Bill Donohue, Ignorant Bigot

via Pharyngula comes this little gem of Bill Donohue's:

The Center for Inquiry is factually incorrect to say that "Free speech is the foundation on which other liberties rest." Freedom of conscience is the first liberty, and it is inextricably linked to freedom of religion. Moreover, the whole concept of inalienable rights presupposes a belief in the Creator. In other words, atheists have the right to mock religion because our Christian Founding Fathers afforded them human rights.

Hmmm. Still sputtering, frankly, after reading this. But let's pick this apart, shall we?

Freedom of conscience is the first liberty, and it is inextricably linked to freedom of religion.

Freedom of conscience is useless if one is not free to speak one's conscience. As for freedom of religion, sure, that's one manifestation of freedom of conscience. So is having no religion. Because, Bill, there is no "freedom of conscience" if you are told that certain kinds of "conscience" are off limits.

Moreover, the whole concept of inalienable rights presupposes a belief in the Creator. 

"Creator," of course, does not imply in any way, shape or form YOUR god. Maybe Buddha gave you those rights. Also, and more importantly -- "inalienable rights" is a very complex topic, one with a rich history of philosophic controversy, and is most important to understand it as a political tool. But, of course, even if we

Image via Wikipedia

dismiss the idea as too hard to quantify in practice or as something that is nothing more than flowery political point making, it is still certainly possible for to have an entirely rational basis for those rights that were called "inalienable." John Stuart Mill, famously, gave an excellent defense for freedom of speech without resorting to the idea of "inalienable rights."
Or, to put it another way, Bill:  try to have a grasp of the topic that is more sophisticated than a 4th grader's.

In other words, atheists have the right to mock religion because our Christian Founding Fathers afforded them human rights.

WTF?! Okay, first off, our Founding Fathers were a diverse bunch -- Christians of various sects, Deists, "Theistic rationalists" (as some, like Ed Bryant, have dubbed people like Thomas Jefferson). They ran the gamut, with a significant number that weren't Christian -- some, like Jefferson, positively despised the Christian churches.

Second off, what's with this "afforded them human rights?" Excuse me? Did you just come out and say that non-Christians only have rights insofar as Christians let them? Are you that afraid of the Other that you can only imagine a world where your folk, Catholics, get to lord it over everyone else, perhaps throwing them a few bones in your kinder moments? Are you that ready and willing to piss all over the ideals that this country was founded on?

For the record, those Founding Fathers, Christian and otherwise, did not "afford" anyone rights -- most of them believed, quite strongly, that they were merely recognizing rights that all people already have. Some of them were even self-aware enough to recognize where they were being hypocritical and not fully recognizing those rights for some people. And again, to reiterate the point that should not have to be made to an adult with any kind of decent education:  they were a diverse lot. I'm sure, if you look across all our Founding Fathers, you'll find a fair bit of variety on exactly how they viewed this "rights" business.

You'd do us all a favor, Bill, if you just shut up about American History until you actually learn some.

No Gods, No Masters vs. Submission to the Will of God

A morning thought, or at least a morning ponder over coffee, induced by remembering a line from U2: "If you wanna touch the sky better learn how to kneel/ on your knees boy!":

There's ways, when talking religion, that you come up against fundamental differences in thought. For instance, atheists often hear the charge that we are rebellious -- that our beef with God is that we don't want to bow our heads and submit ourselves to His Will.  We're prideful, and Pride Goeth Before the Fall and all that.

Which is one of those true/not true kind of things. I mean, it's not true because really, our beef with "God" is that we honestly don't think "God" exists. It's really nothing more than that, at least for the vast majority of us. But it's also true, because you know what? Damn straight we don't want to submit. We hold that Freedom is the most important thing, that to bow your head is to open yourself up to the chance someone will take it off. No Gods, No Masters.

This isn't just an atheist thing, either. It's a rationalist position, one that holds that we should stand on our own two feet and get to work. Paine, as sure a believer as any Christian, didn't believe in a God who demanded or needed submission. Paine would've grumbled at the "No Gods" part of the famous slogan, but he would've been right there with the "No Masters" part. His God was no Master, but a Creator looking for new creators, beings who'd dare to unravel the mysteries of His Creation and stand proud...

So on one side we have atheists, agnostics and some believers who think that humans should stand on our own two feet and trust in our own abilities; and on the other side we have those who believe that humans should submit totally to the Will of God. It's a divide between those who choose Freedom versus those who choose Slavery. It's hard to imagine how to bridge that divide.