To the Journal editor:
It's my understanding that recently some posters were censored because a person on the posters was wearing feathers on his head.
If this was done in the name of tolerance, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of that. Saying, "We will not tolerate those different from us," and calling it "tolerance" is contradictory, confusing, and absurd.
Also, even if the person wearing feathers had bad motives for wearing feathers, that was not apparent from the poster. Thus the censorship was heavy-handed and prejudiced. Dialogue and discussion is much more fruitful than censorship.
If someone is perceived to have done wrong, would it not be better to have a dialogue with that person in an attempt to understand where they're coming from?
I was tempted to say this was censorship based merely on the fact that someone believed differently than someone else, but judgement was rendered even before that potential fact could be made clear.
Rejecting someone outright for disagreeing with you is bad enough, but to reject someone for only potentially disagreeing seems far worse. Genuine tolerance, civility, humility, and kindness demand hearing others out, at least having a conversation respectfully.
I'm very disappointed for this boorish, prejudicial, judgmental, oppressive, repressive, bigoted, malicious, closed-minded censorship.