To Ban or Not To Ban, That Is the Question

I recently wrote a post answering a critique by fellow Patheos (albeit Catholic channel) blogger Dave Armstrong. Fairly quickly, a number of atheist commenters, some of whom were regular commenters here (and some not), came on to make it known that they had been banned by Armstrong. Many, if not all, were not happy with the ban, or were nonplussed. One regular Catholic commenter here (See Noevo) had also been banned. Apparently, fellow atheist blogger and all-round nice guy Bob Seidensticker has also seen the rough end of the banning stick.

So what constitutes a good banning policy and a good blog host?

As many of you will notice, I am pretty lenient. I have let regular commenters continue to comment, commenters whom people suggested be banned, whether they have been insulting, racist, bigoted, or whatnot. My policy is to let people stand or fall on their own words, and if they are not just annoying trolls who don't at least vaguely attempt discussion, I will let their comments stand. I could regale you with "It's my house and I'll do as I please, thank you" but that can be a little trite. I like to see this place, in some way, as our house, and a house that promotes freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

Of course, free speech is a tricky old thing, especially when it borders on hate speech. Things can become subjective and problematic.

That said, I am presently happy that I have fostered, I hope, a fairly healthy forum for discussion where people are not shut down merely on account of positions and statements that others (including myself) might find distasteful. It is our job to challenge those positions and show why our distaste is warranted. That's philosophy, my friends (I want to say bitches, a la Dawkins, but it could be seen as offensive... it just sort of sounds good).

I have banned a few people, such as Frank (in several guises) and a Catholic priest who stalked me and negatively reviewed a bunch of my books without having read them. But, really I think that is it. Two whole people. In, I don't know, five years?

I hope I am doing something right here.

With direct regard to Dave Armstrong, I want to bring up two things. Firstly, well done to him for coming here and suffering the slings and arrows of atheists' wrath. It takes a lot of time to read and comment on such extensive and scattered threads as that one, and I commend him for getting involved and defending himself. Goodonya, mate.

Secondly, he posted this, which I find very interesting, and not a little perplexing:

I don't allow Vatican II-bashing or attacks on the Novus Ordo Mass. These are bannable offenses, according to my Discussion Policy, posted at the top of my blog:

"Radical Catholic reactionaries (my coined term) are those Catholics who habitually bash the Novus Ordo Mass, Vatican II, ecumenism, and recent popes, and get right up to the edge of schism and denial of the indefectibility of the Church. . . . I have little time for them, either, . . ."

http://www.patheos.com/blog...

So what have you written about those things? What do you think about them, and about Pope Francis? How have you criticized him?

I think we're onto the general reason why you were banned. 99% of the Catholics I ever ban are reactionaries.

This is kind of odd, to me. Maybe it's merely a way to prioritise his time and make his commenting more efficient such that he simply doesn't have to deal with threads he just doesn't want to talk about. I get that, I guess. Sort of.

But I don't think it is this case, or at least not entirely. To me, this is exactly what the Catholic church has a history of doing: shutting down heretical viewpoints. Whilst it may not be burning someone at the stake, there is the same sort of effect. He is saying, "It is wrong to talk about these things here as it is against some of my core (doctrinal) beliefs, and let this be a message to others who may want to talk about it in the future." Armstrong is inoculating his position(s) on these matters, and the people involved (for example, recent popes) from criticism.

This is outrageous. I have very strong views on the recent Pope, especially as Cardinal Ratzinger, in being complicit in child sexual abuse. The documentary Mea Maxima Culpa does a truly powerful and moving job of exposing the moral bankruptcy of the then administration, including the man who became Pope, God's (Catholic) mouthpiece on Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQv8um9YC1o

To immunise this man from criticism is the exact opposite of what someone interested in the truth, as I assume he is, should do. No single entity, whether a belief, person, or network of ideas, is immune from criticism. That's freethought, bit.. my friends. That comment above is quite staggering to me in its ramifications and rationale. Perhaps it is because, as atheists, we have no doctrine, no orthodoxy, nothing sacred, nothing precious in the marketplace of ideas, that has to be defended at all costs.

I just can't imagine saying something like (for example), "I will ban anyone who attacks Richard Dawkins, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, or Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub." That would be insane. These are not bannable offences. Rather, I welcome such, and will challenge you with my own reasoning to show you are wrong, or change my mind accordingly.

Perhaps it is the rationale behind blogging that differs between myself and Armstrong.

My reason is this: I put my ideas and theories about the world out there for people to criticise. That is the primary point. These are my opinions, and I want to make damned sure that they are warranted. I can't stand the idea that I could, in my heart of hearts, and in the core of my brain, believe something that is properly unwarranted. What's the point of that? What's the point in self-delusion? It is like the scientific method: I put something out there, people attack it, and if it still stands, it's pretty robust and I am happy to hold it. If not, I adapt and change my views accordingly.

Armstrong's reason, by his own self-admission, is about being an apologist:

I often delve into the fact that most of these people (indeed most Christians, period), don't study apologetics, so as to know why they believe what they believe. Lacking that, they are then left wide open to rational criticisms. Since they can't explain their Christian beliefs upon the first bit of questioning from non-Christians, they can easily be dissuaded from them -- especially in environments that are hostile. And so we see exactly that happening on college campuses.

This is a major reason why I am an apologist. I try to help Christians synthesize reason and faith, so they don't get taken in by fallacious and insufficient reasoning and intellectually inferior alternative worldviews.

Here, it is about Armstrong helping others. Perhaps this is less selfish. Or perhaps more so. It appears that he is convincing others of a position by assuming he is right, and inoculating himself against being criticised and being shown he is wrong.

Now, I know he has had many long debates, and is not afraid to get stuck in, and I am sure he has extensive proof of this on his website. But there are clearly no-go areas that when he sees them criticised, sees these criticisms as offences. Thus it arguably becomes more about projecting himself onto others, rather than offering himself wholly and totally up for criticism.

I make a habit, believe it or not, of reading every single comment here. I try very hard to do that. I cannot, anymore, reply to them all like I used to, I just don't have that time. The blog has grown, and there are more comments and commenters. But where there is a serious and substantive challenge, I do. And if ever I let a major point go unreplied to, remind me. Please do. The only reason I would let a serious and substantive challenge go is because it gets lost in the torrents of threads, posts, time, writing, editing and publishing I do.

Point being, nothing here is really off-limits to criticism. Have at it.

Have at me.

Here endeth the lesson.