I used to leave comments on Anglican Journal articles but gave up doing so because they never appeared. I am not the only one: it seems that the ACoC can tolerate anything except disagreement.
The excruciatingly dull blog that exudes like a foetid ectoplasm from the Diocese of New Westminster expunged a dissenting view on St. Matthews Abbotsford:
Note on Another Matter:
nwanglicanblog received a lengthy response to a recent posting that comments on the move of the ANiC congregation in Abbotsford out of its former physical facilities. This response will not be posted on the blog as it reiterates familiar arguments and makes disparaging statements that do not contribute to the advancement of the Gospel.
Since the Diocese of New Westminster’s expertise lies mostly in the art of breaking up the Anglican Communion, it’s hard to see how it could harbour the conceit that it is, itself, in any way advancing the Gospel, especially since Michael Ingham went to some lengths to prevent one of the world’s foremost evangelical thinkers – J. I. Packer – from setting foot on any diocesan property.
I have been blocked from following the twitter feed from the Diocese of Niagara for fear, presumably, that I might make an unflattering remark about its contents.
Still, the Anglican Church of Canada does love conversation; just don’t question the tergiversations of its hierocracy.
No surprise here. The left wing has always valued free speach, but only when someone is saying the things that the left wing want others to hear. As soon as you start saying anything that the left wing does not like than the cencors take over. After all, the left wing must protect the people from the hate, intollerance, and bigotry of the right wing.
Start up a fake Twitter account and follow them that way.
I miss blogging and a certain bishop’s wife who would go ballistic, but I let her. The Anglican Journal is scripted and probably have comments ready to go before publication.
Ah yes, Bernadette.
The censorship is hard at work. I posted a comment on the linked blog for the DoNW, in which I only stated that I was glad that my tax dollars were no longer funding a left wing political group that thinkly disguised itself as religious. This comment was initially posted, but has since been removed.
Hey,
If you are against censorship, I dare you to post this:
You are a bigoted, homophobic, racist person who claims to be a Christian.
Go ahead, tough guy, I dare you to post this.
Prick
My husband and I were watching an episode of the Father Brown Mysteries BBC did in the ’70’s last night. And, I reflected on the level of civility and good manners represented in the dialogue. How mindful people were of others, and how deft they were in engagements that were the verbal equivalent of social dancing.
I reflected that, when conflict inevitably arose, instead of making appeals to a higher standard of consideration or someone’s better nature, while also making the effort to reason with the other person, as in the period of the 1920’s depicted, exchanges today would see one of four tactics employed. Among these would the full-on ad hominem verbal assault (devoid of content); the oppressive pouting and rude ignoring of the other person; the whining and blaming complaint about the other person; or, finally, the insincere and obsequious fawning over the other person.
Well Savant,
My post on the DoNW blog did not use any derogatory language and did not resort to childish and deliberately insulting name calling. Still it was removed. So please explain to me why if I feel that an organization is a left wing political group that I should be suppressed from saying so? Also please explain that if I feel happy that my tax dollars are no longer funding said group that I should be prevented from expressing that?
I do consider myself to be a bigot, because I refuse to tolerate that which I find to be intolerable. However, I firmly deny being afraid of homosexuals and I am most certainly not a racist.
Nor did I use any derogatory language or resort to childish and deliberately insulting name-calling in the comment I left on a DoNW site. I merely said something in praise of Rev David Short and having heard his preach from the Old Testament a great sermon. My comment was nonetheless removed.
That would be because David was “defrocked” at the same time as J. I. Packer by the Bishop of this Diocese – their crime being: faithfulness to the Gospel
I dicided to give the DoNW blog another try and posted this:
“I for one am glad that my tax dollars are no longer funding Kairos. Fristly, these are difficult economic times and with limited tax dollars the government must prioritize, and I feel that there are other areas where my limited tax dollars can be better used. Secondly, I personally strongly disagree with Kairos in its stated policy regarding Isreal.”
Let’s see if it is allowed to remain or if it is removed.
I am surprised. Both my comments now appear, but have this at the heading:
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
That means nobody can see it but you, AMP. That’s how moderation works – if you get that message the comment isn’t visible to the public yet. I doubt it will appear to the public.
My argument is about free speech. If a website chooses to not publish your comments, that’s their choice and their right. You can (and have) the right to create your own website to publish your own small-minded (free-speech, here folks) comments about homosexuals.
In my opinion, (using free-speech here again) for those who have left the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, just please move on to your right-wing, bigoted Network and deposit your hateful commentary on your own prejudiced websites such as Anglican Samizdat and VirtueOnline where I am sure they will be published.
In any divorce, there are always nasty things said, but please stop “stalking” your former spouse and move on with your life. Dennis Drainville is no longer your bishop nor is the Anglican Church of Canada’s Justice Camp really any of your concern nor the closure of the Anglican Book Centre should affect you since you probably wouldn’t shop there anyway.
Please…I’m pleading with you Samizdat et al…, tell me what you are doing in your version of Anglicanism and stop looking at “the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
My family and I were parishioners of the DoNW when its mouthpiece website elected not to publish my entirely civil and even-tempered comment that recommended Rev David Short’s preaching from the Old Testament as an example to them. I was moved to make the comment, and to seek out Rev Short’s preaching in the first place, because the preaching and teaching I was receiving in the DoNW was uninspired and unedifying. The DoNW was busy extolling how “tolerant” and devoted to “reconnecting and restoring” it was, however.
Hello Savant,
Hope this finds you well. And may the Peace of God be with you.
A few items you raise are deserving of a response.
Firstly, about blogs. If a website is going to have a blog it should be willing to post comments that express a dissagreement, and not just those comments that support the position of the host. Put a bit more directly, if a blog is willing to post some comments it should be willing to post all comments. Only in this way is there any hope for people to converse with each other. Conversely, if the host is going to allow only those comments that the host likes than the blog degenerates into propaganda.
Secondly. You seem to have assumed that everyone here is a member of the ANiC. I would like for you to know that I am a member of the ACoC and attend Worship Services regularly at my local ACoC Parish. So I would hope that you would agree that at least for me blogging/commenting about the ACoC is a valid activity.
Thirdly. I think your comment about “hateful commentary” is not entirely justified. In our democratic society we do have the right to speak out when we see someone doing something that we disagree with, especially when it is done in a public forum. Additioally, as a taxpayer I must insist that I am fully entitled to post comments on the blogs of organizations that receive government funding. And expressing our dissagreement about what others are doing is not hateful.
Sincerely,
AMP
Perhaps Savant has point. The complaint rightly is not with the DoNW but with the Archbishop of Canterbury who should simply have excommunicated the leadership of the Diocese, when it was clear it was going off on heretical tangent from which it had no intention of returning.
But, to continue Savant’s awesome marital analogy, the adulterer sought to cover his tracks by not only sanctifying adultery, but by taking the marital property and assets with him, and leaving the wronged spouse out in the street.