Loyal readers of this blog will be acquainted with Jerry Coyne's crusade to eliminate a course on the intersection of religion, philosophy and science.
Coyne has written threatening letters to the department chairman, the university administrators, and has sicced the Freedom From Religion Foundation to threaten litigation.
Which leaves the obvious question:
Because Coyne disagrees with the religious content of the course, why doesn't he ask Ball State to introduce irreligious content, or to offer another course that examines the intersection of philosophy and science from an irreligious perspective? Why doesn't Jerry Coyne demand equal time?
Why censor, when you can expand and deepen the conversation? If I were a student at Ball State, I'd love to take both courses, with a religious and irreligious perspective. I'd even prefer the irreligious one: I'm fairly acquainted with the religious view, and I'd love to see the irreligious perspective expanded and defended.
Yet none of the atheist censors demand the obvious: an explicitly irreligious course.
Now of course, Coyne might reply that it would be unconstitutional to present the irreligious view, just as he believes it is unconstitutional to present the religious view. But of course he doesn't believe that, and it's hard to see how a course that explored the relation between philosophy and science without invoking God would under any construct violate the Constitution.
Now, a Christian wag might suggest that atheists already teach atheism (evolutionary biology) and they would rather not expose their fragile ideology to a course that was explicitly irreligious and open to questions from students.
And that would be true, of course. Candor and public accountability are not in the atheist playbook. Atheists demand silence, not equal time.
The atheist crusade is not about education. It's about making you shut up.
Coyne has written threatening letters to the department chairman, the university administrators, and has sicced the Freedom From Religion Foundation to threaten litigation.
Which leaves the obvious question:
Because Coyne disagrees with the religious content of the course, why doesn't he ask Ball State to introduce irreligious content, or to offer another course that examines the intersection of philosophy and science from an irreligious perspective? Why doesn't Jerry Coyne demand equal time?
Why censor, when you can expand and deepen the conversation? If I were a student at Ball State, I'd love to take both courses, with a religious and irreligious perspective. I'd even prefer the irreligious one: I'm fairly acquainted with the religious view, and I'd love to see the irreligious perspective expanded and defended.
Yet none of the atheist censors demand the obvious: an explicitly irreligious course.
An atheist defender might point out that Coyne has used the perceived imbalance of the course to critique it. But that point is disingenuous. Coyne has insisted that the course be shut down, and has made no serious case for preservation of the course and addition of the atheist viewpoint. Coyne isn't demanding equal time. He's demanding that the course end.
Now, a Christian wag might suggest that atheists already teach atheism (evolutionary biology) and they would rather not expose their fragile ideology to a course that was explicitly irreligious and open to questions from students.
And that would be true, of course. Candor and public accountability are not in the atheist playbook. Atheists demand silence, not equal time.
The atheist crusade is not about education. It's about making you shut up.
One of the biggest threats to Leftist ideologues is free speech.
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, Sen Tom Udall has introduced a bill into the Senate that would effectively allow Congress to regulate political speech (pornography and naked pole dancing would continue to receive vital Constitutional protection).
Even the ACLU has recoiled at this idea:
As we [the ACLU] have said in the past, this and similar constitutional amendments would “fundamentally ‘break’ the Constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.
Naturally, this legislation is supported by Harry Reid and vehemently opposed by Ted Cruz.
Sad but true. It seems to me that atheism isn't so much about disbelief in God as it is a license to attack Christianity at every opportunity. They're certainly not equal opportunists where it concerns other religions. Seldom do you see them mocking Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious group (and definitely not in the countries where those religious beliefs are the majority).
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of speech...
ReplyDeleteDaily Truth™:
Remember the Vegas cop killers? Here's a snippet from the "professional journalists" at ABC News on June 9:
The couple who ambushed two Las Vegas cops and killed a civilian in a nearby Walmart store were a husband and wife team who may have been involved in right wing anti-government groups...
Right-wing government groups, eh?
Well, as it turns out, the local Chicago NBC affiliate reported ONE DAY LATER that
While living in Lafayette [IN], Jerad and his wife Amanda took part in last November’s “Million Mask March” – a gathering of protesters from the Occupy movement, anarchists, and hacktivists.
Why, of course. I recall the #Occupy movement was a hotbed of rightwingery. :-D
Indeed, I recall perusing the Facebook page of our local #Occupy encampment while they were defecating on the street, shrieking about the 1%, and begging for Kraft Mac 'n Cheese and Ramen noodles.
Clue??