Not that I do much with it, but I’m mostly blogging over at Livejournal these days.
So, Rebecca Hamilton is again removing comments left at her blog.
My now-censored comment was:
For the curious, the rulings in Prescott v OK-CPC by the state supreme court (which quotes the text of the state’s Blaine Amendment) and what appears the federal AA v Thompson final dismissal. I’ll note, the latter case was dismissed on without prejudice on standing grounds; which as a technical point of law means that the federal court did not address whether Representative Kiesel’s position had merit or whether Representative Kiesel’s position was instead wrong.
I’ll also note, Prescott is a Baptist minister. While the SBC tend otherwise these days, the pre-revolutionary history in Virginia leaves some Baptists still quite adamantly against any admixture of Church and State.
Those who aren’t familiar might also care to use Google Scholar to look up the rulings in Van Orden v Perry and McCreary County v ACLU, to see how the Supreme Court distinguishes permissible versus impermissible displays. Aside from its being made of stone, the Oklahoma display seems to more resemble the isolated display in the McCreary case.
The bulk of this comment is purely factual points — albeit ones inconvenient to her presented viewpoint. The last sentence is quite subjective, but would not hardly appear radical enough to qualify as an “attempt to hijack the board with your personal agendas”, or any of the more significant offenses against civility her Blog Rules warn about. Ms. Hamilton appears inclined to respond to dissent via the cognitively lazy approach of selective exposure through censorship, rather than the more effortful approach of counterargument.
Conveniently, the Disqus-based comments allow for me to retrieve my remarks to repost here as protest against this. Petty and probably pointless on my part, but since the censorship can also be termed thus, it might merely be viewed an in-kind response.