tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4260675591017751855..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: The messy world of free speechUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21668501647879442012007-09-06T09:10:00.000-05:002007-09-06T09:10:00.000-05:00That's funny. I think the same thing when people r...That's funny. I think the same thing when people rephrase what I've said--that they seem to say it more clearly or concisely. Maybe it's simply a "grass is always" greener perspective issue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-36020372304016589132007-08-27T18:42:00.000-05:002007-08-27T18:42:00.000-05:00You have this habit of expressing my points better...You have this habit of expressing my points better than I do, Tracie! How do you do it? :-)Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66827981510329572632007-08-27T11:00:00.000-05:002007-08-27T11:00:00.000-05:00Martin:You were quite clear: "There are actually m...Martin:<BR/><BR/>You were quite clear: "There are actually many layers to a situation such as this. One valid criticism one might make of Keller is that while he has a Constitutional right to spew invective about a competing religion, he does not (nor does anyone else) have a Constitutional right to a TV show..."<BR/><BR/>Your message, if I may paraphrase, was only that in your opinion there would be a greater benefit to society if unsound ideas were allowed to be expressed--because rebutting them does more good than silencing them in that it allows people to actually make it clear to everyone in a public way, WHY they're unsound ideas.<BR/><BR/>And I agree.<BR/><BR/>When you wrote that you didn't think he should have been fired, I didn't take that as you saying the station was wrong. I took it as you saying that in an ideal situation, he'd be allowed to talk, and then his opponents would get equal time to address his comments. And the public could judge for themselves which idea is more sound.<BR/><BR/>With regard to ID in a science classroom, that's very basic. It's a science classroom. It's not a metaphysics classroom or a religion classroom or a philosophy classroom or a literature classroom. Saying ID should get equal time is like saying Shakespeare should get equal time. ID is not science. Shakespeare is not science. When ID can present data/research from peer-reviewed science journals that has gained wide scientific acceptance, then it can make its case in a science classroom.<BR/><BR/>You stated this, but in a slightly different way. And I thought it might be worthwhile to just make the point as idiot-proof as possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88549068611019672942007-08-25T11:49:00.000-05:002007-08-25T11:49:00.000-05:00Hey vjack. I believe all that's exactly what I sai...Hey vjack. I believe all that's exactly what I said.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86948943061202592272007-08-25T09:50:00.000-05:002007-08-25T09:50:00.000-05:00Holy smokes, I agree with everything you said.Holy smokes, I agree with everything you said.tina FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10037896362034609151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32098340438586667202007-08-25T08:35:00.000-05:002007-08-25T08:35:00.000-05:00ID is much more scientific than darwinism. I sugge...ID is much more scientific than darwinism. I suggest you read some books of Dr. Henry Morris or visit the Discovery Institute's website. I only hope that you discover the Truth before you are judged.<BR/><BR/>Just kidding. Good analysis, good post.ouinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15476746377310639286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62241478523948401992007-08-25T07:58:00.000-05:002007-08-25T07:58:00.000-05:00I think you need to be careful about confusing Con...I think you need to be careful about confusing Constitutional protections and network broadcast decisions. The Constitutional assurance of free speech means that I cannot be arrested by the state for critiquing Islam on the street corner. It does not apply in this way to statements I make on a corporate-owned television network. <BR/><BR/>If this televangelist wants to attack Islam on his show, it is up to his corporate handlers to decide whether they'll permit it or not. Regardless of their decision, it is not a Constitutional issue, and the televangelist has no Constitutionally protected right to broadcast his opinions on a television network he doesn't own. He does however have the right to do so on a public street corner.vjackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227noreply@blogger.com