The action taken towards School of Thought was not done in anger or malice. As a Christian website HSB has a responsibility to its members, that they can trust that the websites we direct them to are family friendly, the whole website. That's it. No more, no less.
That was the first bit of a response made at last week's COH by Tia to a comment of mine;
I'm not at all sure this will be posted considering what happened to School of Thought but I'd like to suggest that if HSB can't handle the diverse nature of the larger community served by the COH then perhaps they should not host any future carnivals.
Unfortunately discussion isn't a good thing so all comments related to the controversy will now be deleted from her blog.
My point still stands however. Her responsibilty as a host was to accept submissions based on the post submitted, not the blog. Rejecting posts based on the blog is something the COH seems to frown on since people who boycott HSB are not allowed to host. If she feels blogs that contribute to the COH may compromise her responsibility to her members, then she should not be hosting the COH.
But what made me angry was the, "As a Christian website," bit. There is nothing in being a Christian website that would demand shielding readers from websites that might challenge or offend them. One of the best Christian websites I know is consistently challenging and at least as offensive to HSB sensibilities (really, check out these jokes! No. 5 is good one.) then School of Thought.
What Tia should have said was, "as a conservative Christian website..." Or maybe she should have had a list of specific denominations HSB members represent that she could paste in there because that attitude of protecting sensibilities simply isn't a universal Christian value...Probably not even a majority one. Christ himself could be an offending asshole when he needed to be and sensibilities or 'family friendly' concerns weren't really a big worry for him.
As a Christian blogger, I call bullshit.