Here's a self-important and self-pitying interview by Paul Kurtz, who manages in the space of one rather short discussion to compare himself to Jesus and Galileo.
Kurtz still seems to believe that, as the founder of the CFI and related organisations, he gets to have it both ways: he can oppose its current directions in public, while retaining all the perks of being treated as a senior officer or some sort of emeritus academic. He should have thought of that when he established the organisations with structures that would give them independence.
Yes, it's sad that the founder of the CFI does not agree with its current direction, which is a more aggressive one than when he was in charge, and that that has led to a rift. It doesn't follow that the more aggressive direction is incorrect. On the contrary, I think it's exactly what is required in our current historical situation. Nor does it follow that the underlying cause of the problems is a mere difference of policy, rather than someone's inability to let go.
In any event, the policy direction for CFI is set by the board. Kurtz cannot expect to hold a position on the board, taking part in its deliberations, while publicly attacking board decisions that he disagrees with. He's either part of the board, which means accepting responsibility for its decisions and advocating its chosen directions, even when he does not personally agree with them ... or not.
The choice he has made is ... not. He's left. Of his own free will, Kurtz is no longer a CFI board member. Fair enough, that was his decision to make - but if it's how he wants to play things he can't expect the organisation to publish his criticisms of it or to give him unsupervised access to its premises out of hours or all the other things he seems to want.
And, no, this is nothing like the church and state putting you under house arrest and censoring your work - as happened to Galileo. That comparison is fatuous. Kurtz is free to travel, and can publish anywhere he wants - he just has to convince someone his stuff is worth publishing. In that sense, he's exactly as free as anyone else, which Galileo most certainly was not. Nothing is stopping him from attacking the CFI management from any platform that he can find - which, for example, includes The New York Times. For a man with access to so many media platforms to complain of being censored is ... well, laughable.
Honestly, Kurtz is coming across more and more as totally clueless the more this drags on. His attitude seems to be that his way of doing things is the only right way, and that no one else on the board or among the management team had the right to exercise authority if it conflicts with his ideas. I get the impression from the interview that he would rather see the CFI fail than succeed while taking a direction he'd not have chosen. Doubtless he still has the power to be destructive, drawing on whatever residue of moral authority or good will he still commands, but surely he doesn't want to be remembered as an egotistical wrecker.
Move on, sir. Once again, all you're doing is destroying your own legacy.