I am not about to defend the film as far as its arguements because I have not seen it but I thought I would point out that it is completely incorrect to state that Richard M. Sternberg did not suffer ill effects from publishing the article in question. This is a completely misguided attempt at debunking the entire film because it does not agree with your beliefs. If you want more info. on Sternberg and what happened to him because of his beliefs you only need to google it. There is plenty of information available on the subject. BTW there is an article on wikipedia that is pretty short but explains the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed link by making "s" of "sternberg" upper-case (make "r" of "Richard" upper-case while I was at it. The Wiki error page said "Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title."
did you try to read up on it? The article says he was discriminated against. There is also another article at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/the_house_government_reformsu.html which indicates that the accusation of discrimination was found to be credible by the Office of Special Council but that the OSC did not have jurisdiction to persecute the offense. Wheather or not you agree with the mans arguments everyone deserves the right to believe and say as they please without the fear of reprisal against them for it. Freedom of speach is a right we all enjoy and it really is not fair to be treated unfairly (especially at work) because of your beliefs.
You guy`s were arguing that nothing happened to Sternberg because of the article he published. I simply stated that he had in fact, been discriminated against. And now you have admitted to it, but believe it was valid. The arguement was not with the validity of it, but that it did happen. Also with your comment that kicking people around for saying things outside the mainstream of thought is basis for "kicking them around". Poor choice of words I think, but I do understand the point you were trying to make. But he did "suffer ill effects" for publishing the article as you said yourself.
fine. but the fact remains that the original point of my first post is correct. He did infact "suffer ill effects", being reprimanded in any way because of the article he published is an "ill effect", wheather or not you or I believe it is valid is irrelevant.