July 23, 2009

Censorship day in the Quesosphere

"Speak your mind." We reserve the right not to publish comments based on such concerns as redundancy, incivility, untimeliness, poor writing, etc. All comments must include the first and last name of the author and a valid e-mail address.
Don't believe it.

I'd have been on firmer ground in rejecting this:

"I know it's not your thing."

Perhaps someday somebody might explain to me why not adhering to religion acts as a bar to not knowing what it is or how it operates.


Terrence Berres said...

"Perhaps someday somebody might explain to me why not adhering to religion acts as a bar to not knowing what it is or how it operates."

As in your linked post's comments, it depends on what's meant. Mr. Esenberg, as I read him, attributed your particular mistake regarding ministry in the Catholic Church to the nature and extent of of your interest. I don't read him to be making the kind of generalizaion you infer.

gnarlytrombone said...

Are IT's interests of particular interest to Esenberg? If not, how could Esenberg know the extent of IT's interests?

Also, is "autological" autological?

illusory tenant said...

What mistake, Mr. Berres? Obviously "ministerial" has different functional connotations between the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations.

I was simply noting an irony to be found within the broad legal expanse of the term, in the context of this particular case.

Of course Ms. Ostlund might be seen as participating in the Catholic Church's "ministry," but see the case law, wherein prospective claimants are barred by virtue of their literal status as "Ministers."

Such a judicial determination would be impossible for Ms. Ostlund (unless she converts to Reformation theology and finds herself in a similar bind elsewhere).

illusory tenant said...

Incidentally, just the other day I was speaking with a Roman Catholic priest, and I mentioned that I occasionally made deliberately insolent light of religion on my blog.

"And rightly so," he immediately replied.

John Foust said...

I thought this post was about censorship, not censer-ship.

No one ever talks about blog-comment censorship as an effective method to make the blogger's posts look less foolish by stifling dissent. Instead, it's always the flowery language about insults, swearing, protecting sensitive ears and The Children.

My recent comments at the S&S and MULSFB were zapped, too. One was the first comment, so it couldn't be redundant. Neither were incivil, untimely, poorly written or even etc.

They must've been concerned about something else, such as the fact I mentioned Illusory Tenant.

Terrence Berres said...

Henry Segerman concluded "'autological' is autological if you are willing to assume knowledge of what the components 'auto' and 'logical' mean."

Mr. Foley:

Regarding your first reply, the dissent indicates that its preferred test does not literally limit the exception to clergy.

Regarding your second reply, I probably would have been more skeptical of flattery from a priest.

illusory tenant said...

Notwithstanding whether or not Ms. Ostlund's position was "ministerial," whatever test the majority employed I would expect to include a determination of whether the defendant's act really was an exercise of religion.

That would seem to me the threshold constitutional question. Particularly for a so-called "strict constructionist" exercising de novo review.

And especially in this case, where the court created an exception to the Wisconsin statutes that hadn't existed before.

Nor is there much acknowledgment — if any — that the federal case law Gableman looked to is driven by federal statutes that, unlike in Wisconsin, actually contain such an express exception.

So those courts already had a statutory exception to work with before they undertook their analyses. That's a pretty important consideration.