Richard Landes wrote:
> At 02:53 PM 12/29/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > >===== Original Message From Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and
> >culture =====
> > >On 29.12.000, J.E.St.Lawrence wrote in response to Br.Bugnolo:
> > >
> > >May I add that as an agnostic I too was shocked, and as a single parent
> > I was
> >deeply offended.
> > >Gail.
> >
> >
> >Nuts!!! This is just too much. Didn't anyone read George's advisory? And,
> >though I too am out of line, let me say that anyone so easily offended
> >shouldn't participate in a free exchange of ideas.
> >
> >Yrs, the forever foot in the mouth lurker, C. Thomas Ault
>
> agreed. the whole point about free speech is you have to have a thick
> skin. as someone said, about the pacific millennialism of late 14th cn
> england -- the intolerability of tolerance.
>
agreed, shock is irrelevant. But so are references to free speech, since this is
not a public forum. I have been objecting to incoherence in the defense of
intolerance, i.e., the sin in question is intellectual, not political.
The initial reference to shock was, you'll note, Br. Bugnolo's, and articulated
further assumptions about those who do not share his faith.
J. St.Lawrence
|