My father was apparently not finished with Michael Egnor.
“Therefore, I am FOR the free expression of other and even opposing viewpoints, except with regards to the SILENCING of those viewpoints; I am NOT for censorship of ideas and beliefs.”
Is that your answer to:
“If someone were taking out ads in the newspaper saying that Egnor is a pedophile thief who cheats on his wife and abuses his children, and the court made him stop running those ads because libel is illegal (assuming the claims aren’t true, of course)…….under your use of “censorship”, you would have to consider this “censorship” in the same way taking down the prayer banner is “censorship”.”
Sounds like you are proudly claiming you do not want that illegal idea silenced; that you are not for “censorship” of it. Is that correct?
You keep playing variations of this same old song: “The lukewarm little banner had sat quietly in the halls of that school for 50+ years. Nobody had been harmed by it, many had been inspired by it.”
As the judge wrote in his decision (have you read it yet?), “At any rate, no amount of history and tradition can cure a constitutional infraction.”
HOW LONG someone has gotten away with breaking the law doesn’t somehow mean they have not broken the law and that in a nation of laws the lawbreaking shouldn’t stop.
I suspect if the Catholic churches in my town were not allowed to open their doors for 50 years, even though no one had been harmed by that (people could go to church in another town just like people could hang copies of that banner in their home), you would claim as a great righting of a grievous wrong the eventual enforcement of the law which allowed their doors to open. Wouldn’t you?
You said, “Still, I don’t see kids with mouths like this sporting a prayer t-shirt to school. ” I couldn’t help but wonder why you don’t see that. It is painfully obvious that these are some of the kids supporting the prayer banner—why else would they be harassing Jessica?—so why wouldn’t they also be some of the ones wearing a prayer T-shirt in order to further harass Jessica? Your statement is ludicrous beyond belief to me. It is additional evidence that your ideology has priority for you over humanity toward a defenseless girl.Unless, of course, you do see it but just toss out a it cavalier dismissal of danger to an innocent sixteen year old girl because she is an atheist. I suspect that is why you just ignore statements like Anonymous posted for you as examples as well as Jessica’s own statement reported in the news, “Others, she said, have threatened to harass or beat her up when she returns.” This would also explain why you ignore that the police are investigating the threats and the school board itself has addressed them.
You say “Whew!… . Eberhard sees no reason to call the police, yet..”. However, the police have in fact been called and are in fact involved. And, the above reason fits perfectly with your dismissive statement “When I was a kid, bullying meant that someone beat you up.” When I was a kid, it bullying usually meant a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging Neanderthals picking on someone when they thought they could get away with it, especially if they thought they had an atmosphere of encouragement from idiot adults, the school board, and their religious brethren. Apparently, we were kids in different times and different places. I grew up in a place like Cranston. You said, “It is rather like saying I am a tolerant fellow, and therefore I am forced to be intolerant to intolerance.
Follow me here?”
Why, yes…yes, I think I follow you. Chrisopher Hichins explained it very well for me: “One of the ways the propaganda trick is pulled is to insinuate, and to keep on insinuating, that it is the enemies of religious intolerance who are themselves the intolerant ones. That’s the way to undermine, and eventually to demolish, the wall of separation.”