Christians Need Not Apply

April 3, 2014

I have really tried to keep this blog from becoming another source for lamentations about the cultural shifts of the last few years, though I have touched upon it here and there. There are plenty of blogs that do a fine job chronicling these matters, but this is particularly disturbing:

“If You’re Against Gay Marriage, You’re a Bad CEO”

The CEO of Mozilla/Firefox was pressured (i.e., “forced,” as it happens in today’s Foucauldian utopia) to step down. What was his horrendous crime? He donated $1,000 to Proposition 8 in California a few years back. So this is what “tolerance” looks like:

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. [from the Mozilla blog’s statement on the departure]

Uh huh, sure. Once you conform to our conception of “equality,” then you are worthy to be heard. Brilliant. I love it when liberals give the game away.

Slate also published an editorial last year for the legalization of polygamy. I really do appreciate their clarity of thought.

_______________

“Christian” in the title includes evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, and I could include Orthodox Jews and pretty much every Muslim. There are even a number of libertarian skeptics who hate feminism more than I do.

_______________

UPDATE

Ryan T. Anderson has some good thoughts on the situation:

For some who favor the redefinition of marriage, tolerance appears to have been a useful rhetorical device along the way to eliminating dissent.

Eich, on the other hand, seems to have been quite tolerant. As Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, commenting on the development, said of Eich’s 15 years at Mozilla:

I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.”

The outrageous treatment of Eich  is the result of one private, personal campaign contribution to support marriage as a male-female union, a view affirmed at the time by President Barack Obama, then-Sen.  Hillary Clinton, and countless other prominent officials. After all, Prop 8 passed with the support of 7 million California voters.

So was President Obama a bigot back when he supported marriage as the union of a man and woman? And is characterizing political disagreement on this issue—no matter how thoughtfully expressed—as hate speech really the way to find common ground and peaceful co-existence?

Sure, the employees of Mozilla—which makes Firefox, the popular Internet browser— have the right to protest a CEO they dislike, for whatever reason. But are they treating their fellow citizens with whom they disagree civilly? Must every political disagreement be a capital case regarding the right to stand in civil society?

When Obama “evolved” on the issue just over a year ago, he insisted that the debate about marriage was legitimate. He said there are people of goodwill on both sides.

Supporters of marriage as we’ve always understood it (a male-female union) “are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective,” Obama explained. “They’re coming at it because they care about families.”

And “a bunch of ‘em are friends of mine,” the president added. “… you know, people who I deeply respect.”

You can read the rest: “Eich is Out. So is Tolerance.”

_______________

UPDATE #2

Matt Walsh has his characteristically straightforward and energetic response.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Christians Need Not Apply”

  1. Unfortunately this kind of thing is going to increase.

    • Kevin Davis said

      Yes, which poses questions for the church, namely how to counsel church members who are navigating these environments, whether corporate, academic, political, etc.

      • It’s a difficult question to answer. When I do talk about the homosexuality and SSM issues at work, for example, I tend to ask questions rather than give my own opinion.

      • Kevin Davis said

        Yes, in my work environments I do not recall ever asserting my beliefs on this topic outright or from the outset, but when I am asked — as I often have been asked — I speak my beliefs, framed by the gospel.

        I would counsel Christians to not be too anxious or defensive, which projects insecurity.

  2. Mike Cheek said

    If at this point Mr. Obama were to speak out, and point out that in 2008 he too (supposedly) believed marriage was between one man and one woman then that would really help out. But as far as I know he hasn’t said anything. I’m afraid I cannot help but think (cynically) that he is secretly clapping.

    But – there are too many brothers and sisters who have gone before us and even up to this very moment who have suffered to think that we will necessarily be spared persecution. We must not be too surprised when these things happen.

    • Kevin Davis said

      Yeah, you can call me skeptical about Obama’s beliefs in 2008.

      I had a really good conversation tonight with a seminary friend of mine, discussing whether Christians here are willing to accept that they will be hated by the world. We have had it cozy for a very long time, especially in the South where Christianity and the culture have been integrated at the deepest levels (sometimes to the detriment of Christianity, of course). I am afraid that far too many Christians are not willing to bear the shame.

  3. Andrew said

    I find that many of the pro-SSM people I speak to haven’t really thought much about it – it kind of just seems right. Questioning is useful because it can get behind that judgement pretty quickly.

    I agree about not being defensive. That’s good advice in general.

  4. Rod said

    It is great that people are analysing the issues raised here. Hopefully people will begin to see the re-emergence of fascism in the ranks of those who preach absolute tolerance and confuse it with the command to love others. In finding a sound voice here, check out some of the late Jean Bethke Elshtain’s work on Democracy, feminism and current trends in our so-called ”free” societies. Not only is her voice needed, it is a clear resounding voice in the wilderness that meets up with Barth’s paradoxical concept of freedom in limitation. I would also recommend Gene Veith’s 1993 book ‘Modern Fascism’.

    • Kevin Davis said

      I’ve admired Elshtain’s writings in First Things, and I’ve received glowing recommendations of Veith’s work — but have yet to read any. I’ll have to add him to my already ridiculous backlog of books-to-read.

      Some commentators like Matt Walsh (on his very popular blog) are very optimistic that this event, and those like it, will backfire on the “gay lib” movement. But I am not sure. The shaming tactics have been enormously powerful, completely transitioning America’s attitude in less than a decade. The question will be whether Christians are willing to draw closer to their church communities and consciously resist — willing to be ridiculed, shamed, and hated. Are Christians in affluent societies like North America willing to count the cost?

      • Joel said

        Some strong gay marriage supporters, including Andrew Sullivan, have said they’re uncomfortable with this. We’ll see how it goes.

        I live in a major city with a big LGBT population, but my job is in a more conservative suburb, so it doesn’t come up much there. When it does come up (usually in my amateur forays into music), it’s usually in the context of general complaints about “right-wingers.” I really don’t know what to say then.

        I’m afraid some of the recent state “religious freedom” bills may be overreaching with a valid concern, by the way. I don’t think someone should be forced to photograph a gay wedding, but serving gays at a restaurant or barber shop is a different matter, and some of the legislation seems broad enough to include that.

      • Kevin Davis said

        Yes, and Sullivan has had some similar complaints over the years. Those examples illustrate the complexity of the problem for legislators — wedding photography as distinct from barber shops, etc. — how to articulate the difference in a broadly applicable piece of legislation. So, it is not surprising that conservatives are erring on the side of overly broad, but it is the sort of thing that could also backfire.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: