Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)

Information

Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., is a national association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics) that has been working since 1978 to keep church and state separate.

Website: http://ffrf.org
Location: Madison
Members: 705
Latest Activity: Mar 5

Discussion Forum

Annie Laurie Gaylor Addresses NOFS "Freethought Fiesta"

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 22, 2016. 6 Replies

This past April, the Northern Ohio Freethought Society sponsored a "Freethought Fiesta," which among other things featured some terrific Mexican cooking for attendees and a talk by Freedom From…Continue

Tags: Annie Laurie Gaylor, Northern Ohio Freethought Society, Freedom From Religion Foundation

Human soul

Started by Lemual Poot. Last reply by tom sarbeck Nov 3, 2016. 55 Replies

I've heard many so called atheists refer to the "soul" as if it actually existed.  My question is:  If you believe humans have a soul are you really an atheist? Continue

Be it enacted by citizens of United States of America, three citizens be designated as true patriots

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Lemual Poot Jun 6, 2015. 6 Replies

Whereas, Olivia McConnell, Eight-year-old, wrote her South Carolina state representatives; and Whereas, Olivia provided a legitimate reason to suggest this legislation:1. One of the first discoveries…Continue

Atheism VS Islam

Started by Uzeal Eternal. Last reply by tom sarbeck Mar 28, 2015. 8 Replies

Atheist Guy together with Muslim Girl = Clash of the Titans.....who wins?Continue

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) to add comments!

Comment by Julie Carter on November 20, 2011 at 8:44pm

Wow. That article really shows why there is no way in hell I could vote for any of those candidates. I lean kind of to the libertarian side (with a little L), so I'm not a big fan of the Democrats either. But these Republican candidates just scare me to death. Their hypocrisy just sickens me.

Comment by Alan Michael Wilt on November 20, 2011 at 8:07pm

President Obama's proposal to raise taxes on the $250,000+ set has actually polled very well among voters. It's Congress--comprising millionaires beholden to other millionaires--who continue to vote against middle-class pocketbooks. It remains to be seen whether this sort of polling will translate votes for candidates such as Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson.

Comment by Natalie A Sera on November 20, 2011 at 5:41pm

Charles, you're probably right. Law #3 is the only explanation for why Obama's proposal to tax those making over $250,000 a year was rejected. It wouldn't have affected the vast majority of us at all, so why was it unpopular? So now they've rephrased it as taxing millionaires, but the original proposal would have raised a lot more money without hurting the working poor and middle class at all.

Comment by Charles W. Huffman on November 20, 2011 at 3:45pm

Natalie A Sera...Be careful what you wish for....The ignorant conservative voter can identify with the ignorant candidate....I believe that's Ronald Reagan's law #4 , Law #3 is the ignorant conservative voter always votes his prejudices over his pocket book ALWAYS................. These are real and followed by the Republican Party since Reagan.....That's why they have been successful.

Comment by Natalie A Sera on November 20, 2011 at 1:17pm

Well, in a perverse way, I'm hoping the Republicans nominate the looniest possible candidate, because then maybe the majority of not-too-bright American voters may actually see that, even though he's imperfect, Obama is the better choice. And further, I hope they see that loony Republicans have consistently obstructed every single thing that Obama and the Democrats have tried to do to improve the state of our economy. But maybe I'm being too optimistic, because I have talked with too many "normal" people who really don't have ANY idea of what government does, should do, and what the Constitution really says. :-(

Comment by Kevin D on November 20, 2011 at 11:12am

@David Witt, I read the article, and the tone is really scary.  Watching the thanksgiving family forum now, and OMG they had the female Congress woman poor water for all of the men.

Comment by David W on November 20, 2011 at 9:25am

American hopefuls article. I hope I'm allowed to post things such as this. I guess want I'm looking for here is some type of comfort to my intense fear regarding this article.

Here

Comment by Carol Smith on November 9, 2011 at 2:35pm

D'Souza's propaganda promoted at Huron H.S., Ann Arbor, as recently as April. http://humanities-notes.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-hate.html

Comment by Wanda T on November 7, 2011 at 7:18am

I have a recent example for you, @William

My elderly mother died a couple of weeks ago. Throughout her last days (which was actually a couple of months) she was provided hospice care. While she was devoutly religious and had a minister and church group that came to see her, I am not and they kindly focused their attention on my mother. The hospice workers however continually asked if I needed the support of a chaplain. I repeatedly told them no. They had one call me anyway. Daily references to god's blessings and a near insistence that they provide some form of spiritual support was anything but helpful; indeed, it was yet another burden for me as an already stressed caregiver. Social workers do need to understand this, and I support you action. I received a survey from the hospice program a couple of days ago and noted this when I filled it out. I recommend that others do the same if presented with the opportunity.

Comment by William on November 6, 2011 at 7:53pm
For those who haven't interacted with social workers this is kind of a hard problem to describe. Essentially, Social workers have a code of ethics, in this code of ethics, there is a standard of cultural competence. It says: "Social workers should obtain education about and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, and mental or physical disability." I feel the exclusion of Non-religious as a category is getting the way of social workers being culturally competent with secular groups. So I started a petition. http://www.change.org/petitions/nasw-include-non-religious-a-catego...
 

Members (705)

 
 
 

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

Latest Activity

k.h. ky replied to Banjo's discussion I just had JW's visit. Me. "Can you read my T shirt."
13 minutes ago
Kelly replied to Kelly's discussion Greetings all!
32 minutes ago
tom sarbeck replied to Richard Haynes's discussion Brother Richard's speech: "Thank God America is a Secular Nation "
1 hour ago
tom sarbeck replied to Richard Haynes's discussion Brother Richard's speech: "Thank God America is a Secular Nation "
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"Just back from a neat event introducing BMW's new 5-series sedan. Good food, good music, good company. You don't beat that with no stick!"
3 hours ago
Joan Denoo liked Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Corrupt Strongman Replaces Democracy
4 hours ago
Gary S replied to Thomas Murray's discussion Confuzzled
4 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service