Robert, did you actually read what you wrote? "Religous fundamentalism should not be allowed in publiv [sic] places." You have the true heart of a censor. Of course that is the creed of the left-freedom for me, but not for thee.

I take it you're not a scientist, EGL.

Very strange, but very true. Scientists, being merely human, are sometimes arrogant in their knowledge. Some will "see the light" and think they have found the ultimate answer to a question and they stop inquiry. If enough become true believers the subject becomes dogma and anyone who further questions the dogma become an heretic and is treated as such.

Jefferson was speaking to the industry of the individual. For the inventor (scientist) to succeed he must be free to think, to invest his time and money, and to be assured that someone will not steal his inventions or profits when his industriousness has been successful. One can be virtuous only when one is free to do so. Our society today is not nearly as free as we might imagine. We have become the children of behemoth government and have become beholden to it. Our virtue is in inverse proportion to the control government exercises over us and the amount of our labor that is taxed away from us.

I agree with you Mr. Rosenthal. However, I would also add that it is dangerous to give government the power to censure the speech which offends. It should, as you say, be left to the to the society (of individuals) to reject the speech. Don't buy the book, don't buy the music, don't watch the movie, don't give an audience to anything whose only aim is to harm society. Of course for that to work society has to take responsibility to protect itself.

Also thanks to all of the poets and artists who realize that just because one is free to offend, it is not always wise to do so. Much of 20th century art, poetry, and prose morphed from media that intended to bring beauty to the world to one whose only intent was to offend: provocation and belittlement of one group or another.

In a free society wealth is never distributed unless it is by a philanthropist of his own free will. Charity at the point of government's gun is no charity at all: it is immoral, it is robbery. CEO's are paid what they are because the shareholders of the company think they are worth it. They might or might not be wrong in particular instances. As for those who work hard and are poor, as rare as that combination may be, most are there because of their own life choices and they are living with the consequences. Many need charity, but none "deserve" it. It is a moral choice for individuals to be charitable to the needy. It is an immoral choice to steal your neighbor's property to give to the poor.

What many call science today is based more on articles of faith than observed fact. Perfect examples are superstring theory or anthropogenic global warming. String theory predicts things that can neither be observed or refuted by any method. Human induced global warming predicts that there will be more hurricanes, and fewer hurricanes; rising ocean levels, and falling ocean levels; more rain, and less rain; global warming even predicts an ice age. Yet these two examples are both called science. The one is more akin to philosophy, while the other is more akin to voodoo.

Fools exist throughout human society, including churches and other religious organizations. That does not mean the entire organization is without value. It simply means it is human.

Well said, Michael from Houston. I would also like to add that there is a big difference in thinking and publishing. Everyone has the right to think what one wishes. No one has the right to be published. In addition, it makes a big difference whether the private marketplace or the government is doing the censoring. Everyone has the right to speak. Nobody has the right to be heard.

Religion is the basis of civilization. There is no civilization that has ever existed or that exists today that does not have as its basis a "religious" code of conduct which tells society what morality is, how citizens ought to behave toward one another, and provides a common connection between the members of society. Marxist philosophy qualifies as religion, as does secular humanism (the modern "religion" of western Europe). The difference is that government is god, since all human rights emanate from the state, and the state is the provider of all that is "good" and people dutifully worship it.

Another interesting question, of course, is how many have been persecuted for actually being wrong? It does not justify persecution, but fools should be challenged and made to feel like fools.

I suppose free thought and the free interchange of ideas are as natural in human society as a stream running downhill. Persecution is the attempt to control the free thoughts of men to protect the rest of society from the heretical thoughts. It is much like damming a stream to protect a valley from floods. It takes a massive dam to stop a small stream.

Exactly why the censorship that's today called political correctness is so insidious. Those who insist on speech controls and thought control are essentially against self-government and for rule by elitists who know how to live our lives much better than we do.

P.S. I'm sure the Christians were annoyed when they were being fed to lions.

Persecute: 1. oppress people: to systematically subject a race or group of people to cruel or unfair treatment, for example, because of their ethnic origin or religious beliefs 2. pester somebody: to make somebody the victim of continual pestering or harassment [15th century. Via French, from, ultimately, Latin persecut-, the past participle stem of persequi, literally “to keep following,” from sequi, “to follow” (source of English SEQUENCE).]

I believe the word persecute means to use cruel or unfair treatment. Therefore it is wrong to persecute terrorists. It is perfectly acceptable and desireable to treat them harshly and justly, i.e. kill them.

Never underestimate the allure of controlling ones fellow human beings, especially for revenge. It is human nature to want to control and manipulate everything around us to our own advantage. It takes a strong will and mind to overcome human nature. Unfortunately, most "freedom fighters" are not that strong and eventually succumb to their darker natures.

I'm with the gubment, and ah'm here to hep.

On the other hand, sometimes the heretics are wrong and the heresy dangerous. Jim Jones comes to mind. Would you like a cup of Kool-Aid with your heresy?

How appropriate that "cialis" is found in the word "socialist", considering its use.

The purpose of government schools: to educate just enough to produce acceptably compliant drones to do simple tasks and pay taxes, but not so educated as to become troublesome to the ruling elite.

Human nature is completely predictable and is not capricious. The predictability of human nature is the basis of behavioral psychology, mass advertising, propaganda, etc. Individuals can be capricious, however, but are not necessarily so.

I couldn't disagree more. Congress is all-powerful to pass legislation on anything they say is the general welfare. That is because they have usurped that power from the people and act outside the Constitutional limits. It's not right, but it is so.

The "limitation: simply controls the damage that can be caused from the arbitrary use of power. The arbitrary use of power does not come from the source either. It comes from the power users choice to be arbitrary.