This is a few months old but I just happened across it. It comes from Michael Egnor, the creationist neurosurgeon prone to saying monumentally stupid things. And it appears that he has no idea what irony means or how analogies work as he attempts to respond to a post I wrote about Poland prosecuting a singer for offending religious sensibilities. He begins:
Atheists are delightfully innocent, if you don’t count the gulags and the genocide. They’re innocent of logic, of course, and they’re innocent of irony. Atheists lack the sense of the ridiculous in themselves, utterly. Richard Dawkins is the archetypal clueless atheist snob, but all polemic atheists share the blindness.
Just wait. We’re about to experiences meta-irony.
Wait… wait… hot off the presses… A Breaking Story… from the Dissociated Press Newsdesk… Newsflash to Ed:
… Hurting the feelings of the irreligious is a crime in this country, Ed.
There’s a veritable atheist industry of “I feel ostracized and excluded”. Across this great land atheist after atheist after atheist turns to swooning litigious gelatin at the sight of a Christmas creche, or a cross on public land, or a prayer in a graduation ceremony or a football game, or a prayer mural on an auditorium wall…
It’s a fraud, Ed. You’re right about Poland. Censorship sucks.
So why the double standard, Ed? You thoughtfully point out the injustice of religious people dragging irreligious citizens who express their views into court to answer to fake claims of “hurt feelings” of people who are really censors, not victims.
Why not point out the injustice when atheists use the courts to censor?
This guy managed to graduate from medical school, so I assume he’s not a stupid man. But did he not, at some point in his prodigious education, learn what analogous means and how to make meaningful comparisons? Or is he just deliberately distorting reality to make a point? The situation I was talking about in Poland involved the government criminally prosecuting someone for exercising their freedom of speech. The situations he compares that to are civil suits filed against the government. The comparison is nonsensical in every relevant way.
An individual has every right to express their religious views, but they do not have a “right” to have those views endorsed by the government and they don’t have any “right” to exclusive access to public property for that purpose. If public property is available for individuals and organizations for such a purpose, it must be open to all. Demanding that Christians not be given exclusive access is not censorship, not by a longshot. Egnor is not a stupid man, so I can only imagine that he is capable of understanding that distinction but chooses to play pretend in order to score cheap points.
Like Dispatches on Facebook: