The basis of the FFRF is non-paritsan support for the First Amendment, separation of church and state - their raison d'etre.

It is not about conservative or liberal politics. I can understand that NOT having a belief in religion seems very radical to people raised with those beliefs. Sadly many are using religion as a basis to promote the separation of the people of America.

I would step back and try to understand what it really means to keep religion out of the state. Finally I would like to point out the concept of a God and religion are sort of separate issues. Man created religion, a concept/idea that probably seemed good but the downside of human nature, greed, fear, power and control got in the way. To this day each religion has the one and only 'truth' and only their way is the way to 'heaven'.

The many ideals are what make it neccessary to keep church and state completely separate.

The problem with the freedom from religion foundation is it favors people that support religious freedom heavily over people that don't. Unfortunately as it stands right now the conservatives can’t win without the support of the predominantly conservative religious right wing. For that very reason I can never bring myself to support the FFRF or American Atheist as they are overwhelmingly dominated by the liberal’s which I consider to be even more radical and dangerous than the religious.

Please forgive my edit for the purpose of clarification. The remaining unedited portion made your bias very clear. What was unaddressed in this emotional post was WHY you consider organizations that stand up for unbelievers to be more dangerous than the religious. This site is called agnostic.com. It is a community of non-believers or the undecided. If you wish to make an important case I would love to hear it as I may learn something, Facebook is a great place for a pointless rant...just sayin

If the Republican party cannot win without the Jesus people, that tells me everything I need to know about them.

You’re completely off. Groups like FFRF - of which I’m a LIfe Member - are pro-US Constitution, pro-First Amendment; that’s their purpose. THEY ARE NON-PARTISAN. And THAT is what you seem to have a problem with. The people you apparently support are anti-First Amendment- literally, anti-separation of religion and state, which is the very foundation of Republic, and has been since day one - and you don’t seem to recognize that, at all. SPEAK TO THE CORE ISSUE, PLEASE, AND LEAVE YOUR PARTISANSHIP AT HOME.

I reject your premise. At least atheists don't want to force their views on the entire world. Non believers say that if you're anti abortion then don't get one, thumperZ are anti abortion so they want to ban them for everyone.

LOL!!! The conservative agenda has favored the xtian fundamentalist right wing for ages. Has championed teaching Creationism in schools, posting copies of the 'Ten Commandments' in courthouses, anti-LGBTQ legislation, tax breaks for religious organizations, etc., etc., etc. Of course, you can support, or not, any organization you wish, but you seem, like most conservative voters, to be voting against your best interests. I am a proud member of both FFRF & American Atheists, & am also a Progressive & I find the xtian right, alt-right & the tRump agenda to be a "clear & present danger" to our society as a whole. Not some of the core values that the base may support, when it really was fiscal conservatism & 'family values' (tho I tend to differ with the usual xtian basis for those values), but the much more radical & heartless direction that overwhelmingly promotes corporate welfare at the expense of a real working class that the right espouses now.

？？？

I don't understand what you mean by "support." All I have ever seen the FFRF do is combat violations of the separation of state and church. Can you be more specific? At a high level, I would say the FFRF has cause for concern about Trump and his presidency because that administration is actively working to bulldoze the wall of separation, and they are succeeding. Just look at the SCOTUS.