My friend Chad at CCK has a post in reply to one of mine on the Kentucky desegregation cases. He begins by fabricating a quotation.
Without the quotation marks, the words would be merely a false statement of what I have said and what I believe. With the quotation marks, they amount to a lie on Chad's part.
Here is what I did say, in a prior post that I linked to in the one Chad uses.
Almost no one doubts that the Court was right [in Brown] in its central finding: that racial segregation as practiced in the South and elsewhere at the time violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I certainly think the Court was right.
So I did not say nor do I think that the case was "poorly decided," a phrase which has no meaning that I can discern. I think it was rightly decided, but poorly argued. I think it is wrong to tell a child or her parents that she cannot attend a school of their choice, and instead must be spend hours each school day on a bus, merely because she is the wrong color for the school's racial balance. Chad has every right to disagree. It would be interesting to know his reasons, but none are offered.
He also goes on to criticize another of my posts. The topic is whether incoming Congressman Keith Ellison should be free to use the Koran (rather than the Bible) when he is sworn in. Dennis Prager argues no. Chad says this about my post:
Oh ... and I see he thinks comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf is a logical comparison..
In fact, I say this about Prager's argument:
Prager has an argument but it is pitifully weak on its own merits, and ridiculously weak given the political capital that it consumes.
I clearly side with Eugene Volokh on the question, and I make it clear that I think Keith Ellison should be free to use the Koran when he is sworn in.
But to say that Prager's argument is wrong, and pitifully weak, is not to say that it is illogical. It was in fact an example of a reductio ad absurdum, which is perfectly logical. It goes like this: if we let an incoming House member choose any book he wishes to be sworn in by (for example, the Koran instead of the Bible), then he could chose Mein Kampf. That looks to me like a perfectly logical "if . . .then" statement. No comparison is involved. What is wrong with this argument is not that it is illogical, but that it is bad. I made it clear why I disagreed with it in my post.