"...he was told to publicly revise some of [his] views...."

A person, such as Tony Flannery, thinks sincerely about important things and arrives at ideas, conclusions, and questions. Then a person in authority tells him to say publicly that those are not his thoughts. What exactly does the authority think is accomplished? That threatening someone until he mouths a lie is a moral act? That using threats and force to get such a statement is equivalent to the person changing his held, concluded ideas? That other people will be convinced by such a counterfeit, feigned makeover? The utter pettiness and triviality of the authority is what stands out here, the veniality and pompous arrogance, the valuing of surface over substance and depth. Do the authorities making this demand really imagine in this situation that anyone has been convinced by them? If they do, what shallow fools they are; if not, what malicious and torturing tyrants.