And this coming from someone pretending to have some concern over moral grounding. Like fish in a barrel.

And I’d say that willingness to engage in outright falsehoods for even the smallest of purposes is a bigger obstacle to ongoing conversation than the things cited in the linked article.

there seems to be an arc of thought occurring that encourages the stifling of thought and expression.

Agreed. Case in point: Bubby’s remarks @ 04/06/2008 1:02 pm.

My only comments on this blog entry — which is about political discussion, not biblical history (make your requests on your blog, and I’ll check it out and we’ll have a nice chat) — were directed at Bubby’s desire to stifle free expression, simply because he disapproves of what some people say in public.

I am sure you have kept watch on the new class of Sorensen people. I just wanted to let you know that one of Jefferson Forest’s YD kids, Caitlin Saloka, has been accepted to the Youth Leadership program. One of the first things she said is that you had been a speaker to the group in previous years and she was excited and hoped to hear you speak this summer

I’ve yet to meet a human editor who does not leave some of themselves in anything they edit and readers take what they may from any text. Therefore this becomes a matter purely based on personal belief and faith. Those personal beliefs and faith need not be compromised to participate in a political discourse that does not resort to flinging dung at each other.

For a Nation conceived as one in which religious tolerance and freedom would be held in high regard, there seems to be an arc of thought occurring that encourages the stifling of thought and expression. Groups carve out great ravines between staunch points and let those who would exist in the middle fall into the dark below.

There is no freedom or tolerance in that setup.

In regard to the initial article and discussion, this relates to the ABC News Story about the potential for us being hard wired from birth to lean towards one side or the other. There’s not a right or wrong, just a different biological mental approach to certain subjects.

Whatever happened to Voltaire’s famous axiom, “I don’t agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” or of the ability for people to honestly debate? I may not agree with your beliefs, but the manner in which you participate seems inflamatory at best. It would seem that the veil of digital anonymity brings out the poorer qualities of us all.

My God says otherwise, but neither is talking.

Our God did all the talking He needed to do. It’s called the Bible. Try picking it up sometime.

Anyway, that’s a nice attempt at defending your penchant for squelching free expression. At the very least, I give you credit for being open about your fascist tendencies.

I really don’t care what you believe, and I thought you were smarter about this. But then again, belief is baggage and that stuff has a way of owning you. You are no more capable of “free expression” about your belief in legalized discrimination of homosexuals, than you are of any of the other things you believe were commanded by your Lord. After all, it really isn’t “free expression”, it is the Will of YOUR God, or so you say. My God says otherwise, but neither is talking.

We should observe that tradition and insist that people keep their “moral beliefs” to themselves, and outside of the larger political debate.

Censorship and/or prior restraint as a means to ensure political civility and open discourse? Interesting. And here I thought you had at least some amount of a classical liberal education. Clearly not.

FYI, most Americans wholeheartedly support free expression of one’s ideas and beliefs, and we counter what we deem to be “bad” speech not with censorship but with more speech.

Since you invoked the name of Jefferson, are you lobbying for a muzzle award?
Keep this up and you just might win one. Good luck!

It is well past time that we put a baggage limit on religious “beliefs” in public policy. Mr.Jefferson embraced the effort in his redactions of miracles and supernatural tales from his Bible. We should observe that tradition and insist that people keep their “moral beliefs” to themselves, and outside of the larger political debate. We can’t have a political discussion that begins with, “As a Christian, I…”.

But you do at least help by illustrating one of the things that *does* make it tougher to talk to each other. It’s the double stupidity of pretending that you’re deserving of any real response to something as absurd as “he charge that they have no moral underpinning, and by an absolute lack of any standards of acceptable behavior.”

I mean, you can *pretend* that you said something intelligent and grounded in reality, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to pretend along with you (no matter the yelping about civility that inevitably comes when we fail to do so).

I need a vacation.

how liberals somehow fail to account for the value of purity. Of course liberals account for that value. And you know what? It falls under the heading of “stupid.”

Ah, there’s the rub. Liberals chastened by the charge that they have no moral underpinning, and by an absolute lack of any standards of acceptable behavior, turn to their reliable old friend — “you’re stupid.”

Well done, MB. Enjoy your slouch toward Gomorrah. (Oh, wait… I quoted something by a conservative AND the Bible in the same sentence — that must be doubly stupid. Sorry ’bout that.)