I certainly can separate a man from a group he belongs to (or even a group he
heads). Can't you see the difference between Pie XII, which did not condemn
the Jewish extermination, and the Roman Church? Can't you see the difference
between the Bush administration, which indirectly killed tens (hundreds?) of
thousands of civilians based on false assumptions, and the American people? I
can go on like that (but I think I have already won the Godwin point). To be
in phase with your ideas, I hope you have created you own country with your
own religion, etc. Notice however that it does not look very compatible with
the notion of fraternity/brotherhood.
I believe that the most efficient associations are those focusing on the
subject they defend/promote. In this way, anybody agreeing with the related
views (being a consequence of some greater goals or not) can step in. The FSF
is an example of such an association. Again, and rms insists on it, rms'
views, expressed on stallman.org, are *not* those of the FSF, which
exclusively deals with free software.
That is why I think your association can only harm the Free Software cause by
fragmentation (your website clearly is built by opposition with the FSF). Of
course, you are entitled to disagree and follow your own opinions. With the
same logics, we would have associations for free software and Islam, free
software and LGBT, free software and ecology, etc. I simply believe that it
is far more efficient to separate those issues. In this way people with
different backgrounds/opinions can contribute (I do believe in fraternity).
Believe it or not but a lot of people can act for the good of humanity ("do
the right thing") without needing a "damning God" (whatever it means) to
motivate their acts.
