Frank Walton’s shocking, scandalous, perfidious, ignominious, rascally and recreant tactics

“What do you Christians think of Walton's tactics here? Is it acceptable in Christian circles?”

—John Loftus

Before I discuss Walton’s disreputable behavior I must ask all parents to send their children out of the room.

Are they gone?

So what, exactly, is Walton guilty of? Well, for the lurid details you have to go over to Daniel Morgan’s blog.

I won’t tell you where to find Danny’s blog since he might sue me for copyright infringement if I were to publicize the URL.

Anyway, if you go over to Danny’s blog, you’ll discover that Walton has fallen into the disputable habit—are you ready for this?—of quoting his opponents verbatim!

Yes, you heard it right. He’s been known to quote them word for word. To post their actual words on the Internet.

It’s hard to believe that a Christian blogger would sink so low, but there you have it.

Danny has responded to this unscrupulous behavior by threatening to sue Walton for copyright infringement.

To prove his point he directs the reader to the U.S. Copyright Office, which says the following:

Copyrightable works include the following categories:

1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

So quoting email is a clear case of copyright infringement.

You can see that right under #1.

Or is it #2?

Maybe #3?

#4 perchance?

Possibly #5?

What about #6, #7, or #8?

Hard to tell, but it must be in there somewhere since Danny says it’s so—whether we classify email as a sculpture, skyscraper, motion picture, pantomime, or grand opera.

Now, if Walton were a man of honor, he’d know better than to quote his opponents verbatim.

Obviously the only principle course of action is to misquote your opponents. To quote them out of context. To paraphrase what they said in some misleading way.

But Walton is far too dishonest to misquote his opponents. Instead, he smears their reputation by quoting their own words right back to them.

And I’m sure I don’t have to remind you all that when you’re quoting the average atheist, nothing could be more defamatory to his personal character than to accurately reproduce his very own words.

By contrast, Walton’s critics have maintained the high moral tone you’d expect of a secular ethicist, by resorting to racial slurs and epithets—as well as threatening to lynch him and rape his wife.

By contrast, Walton’s critics delete commenters who disagree with them.

By contrast, Walton’s critics resort to legal threats when they lose the argument.

So, as a Christian, in answer to Loftus’ query, I must admit that Walton’s underhanded tactic of quoting his opponents word-for-word is utterly reprehensible and sorely illustrates the pressing need to replace antiquated Christian ethics with a secular code of conduct.