Dan Wallace Reposts on Post Cartoon
You can find his further thoughts again at Reclaiming the Mind. If you read the first one, you should read this one as well.
You can find his further thoughts again at Reclaiming the Mind. If you read the first one, you should read this one as well.
. . . is a necessary part of free speech. Laura has it right: I donÂ’t have much in common with Brigitte Bardot, an elderly French actress, or Pat Condell, a British atheist, or with Kathy Shaidle, Ezra Levant, and Mark Steyn, a partial list of Canadians whose free speech is endangered. Except this: a…
A friend sent me a link to this post on Language Log which discusses public repentance as a speech event. If you tag some spiritual implications onto the linguistic analysis, it adds some interest as well!
The nature of a free press is not that it is always right, always responsible, or required to print what any person or group wants, but that it is free. It can challenge authority and it can be challenged.
David Ker has taken on the world at ThinkChristian.net, or so it probably seems to him. The comments provide some additional links and some vigorous comment.
. . . but on target. I refer to this post on Pursuing Holiness. My own preference is that churches and religious organizations define marriage for their own constituents, and the state simply define households. Laura’s words about free speech destroying human rights committees are also on target.
While I’m at talking about the auto industry, how about the following headline from MNSBC.com: Republicans to Detroit: Drop dead Biased? Read the article yourself and see if that’s what the Republicans in question were saying.