In the comments section of the very post that claimed his censorship policy was "not out of fear but out of annoyance," Rabbi Student censored a comment in a way that can leave no doubt that it is in fact about fear and not annoyance.
Commenter Modeh B'Miktsas provided a list of blogs that allow free discussion "for those skeptics who don't know where else to post." The comment could not be construed by any rational individual as rude or annoying, but Rabbi Student censored it with this explanation: they can find these places on their own.
What is the purpose of making it harder for skeptics to find places where they are welcome to comment? The only possible explanation is that Rabbi Student is, in fact, afraid of open debate, not just for himself but for all the doubters out there. He is afraid that if both sides are allowed to argue their point of view, people who are on the fence will be swayed by the skeptics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
How about posting that list here? Since Student censored it?
SF
Good idea!
Skeptics, give me all your skeptical blogs that aren't already in my blogroll and I'll put together a big list.
a) how many frum sites are out there that deal with torah (not frum woman talking about baking challahs)
b) how many of them censor skeptics?
Unfortunately people are sometimes swayed by skeptic blogs even if the arguments don't really hold up. Sometimes they have other reasons to give up Orthodoxy.
Perhaps Gil is not afraid of open debate, but he doesn't feel that the discussions on the skeptic blogs fall into that category of open debate. It's neither annoyance or fear of "real debate", rather just preferring not to send people to not-so-great places.
holy hyrax,
can you point me to the blogs where frum women talk about baking challah?
Skeptics, find me!!
My post was censored from the Beyond Teshuva article about the married woman who became Orthodox while her husband remained nonobservant, because I suggested that the woman used her religious conflict with her husband to mask her feelings of dissatisfaction with him. I was skeptical about the sincerity of the woman's faith and my post was censored. That's what you get for trying to psychoanalyze religion.
Jewish Philosopher, it would be wrong to say, "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting" but why don't you split your blog into two: one for intellectual stuff and another for emotional venting, like JA did.
JA, Thanks for the link to Beyond BT.
Uber, Your post was censored because it was primarily a baseless negative attack on the poster of the article.
Beyond BT is primarily a support blog, criticism should be given constructively and with great concern for the one being criticized.
Beyond the usual fear of freedom in OJ there is a deepseated complacency -- unwillingness to question old formulations, to revolt from rotting superficiality, to be disturbed, to blaspheme out of pain. Too much willingness to be dishonestly conventional. Too much willingess to keep things on the level of superstition, unthought through concepts followed through to their logical conclusions. Too much willingness to believe in God because ones experience, historic and scientific facts prove his existence; and not enough willingness to see Him despite the plain facts that contradict his existence. Why can't one be a heretic philosophically and believe imaginatively and smoke pot?
Post a Comment