389
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: + + + + + + +
→Basis of determining values: new section
::: The scoring system could be improved. Classroom prayer would have high censorability, I think. Please improve this as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
::: The scoring system could be improved. Classroom prayer would have high censorability, I think. Please improve this as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
== Basis of determining values ==
I'm probably just not understanding the concept properly, so an answer to my question may help in improving the article itself. I can see how some concepts or topics are more easily censored than others ''in specific circumstances'', but that's not the same as ''the topic itself'' being susceptible to censorship.<br/>
To clarify what I mean, I was expecting Christianity to be a benchmark example of the "zero" end of this scale. You can suppress the open worship of Christianity in some countries, and we see many examples where the sensible original intent of separating Church and State is taken to ridiculous extremes that go against that original intent. Add to this two thousand years of Christian martyrs who suffered the ultimate form of censorship over their faith, and yet, Christianity itself survives and thrives, the core faith itself having defied censorship even as other religions from 2,000 years ago have faded. <br/>
You can't censor the laws of mathematics because, like the ratio of Pi, they are there for anyone to observe and understand for themselves. Other concepts, like Christianity, ''could'' be censored in theory and replaced by indoctrination in other ways of thinking in restrictive places like North Korea. However, it's the ''powerful nature'' of a concept like Christianity that ultimately defies censorship. Suppress it in one place, and it grows in several others, waiting to be spread back to where it was suppressed.<br/>
As I'm writing this, I thinking that the best way to express this is by defining a corollary property, ''Resilience to Censorship''. Some concepts, like math, are solid like rocks and practically immune to censorship. Others are susceptible to censorship, in the way that plants can be eradicated from a location, but as with plants, are resilient enough to be reseeded and take root if they survive anywhere else. (Look at the area around Mt. Saint Helens or even Chernobyl now). So unless I totally missed the point about censorability, you need to match it up with the corresponding resiliency to truly understand how powerful an idea or concept is. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:18, 28 May 2010 (EDT)