> The problem is that it's not really about censorship the way that people think about it; it's not about blanket banning the discussion of a topic.
Then we're far away enough from the topic of censorship that we should be using different language for what we're discussing. It's bad enough that people use the term "censorship" colloquially when discussing private refusal to carry content vs state criminalization. It's definitely not applicable by the time we get to soft stakes.
As someone whose life & social circle is deeply embedded in a religious institution which makes some claims and teachings I find tenuous to objectionable, I'm pretty familiar with chilling effects and other ways in which social stakes are held hostage over what topics can be addressed and how. And yet I've found these things:
(1) It's taught me a lot about civil disagreement and debate, including the fact that more often than not, there are ways to address even literally sacred topics without losing the stakes. It takes work and wit, but it's possible. Those lessons have been borne out later when I've chosen to do things like try to illuminate merits in pro-life positions while in overwhelmingly pro-choice forums.
(2) It's made me appreciate the value of what the courts have called time/place/manner restrictions. Not every venue is or should be treated the same. Church services are the last time/place to object to church positions, and when one does choose that it's best to take on the most obligation in terms of manner, making your case in the terms of the language, metaphors, and values of the church.
(3) Sometimes you have to risk the stakes, and the only world in which it would actually be possible for there NOT to be such stakes (and risk and conflict over them) would be one in which people have no values at all