ddw (03/24/83)
I agree that the record of the Fundamentalists on freedom of speech can
best be summed up as "dismal". However, I would advise the liberals out
against patting ourselves on the back so hard we dislocate our shoulders.
The whole inferno of flames about Jean Kirpatrick at Berkeley in net.social
illustrates that nobody's perfect.
An even worse example is the general treatment of William Shockley by
college audiences. It's actually rather difficult to find out what
Shockley's views on the relative intelligence of races \are/, as he got
shouted down almost everywhere he went by the leftist elements. The idea
that "I don't have to listen to you or allow you to speak because I \know/
the TRUTH" is not monopolized by Fundamentalist Christians. (By the way,
if you're interested in Shockley, "Playboy" interviewed him a couple of years
ago; I don't know what issue. I found his "evidence" was either anecdotal
or ambiguous.)
Before this turns into something that belongs in another newsgroup, and now
that I've done my redressing of the balance, I would like to say that I agree
with those who submitted the articles about the dangers of repression by
the Fundamentalists. (Ever notice, though, that it's only the moderates
or mildly liberals who are willing to listen to both sides?) There have
been a number of truly frightening statements by the religious right to
indicate just how the country would be run if \they/ were in charge. I can
dig a few out if there's interest (send mail). Finally, the commandment
against bearing false witness notwithstanding, people like Falwell are quite
ready to lie if they think it will help their cause (I can dig this one out
as well).
I wish they'd ALL go away,
David Wright
{vax135|decvax|purdue}!cornell!ddw
ddw@cornell