Friday, June 24, 2011

Why are atheists such opponents of freedom of speech?

You may think that I'm being harsh. I'm not.

Again and again, in disparate cultures and nations and eras, one thread runs through all atheist expressions of political power:

Censorship enforced by state power.

In the Reign of Terror (the first atheist assumption of state power), saying the wrong thing got you a free shave with the 'great French razor that shaved close'.

In Soviet Russia (the second atheist assumption of state power), the gulag archipelago was populated with prisoners of conscience who expressed belief in God, or who questioned atheist dogma or who doubted-- or were suspected of doubting-- the atheist dictator-of-the-day. Ditto Mao's China, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Castro's Cuba, or Ho's Vietnam, or Honecker's East Germany, atheist hellholes all.

No atheist government has ever permitted freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

What about atheists who don't hold state power- the coterie of professional 'separation of church and state' plantiffs and delicate souls who suffer 'irreparable harm' if they listen to a graduation prayer or hear a question about Darwin's theory in class? Notice the same thread in their acts as in the in the explicitly totalitarian policies of all atheists in state power:

Censorship enforced by state power.

Atheists everywhere-- from the Kremlin to the Killing Fields to Madison, Wisconsin-- share this: they don't want you to speak, unless you agree with them, and they will use whatever lever of state power they can to shut you up.

Why do atheists always censor other viewpoints, using whatever instruments of state power are available to them?

I don't know. Perhaps we should consider an explanation that has gone out of fashion, but still accounts for much in our world.

I suspect that atheism is just evil.


  1. I'm having trouble squaring the terms "conservative", "Catholic", and "neurosurgeon".

    The first two explain your idiocy. How did you every become a doctor?

  2. Well, anonymous (brave name that!) perhaps it is because MOST practising doctors are NOT Atheists. Having experienced illness, life, death etc they are not content with your materialistic, one dimensional, and infantile cosmology (your faith).
    If you want to mix with your fellow travellers you should stick to the ivory towers of theoretical evolutionary biology or psychology. Those trendy pseudo-scientific disciplines are always welcoming new parishioners, and always looking for new preachers.... and you, may frightened pal are spot on for the job!
    **Wafts the holy incense of Atheism**
    All praise the red shift! All hallowed be the finch beak! Blessed is blind natural selection!
    Oh Science, help us in our battle against the evil moralists!

  3. "...perhaps it is because MOST practising doctors are NOT Atheists."

    Citation please.

  4. "The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in "God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University of Chicago and published in the July 2005 issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults."

  5. Thanks, Anon
    Apparently Seamus was unaware of any such studies. Now he is.
    Rebuttal please!

  6. Well crusadeREX (aren't you all brave hiding behind your alias), you're wrong on every account.

    I only called the author stupid and questioned how he could possibly be smart enough to be a neurosurgeon. Basic errors of logic and deduction in one facet of life make me question the others. Should I ever need a neurosurgeon, I'll be sure to find a competent one.

    You seem to have some pretty serious anger issues. If we could consider some of that "pseudo-science psychology", you appear to be projecting your issues onto me. I sincerely hope you get help.

  7. Actually, you've got it wrong. No dictatorship allows freedom of speech. Democracies allow freedom of speech. Obviously, of the forms of government, democracy is to be preferred, and dictatorship to be avoided.

    There are plenty of democracies, such as in Scandanavia, which have majorities of atheists, but which allow free expression of religion. There are, and have been, theistic dictatorships which actively persecute atheists and followers of religions other than the majority one.

    You should be arguing for democracy rather than religion.

    1. How dare you confront him with facts in the middle of his oh-so-original diatribe! It isn't easy to rewrite history. Show some respect for his imagination.

  8. "Apparently Seamus was unaware of any such studies. Now he is.
    Rebuttal please!"

    I'd not seen any such study, and still haven't. Citation should include sources, none given.