Kelly Wilson apparently felt that the human race needed to be protected from the following comment of mine, on his post at Vox Nova:
It’s hard for me to understand why the Church must either explicitly endorse legalization of homosexual acts, or else be guilty of “failing to confront dignity-diminishing realities”. Aren’t homosexual acts objectively “dignity-diminishing realities”? If so, then wouldn’t endorsing their legalization constitute a failure to confront a dignity-diminishing reality?
“I realize that not everything that is sinful should necessarily be punishable by law. But at the same time, isn’t the question of whether a particular sinful act should be punishable by law a prudential one to be decided in the context of a particular society and culture? Or is there some principle (which the world has discovered but to which the Church remains inexplicably ignorant) by which we know beyond doubt that homosexual acts should *never* be punishable by law, at any time or in any place?”
He did me the courtesy of explaining his criticisms of my comment in an email. Since it was private I am not posting its contents. As always, Kelly is welcome to explain himself here if he chooses.
I will just say that however valid his criticisms may have been, I don’t see them as justifying the censorship of my comment, since it was neither uncivil nor obscene. I think the point of a blog is to post your ideas publicly and have people interact with them. You go back and forth, civilly criticizing and correcting each other, presumably in the hope of learning from other points of view, and allowing others who may not be actively commenting to learn from the interaction as well. (What Kelly thinks the point of a blog is, I don’t know.)
Thus, I would think the courteous, civil response to my comment would have been to post it and then criticize it. He took the time to draft a criticism anyway. Why not just post that as a reply to my comment, rather than censoring my point of view from the discussion? If I’m so far off-base, why not let me make a public fool of myself and learn from the experience?
I appealed to the other contributors of Vox Nova in an email, hoping they would agree that Vox Nova should be a place for free exchange of ideas and not their censorship, but since I got no response to my email, I can only surmise that they either agree with Kelly’s comment deletion policies, or don’t think this issue is as important as I think it is. Or who knows, maybe they were just busy.
So why do I keep commenting on Kelly’s posts, in light of how often I get censored? Well, because somewhat more than half the time (I guess), he ends up posting my commments after all (after I complain about their deletion). I keep thinking that maybe this time, he’ll err on the side of tolerance; and if not, what have I lost? Hope springs eternal.
And of course, there’s the fact that he’s always posting fabulously controversial things, especially for a seminary student …