« The Angel of Prisons | Main | Do Muslims Love Jesus? »

April 04, 2014

Comments

Comes down to "You are with us, or we will hurt you. We're the tolerant ones."

"That’s what happens when you use words to promote yourself that don’t represent your actual values." That is the most accurate statement I have read on both sides of the issue.

Having been on the receiving end of the PC police I can relate to the use of words to convey one thing like "tolerance") when they mean another (like "go along to get along"). Our country has entered into a sad and dangerous time when protected groups like homosexuals, insist that everyone either agree with them, shut up or face the consequences. I believe that all totalitarian nations used the same tactics to gain compliance from the citizenry. When governments endorse protected classes of people they then become complicit in the tactics used by those groups to force compliance. I fear these methods of forcing compliance will only get worse.

Great post, Amy. I think Christians need to realize that this is the kind of persecution we are all going to face, and we can expect lots more of it. It should never surprise us since Scripture tells us that this is what's going to happen. Standing resolute in our faith is going to certainly ostracize us from the world community and the consequences will become more and more severe for doing so. I pray that God will use our stance to wake up those who have been on the fence to realize that. I would prefer, should the time come, to be shot down rather than step down.

I have had posters on other forums tell me how glad they were that the US was not a democracy.

Democracies have to respond to the will of the people.

The US only has to respond to the courts.

i.e. You don't have to convince the general population that your idea is the best one; you only have to convince a judge that your idea should be placed ahead of public wishes.

The free market of ideas is a myth. I am waiting for the American version of the French Reign of Terror, following it's revolution. The original leftists being killed off (metaphorically, I hope) for not being left enough, and pushing things to the point that someone has to step in and bring sanity. Hopefully it does not take an American Napoleon to do this.

It always fascinates me how highly educated people never look at history. Between the history books and good SF, we've been warned of a lot of stuff we should strongly consider.

History is similar to a pendulum. Sometimes the standards that you set as the norm when you are the dominant force can really suck when you are not. I envision a day when people are not scared of such activists, are not willing to be bullied, and their tactics of trying to demonize and destroy anyone in their way will be considered quite unfair if ever pointed back on themselves.

What goes around comes around. Although a pagan idea, Karma is a [bleep].

Resistance is futile.

The Borg: Captain Jean-Luc Picard, you lead the strongest ship of the Federation fleet. You speak for your people.

Capt. Picard: I have nothing to say to you; and I will resist you with my last ounce of strength.

The Borg: Strength is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours.

Capt. Picard:
Impossible. My culture is based on freedom and self-determination.

The Borg: Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply.

Capt. Picard: We would rather die.

The Borg: Death is irrelevant. Your archaic cultures are authority-driven. To facilitate our introduction into your societies, it has been decided that a human voice will speak for us in all communications. You have been chosen to be that voice.
==========
Locutus: I am Locutus - of Borg. Resistance - is futile. Your life, as it has been - is over. From this time forward, you will service - us.

'Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech.' Which is why the CEO was forced to resign when he used his free speech.

It is things like Mozilla's double-speak that caused me to want to produce The Christianity and Government conference. www.christiancivics.net

Ladies and gentlemen, we have an unlikely ally, none other than Andrew Sullivan. He even goes on to say in a followup (linked in his post that I link below) that such a reaction is nothing less than McCarthyism.

Here is a man who will actually have a conversation with us.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

It's linked above, also. (Click on "heretic.") And I recommend everyone read what's linked at "fully recant." My good friend went through something similar after giving $100 to Prop 8. When she was outed, her boss made her donate to the Human Rights Campaign against her conscience to make things right (and to prevent a backlash against the company, as a list with her name and company on it was being circulated throughout the industry she works in).

If Mozilla had just defended their decision based on Eich's excellent qualifications and cited their value of having a diverse, vocal staff, this world would be a better place today. Instead, they decided to chuck their claimed "value" and give in to bullies.

And make no mistake, this will embolden them. You'd better start expecting the Secular Inquisition.

Are you now, or have you ever been, not actively politically correct?

As a gay man, I'm fully capable of working alongside folks who may disagree with homosexuality but yet are capable of respecting me as a person. I also have no problem with laws that protect those of faith from facing unjust discrimination and job termination for their *chosen* religious affiliation.

My question to Christians is this: are you willing to grant these same protections to us, or are you going to oppose ENDA laws that protect our jobs?

This respect and tolerance goes both ways.

@James Bradshaw:

Do you understand and respect the Christian's rationale for rejecting legalization of same-sex marriage?

"I'm fully capable of working alongside folks who may disagree with homosexuality but yet are capable of respecting me as a person."

If you listen to the rhetoric in the media, no such person exists, so you would never have the opportunity to test that.

There is portrayed only two types of people in the world. Those who believe that homosexuals are the most oppressed people who have ever existed and need to have protections and reparations, and bigots who need to be silenced at all costs.

Paul asks: "Do you understand and respect the Christian's rationale for rejecting legalization of same-sex marriage?"

Some of them, yes ... some of them, no. If it's because "the Bible says", then no. The Bible condemns idolatry and divorce, yet how many Christians are seeking to outlaw the practice of Mormonism or Buddhism or unbiblical heterosexual divorce? None that I know of (except RJ Rushdoony, perhaps).

There are other abstract reasons, but none of them deal with the reality of gay people. "Gays can marry someone of the opposite sex, though, so they aren't discriminated against." Let me ask you: would YOU marry a lesbian? Are most heterosexual women going to knowingly marry a gay man? I don't see folks knocking down the door for that opportunity, do you?
I'm not a stickler for names. So long as the opportunity exists for us to earn similar or equal benefits to marriage, I'm fine with calling it something else ("domestic partner", "civil union", etc). That's just me, though ...


Arthur writes: "If you listen to the rhetoric in the media, no such person exists, so you would never have the opportunity to test that."

In offices across the country, people work alongside other folks with whom they disagree. As I mentioned in another post, I do this frequently. Here's an ever better option, though: leave talk of politics and religion outside of work. The office isn't merely a convenient means for proselytizing.

Here's another question for you all. When Starbucks issued a statement endorsing gay marriage in Washington state, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage called for a boycott. He later bragged - BRAGGED - that this boycott cost Starbucks over $10B in stock value. Never mind that this probably cost "traditional marriage" minded employees of Starbucks thousands in their 401ks (or any other employee, for that matter). Most of these employees aren't high-wage earners (like that of a CEO).

How is that justifiable while boycotting a company for the stance of its CEO not justified? I'm not suggesting I agree with boycotts in general.

Let's be consistent in the application of our principles, however, no? Otherwise, you're not principled: you're prejudiced.

If the folks involved with Mozilla are to be consistent, they have to agree that Mr Brown was fully justified in doing this.

The position appears to be that everyone is entirely justified in exercising free speech, but must accept the consequences. Obviously Starbucks had to accept the consequences of angering investors.

The employees at Starbucks should have done the proper thing. Start s twitter campaign to have their boss publicly demonized a unfit to be allowed to be their boss.

"leave talk of politics and religion outside of work. The office isn't merely a convenient means for proselytizing."

Well, one can start by making illegal any business from donating to any cause or group or publicly making a declaration of any position.

One cannot leave politics out of the office, if the benefits of one's labour is being given to support a particular view point. The fact that a business, rather than an individual, takes a stance makes politics an office issue.

There is a myth of neutrality.

The society is bombarded with public condemnation of any view not the current politically correct one. There is no discussion of this, civilly at least, because any deviation from the party line is portrayed as bigotry. The refusal to allow any position except the party line to be considered, other than with hate and contempt, is a tactical advantage. If all one hears is one opinion, then it is much easier to convince people that that they are a minority if they dissent. You have to go along to not be ostracized, Polls will reflect that, as I doubt that people will answer in a way that makes them look morally deviant. (How many pedophiles would tell a surveyor that they were one if asked on a poll?) This, in turn, makes it look more one sided than it may be.

Forcing opposing opinions into the closet does not get rid of the opinion. What it does is create a position where you will never know how many of the supportive smiling faces are waiting for an opportunity to work against you.
(and No, this is not a statement that non-pro-same sex marriage advocates are weasels. It is a generic statement of human nature.)

Silence? Welcome to politics.

Welcome to the land of the free, where if you don't tow the line and hold the proper opinion, we will hurt you seems to be the new message.

James,

Here's a possible resolution to this issue: Ask for the restoration of Eich to his CEO position at Mozilla.

This is the only way for GLAAD to demonstrate that they are proponents of tolerance and equality. Your Starbucks example is notable as reaction that is vicious. But then, you must reject the tactics that liberated Ghana and embrace the strategy that freed Kenya. Boycott or terrorism, which is it?

The problem behind all this is that both sides deem a degree of righteousness behind their movements. Granted. But it would be the burden of the innovative movement to establish the merits of their argument. I ponder the points of equality and love I hear. I am put off at the blanket condemnations of "hate" which drives the gay movement to lash out at targets of opposition. Eich merely disagreed with SSM. He could have supported its opposition for purposes beyond hate.

As to equality, SSM does not approach the solidity of traditional marriage (I speak of total commitments of one man and one woman lasting the duration of ones spouse's life. Not the Hollywood version of a situation one can consciously uncouple). Same sex relationships are fluid and easily broken. Love is a poor excuse for defense of SSM. Many aspects of love do not result in marriage (e.g. love of art, love of food).

This last paragraph was expressed without a gram of malice, only concern that the gay community views marriage as a porcelain doll, old looking and out-dated, thus okay to smash to bits. Only then, one might discover the value of such a relic. But then, too late.

My best regards to you. Have a pleasant day.

It’s hard for Mozilla's community, because they like speech that supports their political views, and they like including people who agree with them, but they also like the way the nice words “free speech” and “inclusive” make people feel, so they like using those words to describe themselves. If they have to redefine the words to mean allowing, supporting, and including only particular political views, so what?

someone has to point out that Mozilla has not done anything to undermine free speech. They have none nothing to take away the rights of anyone to say anything that they want to say. All they did, was terminate an employee who is giving the company a bad reputation, at least from their perspective.

there is nothing inherently self-contradictory about this. What would be contradictory is this Mozilla were actively trying to undermine free speech. However, they are not.

Dear Readers and fellow Americans:

Once again PC rears its ugly head. Let us be sure about what we mean by "tolerance." It means that I recognise your God-given to be wrong or right, you do the same for me and we can still be amigos (friends), you can keep your job, your career, and your good name. But it does not mean not having convictions and not being able to say that you are wrong in places. Today's so-called tolerance means all ideas are equally valid, which is totally illogical and unlivable.
So, that means that people who call for the firing of someone who does not support same sex marriage do not qualify as tolerant. Don't let 1984 become a reality my friends, don't get mad, get smart, know what you believe and why, pray and stand up.

One comment I read here said that Christians rose up and opposed oppressive positions on slavery, women's rights and interracial marriage. I say "Good!" They were following "the instructions" (The Bible). The Bible has been used to support all kinds of oppressive positions, I know that, but to that I say "SO WHAT!" What does this have to do with homosexual behavior which is plainly condemned in the OT and The NT? By the way, Jesus did address the issue of homosexuality. In Matthew 19:1-10 and Mark 10:1-10...he upheld the definition of marriage in Genesis 1 and 2. Yes, they were talking about divorce, but we see plainly what was lifted up as a standard, and it was not homosexuality. Also, the Bible never condemns interracial marriage, it is not a moral issue. A black man marrying a white woman does nothing to overturn the biblical definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage is a lie...More to the point, Anti-Christ

"They have none nothing to take away the rights of anyone to say anything that they want to say. All they did, was terminate an employee who is giving the company a bad reputation, at least from their perspective."

So if it had been the other way around,as in donating millions to same sex marriage causes, it would still have been OK with you?

The comments to this entry are closed.