What do you think about the Freedom From Religion Foundation?

@JLeslie – I’ll be honest – I’ve read the details in your question 4 times, and I’m still not sure what it is you find objectionable about the FFRF. The “happy medium” you refer to is only possible because there are people willing to fight for that – including groups like the FFRF.

Anyway, I am quite happy that the FFRF exists and is challenging violations of church/state separation.

I haven’t seen the Ron Reagan commercial for awhile now, but it’s been around for quite some time. I just watch very little commercial television these days. I would describe myself as a skeptical agnostic, meaning I don’t know. As for the organization, I don’t think Ron does his outfit good service by crowing so arrogantly, but I do applaud the group’s monitoring and intervention in the many instances in this country of government financing and facilitation of religious propagation. Such practices are apparently far more common in the neglected backwater regions of the country where they are understandably far less subject to notice or scrutiny. The foundation has a stellar record of exposing such cases to the legal system where they are consistently found impermissible on constitutional grounds. I applaud their work and wish them well. Things are bad enough without government facilitation of indoctrination terminating in the onslaught of nonsense eruptions in flyover country

I am a theist. Yet I don’t understand what your objection is. It is akin to saying yuck to a Presbyterian group promoting prayer but you are Methodist (or Lutheran or Episcopalian) and you believe in prayer too.

I see nothing wrong with a group advocating for atheists. The Constitution only provides separation of government from specific religious institutions, but allows for non-denominational advocacy. We have coins that say, “In God we trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance contains the words, ”...under God.” We atheists have a right to state our preference for keeping religion out of government and commerce. Atheists and agnostics make up about 8% of the U.S., a small but not insignificant percentage, with much higher percentages in some other industrialized countries.

The way I see it, the FFRF is another group – just like religious groups, or political groups, or sewing groups, or the Girl Scouts. It’s a bunch of people that are getting together to talk over things of mutual interest.

FFRF happens to be concerned with a particular belief – one that disagrees with the concept of god. How is this different from a Baptist church group, that advocates FOR god. It isn’t.

@JLeslie – you are overthinking this. There’s nothing special, or odious, or scary about these folks. They are simply taking advantage of their constitutional right to gather.

I’ll admit that it comes across as smug, but I did get a laugh from “not afraid to burn in hell”.

All you have to do is look at the Republican presidential candidates to see that an organization protecting the separation of church and state is vitally important.

But what’s with the anti-atheism/prejudice? When atheists build mega-anti-worship houses, put up billboards, and knock on your door on Saturday mornings, then maybe we should re-assess.

I can’t see where you have to declare you are an atheist to join. It is an organisation promoting secularism and that is very important right now.

Atheist here, and a proponent of “live & let live.” As long as nobody is shoving their beliefs onto others, let them do what they want. Just don’t come knocking on my door with your propaganda.

Agnostic here, which means I don’t believe but reserve the right to change my mind on my death bed. I don’t push my views on anyone else nor do I have any problem with others expressing theirs. I do find it annoying when a groups only purpose is to disparage the beliefs of others. They don’t want to erect some sign or statue of their own beliefs but rather want a display that ridicules the beliefs of others. I have no problem with atheists but I do have a problem with anti-theists.

@Jaxk: “I do find it annoying when a groups only purpose is to disparage the beliefs of others.”

…or fight for (what they see as) important constitutional rights? I’ll take it that you are not a fan of organized political action?

The FFRF is not a bunch of annoying kids making fun of people. They feel that they are providing a valuable service in making sure church/state is kept separate.

I’m with @syz. Plus, Reagan kinda creeps me out.

Look at the legal issues they take on. They are NOT telling people what to believe. They are reminding religion that there are boundries and that people have rights and that we live in a Secular society. It is a very simple rule: If it is State and Federally funded, no church-y stuff.

https://ffrf.org/legal/archives/itemlist/

I agree that it’s a common misconception that only atheists care about separation of church and state. There are many religious people who understand that theirs is not the only religion in existence and that perhaps laws shouldn’t be so tied with one religion. In that case, this group could align themselves with non-atheists if they didn’t take an approach that came off more as anti-religion, than simply “anti-religionstate”. Nonetheless, many religious people, while not exclusively in support of the binding of church and state will either be oblivious to it when it happens or simply not care if they are aware.

I don’t see what the problem is. That “happy medium” wouldn’t exist in this country if not for groups like the FFRF.

You need one pole opposite the other to end up in the middle.
Yin-Yang

Based on what you say here, you should know exactly how they, Atheists like me, feel.

Gosh. I don’t really know (agnostic here.) It does seem like the religious right have a desire to force their views onto the general public. They go so far as to want laws written according to what they believe. The fact that there is even any debate about whether creationism should be taught in the schools is proof of that.
They wanted a law that says they don’t have to serve a certain sect of people.

I like the sound of “Freedom From Religion.”

I also think the FFR folks are in that happy medium you speak of. They aren’t trying to convert anyone (unlike the religious right.) They aren’t slamming religion. They’re just trying to uphold the constitution.

@Dutchess_III

I’ve actually had some Christians say to me that the separation clause is meant to keep government out of the church, not the church out of government (and of course, they never realize the failure of that logic, even when pointed out to them).

What I think about that is redacted.

One thing to remember is that, in the minds of many, everyone on Earth is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist. The average person on the street isn’t all that knowledgeable about Theology; often not enough to even know what “Agnostic” means.

I mention this as the FFRF is an organization that wants people to at least respect it. That means that they have to use language that people understand. Once you get over people’s heads, you often lose their respect.

As for my opinion on the FFRF itself, I’m on the fence as I haven’t really seen enough of them to really form a solid opinion yet.

@Jaxk ” I do find it annoying when a groups only purpose is to disparage the beliefs of others. ”

I do too, which is part of why you and I cannot agree on politics or economics.

I’m agnostic and I found the FFRF website narrow-minded and creepy.

“What is the Foundation’s Purpose?” takes me to:
” What are the benefits & how do I set up my membership profile online?
Registering to create your own online profile has many other benefits for you and for FFRF. Features include:• CONTACT INFO & PASSWORD. Manage your contact information (for example, updating your postal address, phone numbers and email addresses) and change your…”

Like a cult. The foundation’s purpose is to sign up like-minded members?

@ibstubro

Well an organization isn’t going to go very far without members, so yeah, most are going to offer information about becoming a member. If that makes the FFRF a cult then the AARP is a cult too.

However, had you actually clicked on the “What is the Foundation’s purpose?” portion of the FAQ you would have found this…

“The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.”

…instead of what you’re implying.

Oh no! based on @ibstubro definition of a cult…. my bank is a cult and so is the SPCA and National Audubon Society….. and oh NO! My Pay Pal account! I had no idea I was in so deep. They must be really good at the whole , mind manipulation thing.

I guess most of you are saying what @LuckyGuy summed up simply as Yin and Yang. I cam see why we need an organization to counter the opposite extreme of religious people putting religion in government. However, at the same time it is the same, not the opposite, if the organization is being as extreme as the religious people. Was there really a need on the commercial to say, “I’m not going to burn in hell?” This organization has put atheist messages to counter religious ones, and I don’t want “Jesus loves you” on big billboards either, and I get that the Christians who think that’s just fine don’t understand with words why it makes some people uncomfortable, so organization are trying to show them what it is like by sayin “there is no God” and alike, but it’s the same isn’t it? In the end filling the air space with religious or antireligious messages.

Why be extreme? I think that is the problem in America. Our pendulum swings too broadly too often. Moderation seems better to me. I like watching a show where a Catholic Priest and Rabbi all agree that prayer should not be in public school. I’ve seen that. Throw in an atheist too, that’s fine.

As a born and raised and continue to be atheist, and maybe also important Jew, when things border on trying to shove beliefs down someone else’s throat, or imply that someone else’s beliefs are wrong, I start to get a bad feeling. Not during a discussion. If there is a religious discussion and people are debating and trying to understand each others beliefs, and everyone participating is interested in the content, that’s fine. But, blurting out something that basically says I believe differently than you in a way that is easily taken as offensive isn’t nice.

Atheists are already disliked by many, not trusted, and seen as communists, immoral, antiAmerican, and against religious freedom. Those attributes don’t apply to any of the atheists I know. That’s the message I want out there about people like me, that we respect religious freedom, we care about society, family, fairness, justice, and America.

What about the Cristero War? My history knowledge sucks, but wasn’t it an atheist who played a major role in this war in Mexico to protect religious freedoms when the government was going to secular extremes? The religious and the nonreligious can be on the same side, I think a lot of people don’t see it. Being able to freely be an atheist is religious freedom, and so is being able to practice your religion.

First of all, @JLeslie, I’m a bit surprised that you mentioned that you just now heard of FFRF. You’ve been aware of them for years – and probably pretty thankful for them. Remember Bush’s faith-based initiative. Yes, it was them who provided a challenge to this (and lost, by the way, 5–4 supreme court). Check out their list of legal work. It’s impressive. I bet you just forgot the name of the organization, but have for years been able to sleep at night because you knew that “someone” was fighting the fight.

@JLeslie: “However, at the same time it is the same, not the opposite, if the organization is being as extreme as the religious people.”

This appears to be the argument used by people who just can’t understand why atheists won’t just be quiet about their lack of faith, or why the LGBT community won’t just stay quiet about their sexuality.

Human Rights Campaign isn’t the “same” as WBC. And fighting for civil rights in an environment of hate and mistrust doesn’t need to be fought from the closet.

The FFRF commercial doesn’t resonate with you. That’s ok. You are not its intended audience. But there are people who are quite alone and who will see this (or the billboards) and it will make a difference in their life. It’s ok to be an atheist and not just sit there in silence.

Years ago, I lived in a conservative rural town here in Massachusetts. I had a bumper sticker that read “church/state – keep them separate”, as well as an “atheist” sticker. One day, I was driving through town to drop my daughter off at a friend’s house and a car followed me for some distance. When I stopped at my destination, a man got out of his car and nervously approached me. He apologized for following me, but wanted to meet me and thank me. Close to tears, he thanked me for making him feel that he was not alone. He told me how he just couldn’t believe that there was someone else in town who also didn’t believe, and that it made his “day, month, year” to know that I existed.

It’s not a balance thing. While it’s somewhat better to be an atheist today in the US than it was even 15 years ago, let’s not pretend that we have anything close to acceptance – especially in flyover country. We have a long way to go.

@JLeslie: “Why be extreme?”

This is a tough question that would lead to a whole host of questions. What does it mean to be extreme? Is it extreme to fight for the rights of women? Is it extreme to fight for reproductive freedom? Is it extreme to fight for strict gun laws? I’m not sure you’ll find much agreement about the definition of “extreme”. But another question really has to do with organizational and political strategy. This is again another discussion.

@JLeslie: ” But, blurting out something that basically says I believe differently than you in a way that is easily taken as offensive isn’t nice.”

I’m trying to understand where you’re really coming from here, because I’m quite surprised by your reaction to the old FFRF. I could be wrong, but I suspect that what you’re proposing here is that people/groups should fight for separation of church and state, yet do it while still having at least one foot in the closet. It seems that you are opposed to atheists coming out in any significant way. And that communicating our own beliefs in a sea of opposing beliefs is impolite in some way. We can be atheists, but we should be quiet about it. Am I wrong?

@JLeslie , Just what is it that atheists should do? Remain silent unless someone asks directly whether you believe in God? Should we be defensive and go around saying that we are nice people and not really in league with the devil?

If the day ever comes when there are no longer any theists then atheists as such will no longer exist either. They will disappear the same way that heliocentrists disappeared after there were no longer any geocentrists. Until that time comes, we should promote our beliefs and, if those beliefs include items that others find offensive, then so be it.

I’m not implying anything, @Darth_Algar.

The question was, “What do you think about the FFR?”
My answer, “I’m agnostic and I found the FFRF website narrow-minded and creepy.”

There’s a local FFR broadcast on NPR that I’ve heard a couple of times. It was interesting and my only other introduction to FFR. Interesting concept, unimpressive website.

@JLeslie

What, exactly, is extreme about saying “I’m not going to Hell”? Honestly it kinda sounds like you’re saying atheists should just sit down and be quiet.

@ibstubro

Your selective quoting of one small part of the website (and not even a part that addresses the question you posted from the FAQ) is very much implying that the FFRF’s only purpose is to expand their membership roles. You reinforce this implication by calling them “like a cult”.

Well, no, @ibstubro. I wouldn’t call it a cult. It’s a membership club. Of course they’d like more members, but I don’t see that as their primary goal.

It is not extreme to me to fight in court for issues relating to separation of church and state. I like that this organization does that, I just wish it wasn’t an organization of atheists doing it. I guess you don’t have to be an atheist to support, or be a member of, the FFRF, but with a commercial like that it isn’t going to attract a lot of Catholics. Almost all of my Catholic friends are against prayer in school and they don’t have any problem with same sex civil marriage.

It is extreme to me to state “I’m not going to hell” from out of nowhere, just like if a Christian says to me “I’m a Christian, I’m going to heaven.” Or, when they state,“I’m a Christian,” as a way of saying they are honest and good.

I fully believe minority groups should be out of the closet so that people in society know that there are more of us around than they think, they see us, know us, and know we are just like everybody else. Gay, atheist, Muslim, whatever the group. Saying that I completely understand and am ok with people hiding their minority status when they feel it is personally better for them. I don’t believe in forcing anyone out, except in the case of public hypocrisy.

In summary, when possible, I like for organizations to be inclusive. To attract people who maybe at first might not seem like bedfellows, but who can unite for a cause. My Catholic friends, since I mentioned them above, think very much like me on many of these issues, because in American history the Catholics were questioned. Look at when Kennedy ran for President, many citizens questioned if he would take orders from the Vatican. They know prayer or a bible in public school won’t likely be their version of the bible. Pretty much most religious minorities probably understand those things, although I would agree in places where there is a huge majority of one religion in a community, those people can sometimes be more clueless, or to use a nicer word, naive. Not always though, I am not wanting to paint with one brush.

I’m pretty sure that group is inclusive. I didn’t read it that close, but was there a list of do’s an don’ts you have to follow to be a member? Did it state that theists can’t be members?

But you know…now that I think of it, I understand what you’re saying. The name of the group is a little inflammatory. It doesn’t march the word “Atheist” all over the place, but it is mentioned here and there. If I was a Christian, would I be able to overlook that, even if I was all for the separation of church and state (which I was, even as a Christian.)

A different phrasing might be a little more inviting.

@JLeslie , Do your Catholic friends believe that you are going to hell, and wouldn’t you find that at least a little irksome? I know that I do. It is about time that atheists make clear that we don’t need to get our morality from a book and that a person’s morality is determined by what they do and not what they believe in.

I think it’s clear to everyone here. Going to hell isn’t the issue. It’s the narrowness of the FFRF group.

Why are Christians open minded when they say that non-Christians are going to hell while the FFRF is narrow minded in saying they are not?

Having a focused agenda is an issue? Hmmmm…. Let me check how that works out….

@LostInParadise what? Where was that even brought up on the FFRF website?

Well, glancing through it I saw, “The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion [emphasis mine] and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.”

I think plenty of religious people are all for the separating of state and church, but those words exclude them. I think I’m coming around to @JLeslie‘s POV.

Does every group have to be all-inclusive and welcoming of everyone? FFRF is specifically a group for non-believers. There are other groups out there that also fight for the separation of church and state that aren’t specifically for non-believers. Why does this group have to cater to believers when there are other groups who would fit that role and welcome believers? Why is catering to a specific group “extreme”?

It depends on what their main mission is. The FFRF folks seem to be claiming that their mission is to protect the separation of church and state. Why would one have to be non-religious to be a member? Or is there another agenda that I’m missing?

@LostInParadise It bothers me that some Christians believe I’m going to hell. It’s why I would have a really hard time if my children (if I had children) decided they wanted to be Christian. I am admittedly narrow in what I would want them exposed to. However, I married a man raised Catholic, his mother, a fairly religious Catholic, married someone raised Jewish and I don’t think she for one second feels Jews are less moral and I don’t think she questions my goodness based on bring an atheist and my guess is she doesn’t worry about us going to Heaven or not, but I never asked her that question. My friends who are Catholic, some believe you need Jesus to go to Heaven, some don’t.

Christians aren’t open minded when they say we are going to hell. My point is, it even worse if they blurt it out when unnecessary. I’m pretty sure my Christian friend who attend the First Evangelical church and writes about God on Facebook believes that you need to accept Jesus as your saviour to go to Heaven, but she has never once made me uncomfortable by saying something about religion when I am with her. I should mention it’s doubtful she knows I’m an atheist, but she knows I’m Jewish.

@cazzie @Darth_Algar I don’t have a problem with the focused agenda of being a watchdog for separation of church and state. Plus, they can be exclusive in membership if they want to be, I’m just saying I would prefer it wasn’t that way.

@Dutchess_III

They aren’t saying that you have to be non-religious to be a member. It’s just that their particular focus is on non-religious folks.

@LostInParadise I just want to add, the friends who worry about heaven who are Catholic, none of them have ever blurted out to me that they believe that, they have never once made me feel uncomfortable. Their religion is for themselves. I have only had one friend say something about my lack of faith in Jesus, and that was when a Christian friend of mine (not Catholic) moved to Alabama in high school and got saved. When I saw her again she asked me, “how can you not believe in Jesus,” from out of the blue, and I found it rude and shocking. Later, as an adult, she came around. I found out her dad was a lapsed Catholic, atheist, which I had not known, maybe she didn’t either? I’m not sure. She was very close to her dad, but when her parents divorced it was a tricky situation for a while.

@Darth_Algar They aren’t saying you have to be an atheist, but what religious theist is going to join that organization with the organization throwing around the word atheist and advertising they aren’t going to hell, which basically is making of fun of that religious belief. Noself respecting Christian, in the Christian community, who goes to church is going to want to associate with that group or even admit they have the same feelings about separation of church and state when it means aligning with a group that is obnoxious to Christian beliefs.

@JLeslie

Again, why does a Christian have to join, or want to join, that particular group when there are other groups with the same goals? Why does a group that’s specifically intended for a particular target audience need to cater to those who aren’t in that target audience?

And sticking up for yourself (“I’m not going to Hell”) is hardly “making fun” of Christians. Then again, I know how thin-skinned some Christians are.

I thought their focus was on separation of church and state, not people. What difference would it make to their mission, their focus, if they had theist members who also wanted to keep church and state separate?

Their focus is separation of church and state. Their target audience is non-believers. Focus and target audience are different things.

They aren’t selling cute shoes to 14 year old girls. They also aren’t targeting an “audience.” Their target goal is the whole US and the judicial system, and if anyone can help with it, and sincerely believes in it, they should not be excluded just because they are a theist. That makes no sense to me.
For example, they have, I believe, 14 attorneys on board. What if the best attorney in the country wanted to come on board, but he was a theist. Would they turn him away?

Show me where on their website it says or indicates that they won’t accept believers, that you must be an atheist to join, and I’ll concede the point.

That was my original argument, Darth. “Where does it say they can’t join?”
But then I looked closer, and this line, in their About us statement, suggests that is the case: “The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.”

That statement is what started me thinking in a different direction. If I was still a Christian it would turn me off. As a Christian, I wasn’t “free” from religion. It guided much of what I did. However, I didn’t view it as a bondage of some sort. I didn’t view it as something I needed, or wanted, to be “free” from. However, I whole heartedly accepted the necessity of the separation of church and state.

Again, why do they have to cater to those with religious beliefs?

Because if those with religious beliefs also speak out for separation of church and state then they are speaking to their own. Christians can just see the atheists trying to secularize public property as the enemy and dismiss it altogether. If a Christian, or any religious person, can explain to another religious person why it’s to everyone’s benefit to have separation of church and state they might stop and listen. Separation of church and state is not against Christianity, it protects religious rights for all. The more we separate ourselves into groups the more separate we are. Where we can find common ground can only help things.

As @Darth_Algar pointed out, there are other groups that try to be more inclusive. This one is primarily interested in attracting non-believers. That is their prerogative. Why, for example, would a group call itself Salvation Army? Do you think that their name might turn away people who might otherwise be interested? Again that is their prerogative. They have a religious agenda and are primarily interested in attracting Christians.

Suppose the FFRF decided to campaign to have “In God we trust” removed from coins. Theists may not be interested, seeing no harm in having what they view as a harmless statement that appeals to most religions. By stating up front that they are primarily interested in non-believers, the FFRF opens itself up to take on a wider variety of issues.

Of course FFRF can set up their organization however they want. I don’t argue with their right to exist.

What other organizations fight for separation of church and state and market themselves to Christians and people from other religious groups? What are the names of these other organizations?

@JLeslie

Have you not heard of the ACLU? That’s a big one, and one that’s inclusive of people from all different creeds, believer and non-believer alike.

Do white Christians identify with the ACLU? I’m just asking, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m sure some do, like I have said I never think all of any group when I mention a group. The ACLU argues for more than religious freedoms, they fight for civil liberties in general.

Why are white Christians the group that must be catered to? I really don’t understand your issue here, or, frankly, your seeming insistence that we kowtow to white Christians. So some Christians might be bothered by the FFRF. Who cares? Seriously. I’ve grown up surrounded by the type of Christians who would be offended by a group calling itself the Freedom From Religion Foundation and, frankly, fuck what those Christians think of it. You’re not going to win them over anyway, so why bother? These are exactly the kind of Christians who believe that the law should be based on their faith.

This isn’t the only group that works for separation of church and state. There are secular groups that work around the world. I belong to one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movements.org

Where did this “catering” business pop up from, @Darth_Algar? How would they be “catering” to Christians?

@Dutchess_III Because @JLeslie asks, plain as day, Do white Christians identify with the ACLU? as if that is the standard by which a group is acceptable.

This whole conversation seems odd to me, a group of like minded people who fight for a Constitutional right to be upheld is criticized for not casting a wide enough net.

@zenvelo: “This whole conversation seems odd to me, a group of like minded people who fight for a Constitutional right to be upheld is criticized for not casting a wide enough net.”

It is one of the oddest things I have had the opportunity to read. I will admit that I just can’t follow it at all, which is making me feel extremely stupid. I feel like I’m missing something.

I’m an atheist and I don’t identify with how that group alienates people. That’s what bothers me. They don’t have to cater to me or anybody, I’m just stating my reaction to the group, their ads, and how they seem to market to atheists only. I think the cause of separation of church and state could be better served using a wider net of membership.

I’m not worried about including or offending Christians as much as I am about being stereotyped as an atheist. Not that I am very “worried” it was just my initial reaction was negative when I saw the commercial and I wondered what others thought.

I don’t understand why jellies think I think the FFRF must change, they can do whatever the hell they want. I just don’t love the way they are going about it and I am part of the atheist group.

“I don’t understand why jellies think I think the FFRF must change”

That’s been the vibe you’ve been throwing off with pretty much every post in this thread.

@Darth_Algar I have been stating my reaction to finding out about them and trying to explain why I feel that way. I was interested in how others felt about the organization. That’s it. That’s all of it. Most jellies here don’t have the same reaction as me, I’m fine with that. I don’t feel like anyone has to agree with me, I’m only explaining my own reaction and for some reason a few jellies think my opinion is wrong. It’s just my opinion. Opinion. Opinion. It’s not a Q about facts where there is a right or wrong.

Some jellies reinforced the idea that sometimes we need an extreme to fight another extreme, a valid point that I wasn’t really thinking about when I first saw the commercial, because I didn’t know enough about the FFRF’s work.

You seem to want to change my mind. I’m not going to change my mind about being rude to a group in a commercial, but I do find value in the work the FFRF does now that I know more.

(Yes, it’s just your opinion, just as my posts are my opinion. Ok, now that we’ve cleared up that personal opinions are just personal opinions…)

Let me put it this way – why would a group of atheists want to be inclusive of people who are offended by the mere fact that they are atheists?

Not all Christians are offended by atheists. I don’t want to exclude the Christians that could join us in the fight.

Obviously not all Christians are. I’ve already addressed this. The subset of Christians who are going to be offended by someone being an atheist aren’t going to be on board with the wall of separation anyway. Those Christians who are on board aren’t going to be bothered by someone being openly atheist (and are going to feel ridiculed by an atheist saying “I’m not going to Hell”). So why hide who they are?

I disagree. I think even the Christian who has no problem with atheists won’t appreciate flip, sarcastic statements, like what was said on the commercial, nor will they feel welcome in a group that says they area bunch of atheists several times on their website.

Even if that’s the case why should the organization bend to accommodate them? If somebody is bothered by atheists being open about the fact that they’re atheists then fuck them. If someone is bothered by an atheist saying “I’m not going to hell” then fuck them. Why should one expect to feel welcome among a group that one is disdainful of?

@JLeslie – Do you not see any benefit in an organization that encourages people to be unashamed of who they are? What about LGBT organizations? Should they all be strictly legal organizations that serve no other purpose? What you are saying about atheists can and has been said about all of those “in your face” homosexuals.

You admit to having just heard of FFRF (which is strange). Have you since spent any time learning more about it. You must have heard of Annie Laurie Gaylor or Dan Barker (the former preacher). Anyway, you are stating an objection to activism and providing the ability to “come out”. You’re speaking from a position of privilege, and finding the work of activism to be icky and improper.

There are always many activist groups that attack from different levels. They serve different purposes towards a shared goal. You might prefer Americans United (Barry Lynn). But that doesn’t diminish the important work and angle of FFRF.

You’re expressing a conservative “just wait for them to come around” approach that some people have had about race, LGBT, and religion. Once there are enough people to come around on their own, they can join our inclusive group and everything will work out. That’s not the history of social movements and activism. That’s not how it works. Things are attacked on many different levels from many perspectives. And people generally don’t just wait around for the majority’s acceptance. It must be fought for.

And it should be noted that many of us don’t just want to be accepted. We feel that religion is harmful and wrong, and that the moral course of action is to speak out about that. The fact you find it distasteful is probably ok. It is supposed to shake things up. That’s how change happens.