Jimmy Akin responds to Dan Savage's rant.

Akin responds in his usual low key, reasonable way.



A question: Savage was clearly engaging in theology - he was providing his own idiosyncratic, one-sided interpretation of text. Would it have been permissible for someone to have provided the other view at this gathering? Such as that provided by Akin Would that have violated the First Amendment? (Obviously, I don't know if this was a state-sponsored gathering.) Has that been done before? I suspect not.

Or are we at a point where the First Amendment permits anti-religious speech, but not pro-religious speech?