decision was not based on the merits of the arguments, but solely on standing. That is a crucial difference.
This is very premature. This should be in the pending litigation section. The district made questionable procedural errors in addition to legal and factual issues. The case is ongoing and will be for some time, FFRF appealed to the Sixth Circuit. Why is “Loses” capitalized?
This is not true. The citation is to group intervening in the lawsuit, and the “loss” was no loss at all. FFRF is engaged in a lawsuit right now and nothing has been decided. “Preliminary Battle” is nonsense.
Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
For this section there are a number of errors:
The lawsuit against Gov Richardson was voluntarily withdrawn some years ago. It is not pending or ongoing, nor was it lost--even though it is listed under losses to (just under a different name). http://ffrf.org/news/releases/pennsylvania-restaurant-offers-unlawful-church-discount-/
This is not true. An FFRF member is bringing an administrative action against Prudhommes on his own. FFRF is only providing advisory support and is not named or involved in the litigation as a party. FFRF did write three letters of complaint prior to the member filing the suit, but FFRF is not a named party.
This is not litigation. FFRF wrote several letters but no action has been filed.
This is not true. FFRF has written two letters : the first can be seen here ( http://ffrf.org/legal/SteubenvilleLogo.pdf), the second can be seen here ( http://ffrf.org/legal/SteubenvilleL2.pdf). Read them for yourself. At no time does FFRF threaten litigation, the first letter explains the law and that the city was violating the law then ask the city to change their logo, nothing more. The second letter addresses the costs of litigation because the city received an offer of “free” legal representation. FFRF pointed out that if the city were to lose, which was likely given the state of the law, they would still have to pay significant costs even with free legal representation. The image on the logo is not the Franciscan University of Steubenville, it is Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan University of Steubenville—an significant difference.
If non-litigation actions are going to be included for the sake of completeness and accuracy this page should be viewed: http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes/ Most of the entries on this page link to documentation that shows the victory. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
FFRF does not treat all mixture of politics and religion equally. On their own website, they single out the so-called "religious right" as the target of their efforts: http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/ 97.83.104.146 ( talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a criticism section in this article. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms out there. How about the outcry against their billboard campaigns? How about the fact that they target small towns who are unable to pay large legal fees? Without a criticism section, this is yet another article that shows the fundamental flaw in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.51.194 ( talk) 23:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Do they promote deism? God and religion are distinct. 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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).
When was the foundation founded? What were the dates of the important legal outcomes? Nohat 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
How about http://freethoughtradio.com/? -- N Jordan 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is mostly written in a subtle but unfriendly way. The organization does much more than the article suggests and the tone is not friendly. I think the warning at the top of the article stating that it reads like a press release is misleading. It reads like a press release the ACLJ or ADF would release about FFRF is they were trying not to be obvious about their dislike.
Constitutional Scholar (
talk)
20:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
There are a number of citations to articles that are not neutral.
Citations 8, 9, 12, and 15. 8 - CBN is the Christian Broadcasting Network, "a global ministry committed to preparing the nations of the world for the coming of Jesus Christ through mass media." http://www.cbn.com/ 9 - The Christian Science Monitor, Mary Baker Eddy's media outlet owned by a church. They are not as bias as CBN, but we could find a better citation for that. 12 - the ACLJ and FFRF are opponents on every issue. This cannot be neutral. 15 - Formerly the Conservative News Service, this is not a neutral outlet.
Citations 23 and 25 are to Fox News which is not really fair and balanced. In fact, Dan Barker, FFRF co-President, was kicked of Fox News during a segment about the Athens TX nativity scene. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK7XHEm7BE8 Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
FFRF has an annual essay contest with scholarship prizes. They also give out student activist scholarships for "brave" students. They just gave out one to a 12 year old. http://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-awards-12-year-old-freethinker-for-student-activism I suggest a new section on the article about this. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how to deal with the 2007 convention information. It is good information but FFRF has a convention with speakers every year I'd like to suggest a new section "Conventions" and move the information there. We can include date, place, and speakers. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 12:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the atheist group label for FFRF is incorrect. The group has two purposes A) to keep church and state separate (B) to "educate the public on matters of nontheism." I understand that Wikipedia should not just accept any group's self-identification, but atheist is a pretty narrow term. It also suggests that the members and employees are all atheists which is not true. The rejection of religion and religious dogma as a way of thinking is simply not atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Freethought on the other hand is a positive (as in standing for something and not the absence of something) definition that encompasses atheism, agnosticism, nontheism, and even state/church separation. "Freethought group" is a broader term that encompasses all of FFRF's stated goals and purposes whereas "atheist group" doesn't really encompass any. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Annie Gaylor has jewish ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.19.183 ( talk) 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
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:
As well, there are photos of the sign itself at:
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)
If this article is to have a State Capitol Signs section there should be a billboard section and newspaper section too. FFRF's "It's time to quite the Catholic Church" Ad was very controversial and got lots of media attention this year. It ran in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the LA times.
FFRF also has a blasphemous manger scene in the Madison, WI. state capitol. It was first placed in 2011. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/capitol-report/article_ba2a0390-267e-11e1-9cba-001871e3ce6c.html http://www.channel3000.com/news/Another-Nativity-Scene-To-Be-Displayed-At-Capitol/-/1648/8298288/-/mh76l6/-/index.html http://www.channel3000.com/news/Alternative-Nativity-Scene-Set-Up-At-Capitol/-/1648/8298248/-/15rk1dxz/-/index.html http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/wisconsin/capitol-nativity-display-has-company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constitutional Scholar ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I'm going to remove the Nativity Scene photo from the page, seems kind of silly to advertise a Nativity on an freedom from reli Cap020570 ( talk) 18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)gion page...
I feel that the religion wikiproject is inappropriate for the FFRF and should be removed, in that atheism/agnostic is not a religion and I believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Atheism would be more appropriate, that and the article already has atheism portal boxes on it. Cap020570 ( talk) 13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This section is woefully incomplete and what is complete is very misleading. FFRF has far more victories than losses in litigation (some can be viewed here: http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-successes/) FFRF also has far more victories than are listed that did not require litigation ( http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/other-legal-successes/ )
Citations 8, 9, are to religious sites which actively oppose FFRF’s work and cannot be considered neutral sources.
The first four cases under losses are either un-cited or cite to organizations opposed to FFRF’s work. The tone of these is clearly not neutral and hostile to FFRF. Someone is trying to make them look bad. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I am starting to think it would be better to list this chronologically as opposed to breaking them up into wins and losses. In some of the cases both sides will declare victory (most recently the Whiteville TN case). I suggest we eliminate the wins/losses and just have it a chronological list of litigation the FFRF is involved with the outcome in the description itself. This would also be better becuase some of the cases are not really losses in a meangingful sense, i.e., the court did not decide on the constitutional merits of the argument, rather it stated that FFRF did not have standing. This is an important distinction. Constitutional Scholar ( talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I propose to archive this talk page using MiszaBot per example 2 incremental archives but setting the old parameter to 90 days. Please comment. MrBill3 ( talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor (71.139.156.133) made substantial changes to the references section. I don't think it is appropriate to change a reference unless one actually reads the reference and is citing what one read. If it is a website for a newspaper that is different from reading the newspaper itself. Examples:
Why change the date format? The format in use was acceptable per WP:DATEFORMAT.
Changes reverted.
Third Party References
The same IP editor placed the third party ref tag. The article currently has 28 references which are news items, cites 14 court cases including a Supreme Court case and a book from a university press as well as several journal articles (some in a journal published by FFRF). The majority of self pub citations are to provide details of convention dates, locations, speakers and awardees and fall within WP:selfpub guidelines. - -
MrBill3 (
talk)
05:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm the one who has been expanding the convention section. I guess I don't understand how that got the article tagged. I thought I was following the WP:SELFPUB guidelines. Cap020570 ( talk) 14:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
In the next week or so I'm going to remove the 'convention table' that got this page tagged for sources. If anyone else finds outside sources for conventions, speakers, awardees, etc.. feel free to leave it here or on the page in the appropriate spot. Cap020570 ( talk) 13:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing research on The Clergy Project which redirects to this page. I think there are enough sources and information to merit a new page entirely for the Clergy Project. So I'm going to alter the redirect page. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey @ Harizotoh9: why did you revert the edits including the charity stats, etc? Those seem like useful information to me.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)