Seriously, what a fantastic example of how difficult it is to tell what really happened just the other day. As someone else said, imagine how difficult it is to tell what happened 2,000 years ago!!! At some point, you pick your version and you take it on “faith” — so to speak.

At no time prior to the mid-20thC was marriage considered a “right,” at least not to my knowledge. Priests, judges, ministers, etc., always maintained the right to refuse to perform a marriage. Defining marriage as a right in the gay marriage debate is begging the question, as of course if it is a right (like the right to free speech) it cannot be denied.

According to Robert Solomon’s Introduction to Philosophy, the ontological argument for the existence of God has been demonstrated to be a logically valid proof for the existence of God. It needed to be slightly rephrased from its original construction, but it has been subject to not only the scrutiny of many logicians but also computer analysis.

The existence of a logically valid argument for the existence of God does not in fact mean that God exists, as existence and human reason need not coincide at any point.

The rest of your recent posts are sheer stupidity. Very disappointing, I was hoping you were one of the smart ones. No, the Christian and Jewish religions do not demand unquestioning obedience to all perceived divine commands. But I guess the book of Job and Christ’s last words on the cross were left out of every Bible you’ve read…

This is what I said to him initially in that exchange about his original note. The note, incidentally, appears to be not merely “his” text but word for word the text, at least in part, of the EHSC’s “official” version of events.

Evan K. – I’m going to respond to two statements in your account of the events.

You said:

“Some of the committee felt that the description provided was far outside the topic that was originally proposed…

“(As a side note, I disagreed with the decision to cancel but in a democratic organization the vote doesn’t always go the way you want it to. I even started a petition to re-invite Sunsara but only about 20% of the society signed).”

I have read the entire email sent to Sunsara from the EHAC disinviting her. The substance of that letter is contained in my comment above in my email to the EHAC. Your characterization that her talk didn’t fit into the expected parameters of the invited talk does not square with the reasons given by EHAC for withdrawing their invitation to her. As I state in my letter above and as Sunsara stated, her talk was a) so grossly mischaracterized by EHAC as to constitute dishonesty and b) she would have spoken precisely to the topic and in the manner that she had originally indicated. This was clear from her original and subsequent description. And it would have been both in the spirit and to the letter of that which the EHAC in its letter disinviting her indicated they had wanted from her in the first place.

You write further:

“From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease this woman. She was given an October 31 platform that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Sunsara’s ’speech in exile’ on November 1. The only thing we would not agree to was having her speak on November 1. All we asked is that she not disrupt the Sunday platform. She did not budge an inch; there was no effort at compromise from her or her people.”

What compromise did you expect from her other than to not speak at the forum that your organization originally asked her to speak at? Exactly why do you say that she wasn’t compromising on anything? What was there to compromise on? You say that the only thing that she could not do was speak at the November 1 event. What else was there besides this for her to “compromise” upon? The speech in exile she did, the workshop on October 31st she did, and, moreover, the “speech in exile” at a home wasn’t arranged by the EHAC. It was offered by a member of EHAC on their own on their own individual initiative and, according to Diane, that member has resigned from EHAC in apparent protest over EHAC’s decision to disinvite Sunsara.

Your comment here is like saying that workers who have been laid off and their jobs sent overseas should “compromise” by accepting their fates willingly and not raising any fuss over it.

I my case, we talk about stuff, then we do what my wife wants…;-)

She’s allowed to have ironic sexist objects, though, because she was Women’s Officer for the Oxford University Union.