Ben Carson is clearly setting up a run for the Republican nomination for president and he knows darn well that you can never hurt yourself by going after those evil atheists. Nor does it hurt that the arguments you make when you do so are overly simplistic, self-contradictory or just plain stupid. He’s responding here to the FFRF trying to get the Navy to stop putting bibles in hotel rooms on bases.
Like traditional religions, atheism requires strong conviction. In the case of atheists, it’s the belief that there is no God and that all things can be proved by science.
Nonsense. Now I don’t buy the argument that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in God (I think it requires more than that; you have to have at least considered the arguments offered for a god and concluded that they are false on some reasoned basis), but that’s about process, not conclusion. Most atheists would not take the position that they know there is no god, they say there’s no good evidence or logical argument to compel such belief. And no, you do not have to believe that “all things can be proved by science” to be an atheist, for crying out loud. I know lots of things that science can’t prove; that does not make me magically not an atheist.
It is extremely hypocritical of the foundation to request the removal of Bibles from hotel rooms on the basis of their contention that the presence of Bibles indicates that the government is choosing one religion over another. If they really thought about it, they would realize that removal of religious materials imposes their religion on everyone else.
Some atheists argue that there should be a library or cache of religious material at the check-in desk of a hotel from which any guests could order a Bible, Torah, or Koran for their reading pleasure. No favoritism would be shown through such a system, and those who reject the idea of God would not have to be offended.
This is like saying there shouldn’t be certain brands of bottled water in hotel rooms because there may be guests who prefer a different type of water or are offended by bottled water and think everybody should be drinking tap water. The logical answer to such absurdity would, of course, be that the offended individual could bring his own water or simply ignore the brand of water he does not care for.
Yes, Ben, it’s exactly like that. Or it would be, if the Constitution said anything at all about the government not endorsing a particular brand of bottled water. But it doesn’t. It does, however, forbid the government from endorsing or giving special privilege to one religion, or to religion over non-religion.