Tuesday, May 06, 2008

WKLH and Bill Maher

This afternoon, the management of WKLH considered the issue of anti-Christian bigot Bill Maher, whom the station has been sponsoring in Milwaukee.

We just talked to Station Manager Tom Joerres.

The verdict? Sort of a non-verdict, actually. Joerres stated that all of the station’s contractual obligations to Maher’s promoters have been satisified, and the issue is now moot. There is nothing “left to be done,” he said. He said it was “a moot point” and “behind us.”

He expressed surprise that the issue broke this week, rather than last week. We explained that some things slip under the radar until somebody notices them. In this case, the “somebodies” were Sly Sylvester in Madison, and the Marquette Warrior in Milwaukee.

We asked him whether the station is still giving away Maher tickets, and he said he believed those tickets are all gone.

We asked him whether the promo blurb for Maher is still on the station website, and he wasn’t entirely sure.

In reality, the blurb on the event is now gone from both the WKLH “Concerts” page, and the “Events” page.

Joerres said that, had the station known about the hateful comments of Maher, those comments “would have given us pause,” and “we would have looked at it differently.” Some of Maher’s most incendiary comments, attacking the Pope as someone who “used to be a Nazi” and the Catholic Church as a “child abusing religious cult” happened after WKLH signed on to the sponsorship.

Joerres added that WKLH is not “an AM station that seeks controversy.”

Good point. Anybody has a right to bring into Milwaukee any speaker they want. But any business firm that tries to be “mainstream” and appeal to a wide audience would be well advised to avoid supporting or endorsing people like Maher.

Of course, if the speaker engaged in vitrolic attacks on blacks or homosexuals, the local leftists would immediately see this point.

But where Christians are attacked, they see it differently.

Labels: , , , , ,

39 Comments:

Blogger Mary said...

WKLH is still listed as a sponsor of Maher's show on the Riverside's home page and on the Riverside's Bill Maher page.

6:01 PM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

I think it's pretty clear that Bill Maher treats all brands of dilusion equally. He's not anti-Christian specifically. I think this quote from his appearance on Larry King sums it up right:

"You [a Scientologist], like all religious people, have a neurological disorder. And the only reason why people think it's sane is because so many other people believe the same thing. It's insanity by consensus."

He pokes fun at gender (the last episode had at least a few jokes about feelinglike a 50-year-old woman because he defended Hillary) and sexual orientation (in the last episode he told Arriana Huffington, "at least my husband isn't gay.") and even race. Sometimes this stuff is funny. You people and your PC police tactics are so ridiculous.

6:05 PM  
Blogger Zach W. said...

Oh the hypocrisy!

6:29 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

I think it's pretty clear that Bill Maher treats all brands of delusion equally.

Which makes him an equal opportunity bigot.

Still a rather unsavory character.

But I don't think he's really even-handed.

If he were, you secular lefties would not be defending him.

6:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to let the facts get in the way, but Bill Maher is something called an atheist. Its not a matter of hate, its a matter of belief.

If he is an equal opportunity bigot, is that better or worse than McAdams, who saves his wrath for Anti-Christian "secular humanists." Was McAdams so opposed to jokes about religion when cartoons were run about Mohammed-- or is it only an overreaction when Muslims act like idiots?

You don't like Maher's belief, so you want to pressure a "corporation" to stop him from expressing them. Or is the objection that there are jokes being told about the dear Christians? (Heard any about Reverend Wright lately? How about child molesters?)

I remember when we got to say "its only the christians that people get to make fun of." But apparently, that's gone. Now Marquette professors don't want us to see comedians because they say things the elitist Christians don't want us to hear.

Perhaps you could proscribe a manner of dress for me.

9:17 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Anonymous said...

Give me a straight, honest answer.

If some major Milwaukee business sponsored a comedian who said nasty things about blacks or homosexuals, rather than Christians, how would you respond?

Tell the truth, since we all know what the real answer is.

9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Straight honest answer? Who sponsors Lisa Lampanelli?

Who sponsors Chris Rock?

You think Dane Cook doesn't say "offensive" things about gays.

What male comedian doesn't tell some joke that could be considered offensive to females?

Ever see Katt Williams?

What comedian doesn't say something that could offend someone?

As they say, comedy ain't pretty.

You are delving into COMEDY. People say stuff you don't like, and try to make you laugh about it. Fat people, old people (are we supposed to feel sorry for McCain?) presidents, blow jobs, etc.

People do not want a comedy policeman, and sorry your sacred cow (Oh gee, should the Hindus hate me now) is being gored. (Yikes, call my boss).

I thought the "secular lefties" were the prosleytizers on political correctness. But I guess the PC police are only offensive when you're not one of them. But if we boycott everyone we disagree with, hell, who's left?

Not you.

Or me.


Maybe you jumped into the wrong field here?

11:43 PM  
Blogger Zach said...

Professor McAdams,

Lots of comedians make fun of people from every race.

Chris Rock mercilessly rips on black people.
George Lopez makes fun of Mexicans.

What about someone making fun of other races including homosexuals?

Although he sucks, Carlos Mencia does it all the time and he had his own show on Comedy Central.

My favorite comedy routine of all-time: Eddie Murphy Delirious . . . he rips on white people quite a bit.

Mahr may be different because it's pretty clear he actually means the things he says, whereas most comedians speak in half-truths.

I think it's fine to be sensitive about someone making fun of something that is part of your identity (Christianity), but that just gives other people ability to do the same thing . . . and pretty soon comedians can't make fun of anything and comedy stops being funny.

11:55 PM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

I find it laughable that you, the newly crowned Chief of the PC Police, would call me a leftist. That's ridiculous.

"If some major Milwaukee business sponsored a comedian who said nasty things about blacks or homosexuals, rather than Christians, how would you respond?"

What about one who said "nasty" things about white people? There are plenty. Although "nasty" is a strong word. THEY'RE COMEDIANS! They're telling JOKES! I wouldn't really care. My reaction would be to not attend the show if it were something that offended me.

That said, I don't think it's fair to equate criticism of race or sexual orientation with criticism of ideas. Race and sexual orientation are inherent and not under the control of the person that has said characteristics. Religion is an idea. "Christian" isn't so much somehting people are as it is something people think. Making fun of Chtistianity is more like making fun of liberalism, which I've heard you do. Actually, Christianity and liberalism are two of the funniest things people can think IMHO.

12:29 AM  
Blogger PaulNoonan said...

I had so much of what I've said misrepresented in the last post I was on, it's probably not worth responding, especially since you shut the comments down, but since you asked:

But if a corporation sponsored a comedian who continually attacked homosexuals in nasty terms, you would "whine" about that, wouldn't you?

Well, no. And I can prove it. I don't whine to any of Mark Belling's sponsors. I wouldn't even consider it. He says nasty stuff about homosexuals fairly regularly. Nor did I hold his sponsors responsible for the "Wetbacks" thing. Some did, and I think they're idiots too.

So, there's your straight, honest answer. Probably not what you were looking for, I'm guessing.

I'm finished with this. Further argument is pointless.

8:29 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Anonymous said...
Straight honest answer? Who sponsors Lisa Lampanelli?

Who sponsors Chris Rock?

You think Dane Cook doesn't say "offensive" things about gays.

What male comedian doesn't tell some joke that could be considered offensive to females?

Ever see Katt Williams?

What comedian doesn't say something that could offend someone?


I don't know about most of the people you discuss, but if they are as bigoted about those groups as Maher is about Christians, then local businesses should distance themselves.

I'm not sure that that is the case. Simply lampooning the stereotypical characteristics of a group in the context of doing the same thing to other groups too isn't bigotry.

I do know about Jay Leno, and he picks on all kinds of groups. But it's light hearted, and if he picks on a politically incorrect conservative group one minute, he's likely to pick on some politically correct liberal group the next.

What were you saying about Imus?

Have you ever complained when (say) gays or feminists wanted a speaker banned from a college campus?

Of course, nobody is saying that Maher should be banned. Just that corporations that want to be mainstream should not explicitly endorse him.

10:40 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

I think it's fine to be sensitive about someone making fun of something that is part of your identity (Christianity), but that just gives other people ability to do the same thing . . . and pretty soon comedians can't make fun of anything and comedy stops being funny.

Then tell your leftist friends to cool it.

After all, the gay lobby, the feminists, black "spokesmen," etc. have been in the vanguard of trying to shut up things they don't like.

10:42 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

That said, I don't think it's fair to equate criticism of race or sexual orientation with criticism of ideas. Race and sexual orientation are inherent and not under the control of the person that has said characteristics.

This looks like a rationalization for the politically correct double standard.

People may be born with a certain sexual orientation (although the evidence on that is far more tenuous than politically correct types think), but whether they act on those impulses is a choice.

And whether they get in peoples' faces and (for example) persecute the Boy Scouts is a choice.

Of course, I would say that somebody who expressed the kind of hatred of gays that Maher expresses of Christians is somebody that major corporations should steer clear of.

Do you think that major corporations should steer clear of such a person?

I'll bet you do.

10:46 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Well, no. And I can prove it. I don't whine to any of Mark Belling's sponsors. I wouldn't even consider it. He says nasty stuff about homosexuals fairly regularly. Nor did I hold his sponsors responsible for the "Wetbacks" thing. Some did, and I think they're idiots too.

OK, you have a right to be thick skinned.

But point me to the message you posted on some leftist blog attacking leftist bloggers who were going after Belling, will you?

While you are at it, point me to where you defended Imus.

You are free to overlook bigotry if you want.

Sometimes that's the prudent thing to do.

But people have a right to say that they are not going to deal with people who support bigotry.

Maher has a right to speak.

But people put off by the support of American TV for Maher have a right not to shop there, don't they?

Or are you the sort of person who believes that free choice involves only the right to say bigoted things, but not the right to boycott?

10:51 AM  
Blogger PaulNoonan said...

But point me to the message you posted on some leftist blog attacking leftist bloggers who were going after Belling, will you?

I've not actually defended Maher, you may note. And I would not defend Belling for his wetback comment either. I would take anyone to task for complaining to his sponsors. Tracking down old comments is tough, but if you need testament as to my cred regarding the lefty part of the blogosphere, head over to Folkbum and ask Keith Schmitz what he thinks of me.

While you are at it, point me to where you defended Imus.

Once again, I'm not defending Maher.

You are free to overlook bigotry if you want.

Uhm, Ok.

Sometimes that's the prudent thing to do.

But people have a right to say that they are not going to deal with people who support bigotry.


Yes, but I'm not talking rights here. I'm talking about what you should do, not what's legal.

Maher has a right to speak.

But people put off by the support of American TV for Maher have a right not to shop there, don't they?


Yes, but retailers are attempting to appeal to many people, and if American has the products and services they want they are doing themselves a disservice by boycotting.

But we're not talking about a boycott here. We're talking about a pulled sponsorship. A boycott is you not shopping. Pressure on sponsors to pull a sponsorship affects my ability to see Maher. If I want to. Which I don't.

Or are you the sort of person who believes that free choice involves only the right to say bigoted things, but not the right to boycott?

Boycott away. Call Maher names. I don't care. But I'd rather hear an intellectual case from those who oppose Maher's views than I would see those same people undercut his ability to speak.

11:43 AM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

Sometimes when people do things they have the right to do, they are still dicks.

12:36 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

While you are at it, point me to where you defended Imus.

Once again, I'm not defending Maher.


Show me were you objected to sponsors who pulled out of the Imus show.

Yes, but retailers are attempting to appeal to many people, and if American has the products and services they want they are doing themselves a disservice by boycotting.

Your leftist friends have a huge long history of boycotting things. I remember grape boycotts circa 1970. For a long time they were boycotting Coors. They won't buy at Walmart.

And you know what, they have that right.

Pressure on sponsors to pull a sponsorship affects my ability to see Maher. If I want to. Which I don't.

OIC. People like me have an obligation to shop at American so that American can sponsor Maher.

That's just silly. If people who want to see Maher will pay to see him, that's fine.

If he can't appear without a subsidy from companies like American, so be it.

Boycott away. Call Maher names. I don't care. But I'd rather hear an intellectual case from those who oppose Maher's views than I would see those same people undercut his ability to speak.

You can't make an intellectual case against hate. It's not based on propositions. It comes from the gut.

4:26 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

Sometimes when people do things they have the right to do, they are still dicks.


Yes, and Maher is certainly a dick.

By all means go to his show if you want.

But don't expect Christians, or businesses who want to sell to Christians, to subsidize the hate speech you like.

4:37 PM  
Blogger steve austin said...

Let me break it down for the left-wing crybabies: Maher has a right to express hateful, bigoted opinions, and we have the right not to do business with those who sponsor said opinions. Do - You - Get - It? Probably not.

5:00 PM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

Just so we're clear on what your problem with Maher is, would you be so kind as to give us a few example of his "hatred" of Christians? Like, maybe tell us what he said about Christianity that is not true?

I don't think he's a dick. At least he has a sense of humor.

5:15 PM  
Blogger PaulNoonan said...

People like me have an obligation to shop at American so that American can sponsor Maher.

How exactly did you get this from me?

Once a righty calls me a leftist, I know I've won. Just like all the times that the lefties have called me a righty.

7:27 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

PaulNoonan said...
People like me have an obligation to shop at American so that American can sponsor Maher.

How exactly did you get this from me?


You are bitching about the fact that I would not buy from American if it had continued to sponsor Maher.

Either I have a right to boycott businesses who sponsor hate speech, or I don't.

Tell me whether you think I do!

11:24 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

JesusIsJustSomebodyIHate said...

Like, maybe tell us what he said about Christianity that is not true?


Everything I quoted in the first post.

Look . . . you hate Christians and Christianity, then of course you like Maher.

If I were in the Klan, I would like hate speech directed at blacks.

11:27 PM  
Blogger PaulNoonan said...

I mean, I don't know how much clearer I can be. For the 9,000,000th time, yes, you have a right to boycott. YOu jsut should not boycott. You have a right to do lots of stupid things.

9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor, I hope you won't mind my using your letter to American TV - with a few edits - to encourage them to drop their sponsorship of Dennis Miller's upcoming "performance" in Milwaukee. I am sure you're aware that Miller has made crude Catholic jokes similar to Maher's that are deeply offensive.

Perhaps you'd be inclined to sign onto this letter and disprove these ridiculous notions that you exclude right-leaning comedian bigots from your social jihad?

10:23 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

I mean, I don't know how much clearer I can be. For the 9,000,000th time, yes, you have a right to boycott. YOu jsut should not boycott. You have a right to do lots of stupid things.

Then we will just have to disagree on whether it's a "stupid thing."

I do assume you objected about the sponsors who dropped Don Imus, right?

And you objected when leftie bloggers tried (successfully, although I think it was mostly ratings) to get Jessica McBride fired?

And you object when lefties boycott Wal-Mart, right?

1:17 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Professor, I hope you won't mind my using your letter to American TV - with a few edits - to encourage them to drop their sponsorship of Dennis Miller's upcoming "performance" in Milwaukee. I am sure you're aware that Miller has made crude Catholic jokes similar to Maher's that are deeply offensive.

There is no "letter," but feel free.

If Miller is anything close to Maher, I think they should drop their sponsorship.

I'd have to hear a lot more of Miller than I have so far to know how similar he is to Maher, however.

1:21 PM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

Awww, you're not going to post my comment? Oh well. For the record, I do think the sponsors that dropped Imus are jackasses too. They should give back all of the money he earned them.

Also, I looked at the quotes in your first post on this and none of them struck me as false. Some were worded unconventionally for the sake of humor, but none were false. The Pope was a Hitler Youth, which was affiliated with Nazism. They do dress funny. They did participate in a conspiricy to cover up child sexual abuse. And they do this while pretending to be moral. Maher basically made these points but was funny about it.

1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John,

I am a Marquette Grad and frequent reader of your blog. And while I disagree with almost all of the things you say, I think you do a good job of summarizing the right's general arguments.

I must say that I think you could strengthen your argument here if you spent a little bit more time clarifying the line between freely voicing your dissent against something and repressing free speech. In your opinion, on the one hand, standing up in the middle of a speech and shouting is not ok, but on the other hand getting a speech's sponsor to pull out with the possible (and perhaps hoped for) effect that the speaker would not speak. This seems to be your general position. And I would agree with you that the two are different and can be distinguished. However, at what point does some action cross over from permissible to impermissible. Or stated differently, what is the clear principle you use to distinguish between permissible and impermissible activity? For example, (when John Ashcroft spoke or if David Horowitz or Daniel Pipes came to MU) if I chose to call Marquette's office and informed them that I would cease all donations to Marquette and then encouraged all of my friends to do so, would you consider that ok?

Looking forward to your response.

3:45 PM  
Anonymous salvatore said...

I just wanted to bring to your attention this week’s issue of the Onion. The cover contains an unbelievably offensive attempt at humor, on par with Bill Maher, with the headline “Pope Returns to Vatican With Comprehensive Plan to Blow Up United States.” Certainly there would be an massive outcry if this article was directed at Muslims, Blacks or Homosexuals.

I think a boycott of the Onion's advertisers is definitely in order, and you have proven that you are just the man to lead it.

3:53 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

The cover contains an unbelievably offensive attempt at humor, on par with Bill Maher, with the headline “Pope Returns to Vatican With Comprehensive Plan to Blow Up United States.”

The article looks to me like a parody of people like Maher!

Thanks to bringing it to my attention.

10:08 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Or stated differently, what is the clear principle you use to distinguish between permissible and impermissible activity?

It's very simple really.

One has no right to interfere with acts of speech between consenting adults.

On the other hand, one has no obligation to support, subsidize, enable or condone such speech.

For example, (when John Ashcroft spoke or if David Horowitz or Daniel Pipes came to MU) if I chose to call Marquette's office and informed them that I would cease all donations to Marquette and then encouraged all of my friends to do so, would you consider that ok?

You have every right to do that.

Given that I don't think that any of those guys is nearly as bad as Maher (and Ashcroft isn't even abrasive, just hated by liberals) I would consider you intolerant of diversity of opinion on campus if you did that.

But you have to judge for yourself who is a bigot and how you want to spend your money.

I have a right to quarrel with your choices, and you with mine.

So the issue is: do you think Maher is a bigot or not. If you think he is, you should have no disagreement with me. If you think he is not, we will just have to agree to disagree.

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John,

Alright we are making some progress now.

A couple of quick points.

First, your comment about me being "intolerant" to diversity on campus if I seeked to have fudnding for Ashcroft pulled... Are you conceding that if Bill Maher was speaking on campus you would let him speak without trying to pull his sponsors?

Second, tsk... tsk.. Ashcroft and Pipes not as bad as Maher? That's very amusing. I think what you seem to be overlooking is that Maher is just a comedian with no real power, while Ashcroft and Pipes are policymakers whose decisions affect real people's lives directly and in many cases have hurt them. (See recent NY Times piece about Pipes and an Arabic language school in NY).

As always, looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Ex-protege of Fr. Will

8:53 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

First, your comment about me being "intolerant" to diversity on campus if I seeked to have fudnding for Ashcroft pulled... Are you conceding that if Bill Maher was speaking on campus you would let him speak without trying to pull his sponsors?

This mixes up several issues.

Who would be paying Maher?

If Marquette, I would criticize them loudly for a poor use of money they extracted from students.

If some outside (say) foundation, I would think very badly of that foundation, and if they had a store, might well boycott that store.

In no case would I try to disrupt the speech.

While I have no objection to inflammatory speakers on campus, I do dislike people who promote hate speech.

If (say) MUSG had a policy of bringing inflammatory speakers from both the left and the right, I would have no quarrel with that.

One of the key things about speakers on college campuses is that they should contribute to the intellectual climate of the campus.

Thus speakers who have a clear message to present, even if they present it in rather harsh language, do contribute something. People who engage in mere hate speech (Catholicism is a "dress up cult") don't.

Of course, I think people who engage in hate speech should not be censored -- on campus or elsewhere. I just don't think it's a good use of tuition money (or a foundation grant) to pay a hater.

But since you are a supporter of Maher, tell me what you would think and do if somebody brought a Klansman to campus?

I think what you seem to be overlooking is that Maher is just a comedian with no real power, while Ashcroft and Pipes are policymakers whose decisions affect real people's lives directly and in many cases have hurt them.

This is just pure ideological bias on your part. Politicians who who run counter to your ideological beliefs, you want to ban.

You don't like Ashcroft? I don't like Janet Reno. But both, being important policy makers, would be valuable as campus speakers.

Horowitz is harsh in his rhetoric? So is Robert Kennedy, Jr., but I'm absolutely sure you have no objection to him, do you?

In fact he did appear. (So did Horowitz, in a small event many years ago.) Did you object?

Or is it that the criterion you use is agreement with your ideology?

Again, you have a right to use ideological criteria if you want, but so do I.

Sincerely,
Ex-protege of Fr. Will


Fr. Will who?

12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnathon,

Good show, old chap.

Alright, lets address some of your responses for the purposes of clarification.

You wrote: "But since you are a supporter of Maher, tell me what you would think and do if somebody brought a Klansman to campus?"

First, I at no point stated that I was a supporter of Maher. Rather, the whole purpose of this intellectual exercise (and worthwhile lunch break) is trying to determine if you are in fact as intellectually consistent as you claim you are. I think at this point at most I have stated that I disagree with most of what you say and am not a fan of Ashcroft, Pipes, or Horowitz. For the sake of clarification, I will admit that I should have been clearer regarding my disagreements with you and not led you to think that my general statement about disagreement extended to whether Maher should be boycotted. Most of my disagreements with you are over policy. I could care less about this Maher crusade of yours.

Moving on...

You said: "If Marquette, I would criticize them loudly for a poor use of money they extracted from students."

Second, originally, in response to my first comment about Ashrcoft at MU, you stated that if I decided to cease all of my alumi contributions to MU and encouraged others to do the same, you would accuse me of trying to stifle diverse speech on campus. Thus, I tried to turn the tables on you and asked if you would do the same if there was a speaker on campus that you didnt like and whether that would make you a stifler of diverse speech. You say now that if such a liberal speaker was invited (say Kornell West for the sake of discussion) you would criticize it loudly as a poor use of money. Thus, if I follow, I can criticize MU loudly when they bring Ashcroft as a poor use of MU money? And if MU as the result of poor publicity decides to cancel the event, I am not a stifler of diversity? I am just trying to pin down your argument-- not argue about the substance of Maher's statements or whether he should speak in Milwaukee.

You said: "This is just pure ideological bias on your part. Politicians who who run counter to your ideological beliefs, you want to ban. You don't like Ashcroft? I don't like Janet Reno. But both, being important policy makers, would be valuable as campus speakers."

Third, again I think you misinterpret what I was trying to say. In my first email, I used Ashcroft as a counter example to Maher. You responded as an aside that Maher was worse than Ashcroft or Pipes (reflecting your ideologiocal bias- which is fair). I tried to rebut this point. Not for the sake of deciding whether one should be allowed to debate at MU or not, but for the sakes of actual discussion of which one was more morally reprehensible. I do not mean or intend to convince you of my position regarding which one is more morally reprehensible but just hope to clarify my argument. And indeed, unless you are one of those who believe all is morally subjective, we should be able to have a substantive discussion about who is more morally reprehensible (although admittedly that would be for another time and place- just seeking to clarify my stance.)

In Christ's Love (and Buddha's and Allah's and Yahweh's too).

1:21 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Rather, the whole purpose of this intellectual exercise (and worthwhile lunch break) is trying to determine if you are in fact as intellectually consistent as you claim you are.

Actually, I'm trying to find out whether you are intellectually consistent. So far, I'm not seeing it.

I tried to turn the tables on you and asked if you would do the same if there was a speaker on campus that you didnt like and whether that would make you a stifler of diverse speech. You say now that if such a liberal speaker was invited (say Kornell West for the sake of discussion) you would criticize it loudly as a poor use of money.

You aren't getting it.

I said a speaker who engages in hate speech is a poor use of Marquette's money.

Not all liberals are haters -- although an increasing number seem to be. (Did you see the fellow vandalizing the anti-abortion display at UW Stevens Point?)

If you mean Cornel West, he has been on campus, and I debated him (at part of a panel) on campus.

He's not a hater -- although I think he's wrong on certain issues.

Thus, if I follow, I can criticize MU loudly when they bring Ashcroft as a poor use of MU money? And if MU as the result of poor publicity decides to cancel the event, I am not a stifler of diversity?

No, Marquette is a stiffler of diversity.

You somehow don't accept that free speech involves the freedom to criticize other peoples' speech. And criticize people for enabling bigoted speech.

In my first email, I used Ashcroft as a counter example to Maher. You responded as an aside that Maher was worse than Ashcroft or Pipes (reflecting your ideologiocal bias- which is fair).

No, reflecting the fact that Maher engages in hate speech, and Ashcroft doesn't.

You say you are not a defender of Maher, but if you see him as no worse that Ashcroft (who apparently is very evil in your world), you are a defender.

I tried to rebut this point. Not for the sake of deciding whether one should be allowed to debate at MU or not, but for the sakes of actual discussion of which one was more morally reprehensible.

OIC. You want to ban people you think are "morally reprehensible."

I think every supporter of abortion is morally reprehensible, but I don't want such speakers banned from campus.

The test should not be who is "morally reprehensible," but who can add to the discourse on campus.

And note -- this is not my criterion for who should be allowed on campus, but rather for who is a good use of student tuition and fees.

By the way: what do you think of politicians who support abortion?

I'll bet you have no problem with them, only with people like Ashcroft.

And indeed, unless you are one of those who believe all is morally subjective, we should be able to have a substantive discussion about who is more morally reprehensible . . .

I'm not sure we can if you think that Ashcroft's conservatism is as bad as Maher's bigotry.

1:48 PM  
Anonymous John said...

Still waiting for your post criticizing Horowitz for his anti-religious views. He is coming to UWM, so it is topical.

5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that you would dig your claws into Bill maher, but i dont see one post about Bill O'Rielly or Ann Coulter. I grew up christian, but the older I got, the more i realized that the atheists make valid points that christians refuse to acknowledge because they have an ego problem. I dont know if its jealousy that Bill Maher is famous or what, but hatred cuts both ways, you get back what you dish out, its called karma, or in christian terms, "you reap what you sow"

2:02 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

hatred cuts both ways, you get back what you dish out, its called karma, or in christian terms, "you reap what you sow"

Oh, my!

You could use this excuse for bigotry to justify bigotry against any group, since no group is lacking in sinners.

But you shouldn't.

5:46 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home