"Nothing can be more absurd than the practice that prevails in our country of men and women not following the same pursuits with all their strengths and with one mind, for thus, the state instead of being whole is reduced to half." -Plato, The Laws "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." -John Stuart Mill Herman Janks, a friend of mine, a philosopher and author, is at fault for the nature of my column this week. I sought him out because I wanted help tracking down the quote from Plato that starts the column. I intended for the column to be about the quest for equality between the sexes and how, despite modern views that seem to say the 1960's and 1970's started it all, for thousands of years people have been debating the subject and seeking an answer that is equitable for all. He helped me with the first, then mentioned John Stuart Mill. In looking for a quote about women from John Stuart Mill to further illustrate the point I came across one that -- due to pure chance -- was also on my mind, so I decided to go with the flow and change the subject of the column. I participated in a wide-ranging and long-winded discussion in the newsroom Friday about The Episcopal decision about a gay bishop, liberalism, censorship, and how Christians seem to be under attack by forces determined to silence their voices while letting their critics rant on ad nauseum. Monday, in checking stories to see if anything jumped out at me, I noticed that a Christian had been refused an ad, that he was willing to pay for, that said listeners of that radio program should go to a church -- the ad listed two -- and said nothing else. The coincidence of these three things, the discussion Friday, the story about the inoffensive ad refusal, and finding the quote about censorship by John Stuart Mill caused me to rethink what I wanted to say this week. Why is it that obviously intelligent people can't see that considering different views does not mean throwing out traditional beliefs? A person can be open to ideas that challenge their beliefs, consider them and then choose to remain faithful to the old beliefs. Some people seem to think you have to change with every stray breeze of public opinion that comes along. These people demand conformity to non-conformity. They delight in those who challenge the system, no matter how demented their non-conformity, but decry those who choose to remain faithful to time-honored traditions and beliefs. The Episcopal church decision is a case in point. The church bishops voted to affirm an openly gay man, who left his wife and is living with a man in an openly gay relationship, as a bishop in the church. Those who said they didn't want this are being depicted as homophobic despite the fact that the Bible, the book which the Episcopal church is supposed to follow, says that such men are not eligible to lead the church. I'm not Episcopalian so it doesn't affect me personally, but I can see that people who believe God spoke to man, and that we are to live by those words, would have a crisis of faith. Should they remain with a church that no longer reflects their beliefs? Should they change to a congregation that does reflect those beliefs even if it requires changing denominations? I can't answer for any one but myself but if I were in that situation I would seek to have my congregation affiliate itself with a church that follows the Bible and if that didn't work I would go to church there one last time, announce my decision to leave, the reason for it, and then I would leave the church building and remove my shoes and literally knock the dust from them. Liberals love it when they gain control of a bastion of conservatism like a church. They can wreak havoc with the lives of millions of people --not that they care about people -- they can destroy a tradition that they despise and they can leave it without restoring anything of value to those they have stolen from. Liberals want to spout the most errant nonsense and have it taken seriously but when push comes to shove they prove they don't believe their own words. They talk about championing the right of free speech, yet they squirm like a slug in a salt bath when someone demands the right to speak about anything they object to. Just ask Dan Schuller of Dubuque, Iowa, who wanted to buy 10-second ads on "Mancow's Morning Madhouse" a program on the mis-named "Free Speech Radio Network." Apparently free speech means that everyone is free to spew their nonsense for free on the program, but a Christian won't even be allowed to buy time to get their view across. Like the saying goes, Liberals can talk the talk but they can't walk the walk. Maybe if they spit their chewing gum out before they started walking they'd have a better chance.