I recently read a post lamenting the cowardice of bloggers. While the tone of that article was too black and white, the general premise was correct. A great many bloggers heavily censor their comments to avoid criticism. Such censorship is cowardice. Consider the warning on this post by Bonald of Throne and Altar:

“WARNING:  Before commenting, be advised that posts attacking and demonizing the Catholic clergy will not be tolerated on this weblog.”

Be advised, legitimate comments criticizing the Catholic clergy will not be permitted there. Only the very best echo chambered comments can be permitted. After all, the best argument against Protestant objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy is to declare them false and silence any refutation. That’s a surefire way to win an argument! Woo!

Of course censorship is required when the arguments are riddled with poor logic^[1] and you fear criticism.

The Bible dictates that when a believer is unrepentant, after being confronted only then can the church expel him. He is then to be treated as any other non-believer. The Internet is a mission field. It is full of non-believers. When Paul spoke to the Gentiles, he spoke to them in a cultural language they understood and made arguments that they found convincing. Christians today are called to do the exact same thing. By censoring, they show their arguments to be worthless. They show their cowardice.

The goal of apologetics is to make reasoned arguments in defense of the faith. Censorship has no place there. By contrast, advocacy and activism are authoritarian. The former is loving, the latter is cowardice.

NOTE: I’ve disabled comments on this post because it attracts a ton of spam comments and I’m tired of moderating them. It’s not ironic. If you want to comment on this post, email me or make a comment on another post and I’ll reopen comments on this post.

^[1] You can read them yourself at the link provided above. In short: (1) Who names heresies is not evidence of correctness. It’s logically fallacious; (2) People have, very much, attempted to compare the sexual immorality of Catholic priests with non-Catholics. This includes Catholics and non-Catholics.; (3) It is logically possible that Catholics could be morally inferior to other Christians, indeed, if Catholicism is false, this is the likely conclusion. By contrast, if Catholicism is correct, it should be morally superior. Evidence of widespread Catholic clergy sin and the refusal of the leadership to condemn it is thus potential evidence of its falsehood. Bonald rebels against this obvious conclusion.