The blogger writes:
"I am NOT going to enter in to the debate over who is right and wrong about Catholicism, this is a debate that has been raging for centuries and I seriously doubt I could have an impact. However I will say that each of us has the right to say whatever we want on our blogs. They are that, OUR BLOGS they belong to each individual."
I wonder if this is really true? Sure we have a constitutional right to free speech, but is it really "right" as in moral, just and proper to say whatever we want on a blog? What if we came across a white supremacy blog that advocated the murder of anyone of any ethnic decent. Or what about a blog that makes fun of the mentally retarded, or a blog that talks about how to do your own abortion (that last one really existed by the way. I remember reading it.) Of course there is a "legal right" to say these things but as Christians do we really believe that "each of us has a right to say whatever we want on our blogs" when those things suggest that another group of people worship Satan for example? Apologetics is fine of course, but apologetics suggests being open to a dialog and discussion. The reason Visits to Candyland exists is that the Catholic faith has been maligned and lied about without allowing Catholics to explain, educate and defend their faith. Of course it is Candy's "right" to do so, but is it "right?"
I find it sad that someone would start a blog for the sole reason of refuting another.
I think it is sad that someone would have to!
If someone chooses not to post your comments or respond to your antagonism that is their choice because each blog is that woman's little place on the net."
Gosh she makes it sound so warm and cozy doesn't she. Yet last weekend, we read about a nun who witnessed rapes and murders and "witnessed" about them as though this is the sate of the convent all over the world in the Catholic Church! Sure it was Candy's choice to post about such poison on her "little place on the net." But having that choice doesn't make it "right."