Talk:The Foundation for a Better Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"entirely funded by evangelical Christian"[edit]

I think the inclusion of the religion of the founder in this case places undue weight on that fact. It also implies a religious affiliation for a organization that appears to provide positive messages for the only purpose of providing positive messages. This also implies religion somehow had some purpose in the founder's success, however he is a capitalist not a religious figure. Jeff Carr (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please put this fact back in! It's not a judgment statement. I think people reading this article can come to their own conclusions about the fact that the sole funder of this foundation is an Evangelical Christian who supports intelligent design and doesn't support the rights of homosexuals. If someone comes to Wikipedia after watching a commercial from this foundation, they should have all the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I Agree, this should be stated in the article. The sole funding for this organization comes from a fanatical evangelical Christian, and it's misleading to believe for a second that this organization isn't just another front for pushing fundamentalist Christian doctrine. If this organization was funded 100% by Osama bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you'd better bet their religious and political affiliations would be listed front and center. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC).
I also support this. After seeing the commercials for the first time I immediately suspected it was a fundamentalist christian message, due to it's guilt trip, unwarranted presupposed (and completely futile "preaching to the choir" message that seems more like a tax break than actually trying to do something) acceptable message with a trite armchair normative philosophy gleaned off a fortune cookie or a support column in the back of a swap sheet.Sanitycult (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there potentially being a religous agenda is an important fact to include in this article. I saw one of these commercials full of loving couples, and it was incredibly conspicuous that there were no LGBT/QUILTBAG couples in it. In this day and age, that's a deliberate, conscious omission, a rejection of the love the organization claims to promote when it doesn't fit their narrow agenda. I came to Wikipedia specifically to check my suspicions, only to find the article has been sanitized of this critical information. Thank goodness for the Talk page; these days I learn a lot more from what's been cut than from Wiki articles themselves! Critterkeeper (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a suspicious organization. There should be a "Controversy" section added to it. (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the official website, it avoids mention of any political or religious bias, or even the possibility of such. If you don't disclose your own, you're being misleading, dishonest. Completely disagree with attempts to EXCLUDE facts. Let them speak for themselves. (I came here because they used the Imagine song in a TV ad. Yet that's like the atheist anthem. To not mention religion at all, I suspected it was some religious nut. Looks like I was right.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just seen one of these for the first time. An advert encouraging people to say "please" and "thank you". I'm this > < far away from recording it frame-by-frame and looking through for subliminal messages! Yvan eht nioj, people!

The website is suspiciously non-partisan! Anonymous to the point where they're hiding who's behind it. Nobody throws international TV advertising money at "be nice" campaigns. You don't get to be a millionaire by being that eccentric! And the fact that it functions as a tax write-off in the USA (right?) is sickening. Making things like this tax-deductible essentially means the public is paying for it, in lost tax revenues that will have to be made up one way or the other.

Really more information is needed. Fortunately the British are a suspicious, mean-minded lot, so I doubt any of us will trust this easily. I jumped on the net within seconds of seeing it. The ad I saw used English actors, and used Oliver Twist as the basic concept. So they're not just clumsily exporting right-wing American sunshine Christianity. The ad wasn't the cleverest idea, but maybe clever is against the point. Looks like they did some proper market research. Although it STILL comes across as creepy! I suppose that can't be helped when you're trying to teach lessons you give 4 year olds to grown adults. I wonder what subsequent ads will contain, and when to expect the message that the Mothership is in orbit, drink your Kool-Aid!

Maybe the main donor believes the world's going to end, so he's spending his money while he still can. And yeah, "Imagine", "nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too". (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If any of you can back up the criticisms you have for The Foundation for a Better Life , WP:BLP tells you to come up with the verifiable reasons why you think what you do about their TV advertisements. So far the criticisms are unsourced WP:OR unusable for WP:BLP, which what it'd be if you say "this foundation is funded by a mean fanatic". --loupgarous (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)