“On the surface, I’m all for free speech”

The Globe and Mail reports that The Freethought Association of Canada just won approval to run the atheist bus ads, inspiring a hilarious response from a leading evangelical.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, unwittingly revealed more about the evangelical mindset than he intended when he said:

On the surface, I’m all for free speech

But, deep down, I want anyone who questions my beliefs to be burnt at the stake.

However, though, these are attack ads.

It’s hard to imagine how he construed the gentle suggestion that “There’s probably no God” as an attack. However, though, he is entitled to his opinion.

Dr McVety goes on:

These ads are not saying what the atheists believe, they are attacking what other people believe [...] And if you look at the dictionary definition for … bigot, that’s exactly what it is, to be intolerant of someone else’s belief system.

We don’t know which dictionary McVety is using, however though, as it defines a noun as a verb we suspect it isn’t very authoritative.

God, this campaign is great, isn’t it?


4 Responses to ““On the surface, I’m all for free speech””

  1. marc draco says:

    BIGOT: Origin late 16th cent. (denoting a superstitious religious hypocrite): from French, of unknown origin.

    Therefore, an atheist (who is not superstitious by definition) cannot be a bigot.

  2. Stonygroud says:

    It is really amusing to hear these idiots claim to be in favour of free speech because they understand that in todays world not being marks you out as the worst kind of bigotted moron. But then they go on to demontrate that in fact free speech is the last thing they are in favour of by demanding that those who disagree with them should be censored and mark themselves out as the worst kind of bigotted moron.
    My first thought on the atheist bus ad. was that it was too mild and that it should have been something much more strident. In fact the very mildness of the statement has served to make those who react to it look even more ridiculous.

  3. Mohhamed Green says:

    If a bigot falls over in a deserted forest, does it make a sound?

    (this helpful comment brought to you by some very nice green)

  4. Ziggy says:

    I don’t think that atheists should deny it or be apologetic when they are accused of “attacking” religion. What is wrong with it if it actually IS an “attack” on religion? The point is that, in terms of freedom of speech and enquiry, one is allowed to “attack” anything one considers offensive/undesirable/wrong/etc., i.e. argue against anything one wishes to argue against or present a challenging viewpoint. How often haven’t religionists “attacked” atheists over the millennia?