Stringsinger ""I disagree that the two are connected. I think that if the dialogue is presented in an even-handed informative and critical way, even then, it will step on someone's toes, particularly in the areas of religion and politics. But to be cowed by self-censorship just because someone doesn't like what's being said is tantamount to ignoring the issue.""

""even-handed informative and critical way"" When and where has that happened? (I would add interesting to that mix).

IMO, It is not what is being said, but whether it is said in a respectful manner that counts, IMO. The same athiest-religion mudcat folks have been going around a circle mostly saying the same thing, from thread to thread, for months.The issues and responses are hardly new (in fact, they are stale).

The issue is not censorship and free speech. The issue is whether either side is actually listening to each other, or only engaging in a game of one-up-man-ship. Why so, and For whom, themselves? I suspect few other Mudcatters tune in for very long - as it mostly involves throwing around of insults, in one form or another. Is there a stage when the same participants ask - "what's the point"? Beyond, fluffing up one's own feathers, that is :)