[Dataman]

I still find this offensive.

You should. Your side practices it by enforcing a materialistic world view on the public.

And your apparently new-found faith in the power of the government to coerce speech and "re-educate" this professor is disturbing.

Does it bother you that the power of the government to coerce speech and re-educate by prohibiting criticism of your precious fairy tale bother you? I thought not.

You should be very careful in this. Next time, it will be a "re-education" that you don't care for.

Well then, we ought not support the government in curbing any crime, because next time they may come after us. Makes realllllll good sense.

[atlaw]

"Your side practices it by enforcing a materialistic world view on the public."

Can you provided any specific examples of this "enforcement"? Or do you simply view any consensus view in the scientific community as "enforcement"?

"Does it bother you that the power of the government to coerce speech and re-educate by prohibiting criticism of your precious fairy tale bother you? I thought not."

Again, can you provide any specific examples of the power of the government being used to prohibit criticism of evolution? If this were truly the case, yes, it would be indefensible and it would bother me in precisely the same way that the thinly disguised liberal holy war against Dini bothers me.

"Well then, we ought not support the government in curbing any crime, because next time they may come after us. Makes realllllll good sense."

So your position is that Dini's criteria for a letter of recommendation are criminal? Can you point out what "crime" he committed? Perhaps a "thought" crime that got passed when no one was looking.

You're going off the deep end here. To suggest that the government would be merely "curbing a crime" by mandating that Dini write recommendations to whomever the government chooses is playing pretty fast and loose with the concept of "crime".