This following responds to an email that I receive posted here at Kos regarding this discussion.

Hi Bruce Wilson,

Thanks for contacting me with your question. I always enjoy reading and responding to emails like yours.

These are difficult times for our nation as we battle against Islamofacism externally and fight internally to define our identity. Often this internal debate becomes mired in escalated rhetoric that mirrors the style of the "hero's of our opinion" on the radio, blog, or television. This is unfortunate because we have some very serious issues to resolve.

I am certain you have noticed very passionate people who have very sincere, opposing convictions: traditional or gay marriage, religious freedom or wall of separation, life or choice, decency or obscenity. Can such juxtaposed positions coexist under the same national banner? I suppose only time will tell (or perhaps history has already told and we've just forgotten to read it).

I am a proudly associated with the Stop the ACLU Coalition and Stop the ACLU because I've thoughtfully determined that I don't want to live in the America that the ACLU wants to create:

1. All legal prohibitions against pornography and sexuality--including polygamy--would be gone;
2. The age of consent would be gone and adults could have sex with children;
3. Parents would have no right to raise their children according to their values;
4. Parents would have no right to determine their child's education;
5. Public schools and institutions could not recognize our traditional holidays like Christmas, Easter, or Hanukkah;
6. Communities couldn't decide whether or not they would want to celebrate or give thanks to a diety;
7. Civic organizations that contribute to the lives of children, like the Boy Scouts, would disappear-- unless they agreed with the ACLU;
8. Abortions and euthanasia would be unrestricted and commonplace (maybe even infanticide or selective birthing when you follow their reasoning to it's logical conclusion);
9. America would be stripped of it's sovereignty to protect its borders and defend itself against terrorists;
10. Finally, the ACLU wants to create an America where the role of religion is minimalized in individuals and in the public arena.

Let me be very clear, I don't want to live in this America; therefore, with my blog, I have proudly joined the Stop the ACLU Blogburst.

As individuals within our great nation fight to influence its identity, technological advances have come very quickly and have allowed for a more direct form of influence upon our neighbor. While this can be very good, it can also be very bad. I believe that people should be held accountable for their online actions, this include members and organizers of the Coalition.

However, let me suggest an opposing perspective to yours: Truth does not produce evil, it only exposes it. Is it intellectually honest to claim that the publication of names made someone act in a certain manner? I suggest not; the Coalition organizers are no more responsible for the actions of people in Deleware than Jesus was responsible for the Crusades. Let me say clearly, I reject the actions of some of the people you mentioned in Deleware who lowered the debate of ideas to threats and acts of violence.

Finally, aren't we all just trying to figure out the best way of using technology to advance our personal convictions? We can discuss means and methods of doing so with dignity, but it is hard balance and we are all learning together. We want our opinions to win because we think they are right. I hope the goal of your discussion is to find means and methods of a dignified technological debate and not simply to 'win' over the 'evil people' at the Coalition who consistently oppose your perspective.

Somehow, I fear this is not the case.

Sincerely,

Jefferson Reed
RightFaith.blogspot.com

Stop the ACLU's Reponse Here and Here.