Stanley Fish wrote But a firm adherent of a comprehensive religion doesn't want dialogue about his beliefs; he wants those beliefs to prevail. Dialogue is not a tenet in his creed, and invoking it is unlikely to do anything but persuade him that you have missed the point
Decius wrote a responsible believer wishes his ideas to win in the open marketplace of ideas rather then through force.
he is rejecting dialogue and liberalism
he seems to be arguing for some sort of apocalyptic war? perhaps? he doesn't argue for anything but rejects liberalism
he rejects the idea of a responsible believer Stanley Fish wrote the morality of a withdrawal from morality in any strong, insistent form
this is his description of what liberal editors are doing by being "concerned only to stand up for an abstract principle - free speech" but excuse me blasphamy is an abstract principle. He's just condeming decadent liberal ideology and sounds like a jihadist, Christian/Muslim who knows for sure. The belief in the therapeutic and redemptive force of dialogue depends on the assumption (central to liberalism's theology) that, after all, no idea is worth fighting over to the death and that we can always reach a position of accommodation if only we will sit down and talk it out.
this to me is scary and the guy is a law professor! he's rejecting this! RE: Our faith in letting it all hang out - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune | 
