Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)


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.

Location: Madison
Members: 704
Latest Activity: Oct 26

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


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

Comment by Charles W. Huffman on November 21, 2011 at 7:04am

Julie Carter.........Are you sure you know what a libertarian is, if you do you scare me more than the Tea Party, Republicans.

Comment by Charles W. Huffman on November 21, 2011 at 6:54am

The Republicans will ,nominate the most ignorant candidate, Rick Perry. Because of Reagan's Law #4, which is the ignorant conservative voter can identify with the ignorant candidate.

Comment by Charles W. Huffman on November 21, 2011 at 6:50am

The attacks on Obama are serious, we know they are foolish, but the ignorant conservative takes them very seriously. So they should not be taken lightly.

Comment by Steph S. on November 20, 2011 at 10:39pm
Comment by Julie Carter on November 20, 2011 at 10:03pm

I find the people who accuse Obama of things like Muslim or not born in America, that kind of stuff, just too ridiculous to take seriously. If they say something like that, I pretty much ignore anything else they have to say, because they are messed in the head. As for socialist...I think there are too few people who understand what a socialist is. Including people whose views are actually socialistic.

Comment by sk8eycat on November 20, 2011 at 9:53pm

TYPO: "Principled stand"  (Why is there no "Edit" feature on this page?)'s difficult to type and proofread with a cat standing between my hands and eyes and the keyboard. As soon as I sit down here, he hops in my lap, but won't lie down.

Comment by sk8eycat on November 20, 2011 at 9:49pm

I am suspicious of two things: 1) Democrats with no backbone; the ones who are afraid to make a principlesd stand on civil rights and fiscal issues. (Or have been in DC so long thay have no principles. And 2) That the GOPhers are parading their looniest candidates now, and then later on will bring on a surprise dark horse candidate who sounds like he has something like a brain by comparison.  The middle of the road Republicans (if there are any remaining) and independents might see such a person as presidential material, and vote for him/her out of relief.  Especially if the propaganda against Obama gets to be as vicious as I know it will.

All the accusations against him ("Muslim," "socialist," etc.) are ALL codes for the "N-word."  That's what they hate the most about him; his pigmentation. As if that had anything to do with ability to govern.

He IS a brilliant man, but he has always been too xian for my peace of mind.  Hard to understand considering that his mother and grandmother were freethinkers.

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.


Members (702)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service