As of right now, that wonderful browser Firefox has been uninstalled from all machines in my office, and good riddance. Mozilla’s CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced out of Mozilla solely because of his belief in traditional marriage. The headlines read that he was forced to resign after a firestorm of controversy due to his support of the “anti-gay” ballot measure in California.  Proposition 8 was passed in 2008 making same-sex marriage unrecognized with 52% of the vote, but was overturned (in effect) by the Supreme Court in 2013. The proposition added a new section in the California Constitution to read “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It was not intended to be “anti-gay” as opponents called it, but intended to recognize the uniqueness of the male and female bond, particularly the ability to procreate naturally and raise a family. I believe sincere people can disagree on this issue, but no one should have to lose their job in a world that is supposedly driving towards “diversity” and “tolerance.”

An article at the website “The Verge” provides a good summary of the events that led up to Eich’s resignation, but it was riddled with hypocrisy, and demonstrated that the entire diversity and tolerance movement is little more than a sham. It doesn’t apply equally to all, and isn’t that supposed to be the very idea? The article states that “Eich found little public support for his argument that he could uphold Mozilla’s commitment to equality at work while funding discrimination at home.” Eich’s belief in traditional marriage is not discrimination, but it is a sincerely held Christian belief that I also hold. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, and the Jewish history on which it is based on goes back at least 4,000 years. So if Eich accepts the Judeo-Christian view on marriage, how was he discriminating? He didn’t make Christianity up himself, and last I checked Christian teachings have not changed one whit in 2,000 years. So is the point of this article that Christians are not included when it comes to diversity and tolerance? It appears that this is the case, and that is what is so chilling. I am sincerely afraid.

The article goes on to say that Eich’s view was growing “out of step” with his fellow Americans. But if he is following a sincere religious belief shared by almost all of the two billion Christians on earth, is he supposed to follow that or follow what most Americans think? If all Americans think as the article believes they should, where is the diversity of views? Where is the tolerance of Eich’s views? And since when did it become necessarily the case that because Eich believed in traditional marriage that he would discriminate against gay employees? I expect he is a man who, after a lengthy search was made CEO, would have been seen as a man of outstanding leadership and character who would treat all employees with dignity and respect. There is no reason to believe otherwise. The article refers to Obama’s sudden change from being opposed to same-sex marriage based on his Christian faith, to supporting it. Christianity didn’t change, so if his position was based on his Christian faith, then what is it based on now? We can see that Obama folded for political expediency, but Eich held to his faith and position.

It is clear that the diversity and tolerance movement only applies to those who believe a certain way. They don’t want diversity of thought, but one way of thought, and if you don’t think that way, then they will do everything they can to silence your views. It’s not about tolerance, because the definition of tolerance is putting up with someone or something you don’t agree with. So the diversity and tolerance movement won’t tolerate people who don’t think like them. And it is clear that the primary target is those who hold Christian beliefs. It is chilling to the core, and the very people behind this movement couldn’t be more hypocritical and self-serving. Is this the new America? Will America accept a movement whose very operation is antithetical to its very name? It appears this is the trend, and I am more than certain that a movement wholly inconsistent with its mission cannot be a worthy one. All Christians should be afraid, very afraid, of this modern day persecution.


{ Comments on this entry are closed }

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, George Tisei, a gay man and leading candidate who is running for Congress in Massachusetts, notified the Republican Party recently that it needs to embrace “all freedoms,” including the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. He sees it as a party that is “stuck in the 19th century,” clearly over its social positions. Of course, there are other Republican leaders and strategists who warn that if the GOP social conservatives don’t get over social issues, then the party is doomed since it is out of step with young people. Well here is my message to Richard Tisei: we are accepting of you, so if you’re not accepting of us then why don’t you just change your party affiliation to Democrat. You are correct that we are the party of expanding civil rights, but civil rights aren’t just made up out of whole cloth. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, just as polygamy is not a civil right. So if you’re going to change the traditional definition of marriage then you will have to change it to any and whatever arrangements consenting adults decide is their “right.” So have you counted the cost of your proposal? If traditional marriage is discriminatory, then same-sex marriage is too.

The Republican Party is not made up of a group of people who all think alike, and there is indeed room in the party for people to disagree on social issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion. But what Tisei is saying is that the party must change for him in order for him to accept us. Apparently he doesn’t feel there is room for debate and disagreement within the party, so he must remake the party in the image that he sees fit. I hardly see the tolerance in making such a demand. The idea of being a Republican is far more than being fiscally conservative. The Republican Party stands for a certain set of values and principles, such as the belief in a creator that establishes and grounds morality, whose natural laws are reflected in our Constitution. So when people such as Tisei come to the party and says it needs to change its core principles, then what will be left of the party when people such as him are done remaking it into something it was never designed to be? Should the party change its principles to appeal to young people, or should it be able to persuasively and winsomely woo them with those principles?

The problem with the Republicans such as Tisei is that they may know how to sell fiscal responsibility but they can’t sell or don’t care about the party’s core principles, which is why I question why he or them are even Republican. Perhaps he just wants to run the social conservatives out of the party and what will he have then? The Republicans would lose every election because social conservatives make up somewhere between 30-40% of Republican voters. Perhaps he could get rid of us and pull some Democrats into the Republican Party, but there is a fat chance of that happening any time soon. So what I would suggest Tisei do is to sell the party on its diversity. Yes, diversity. That’s one thing the Democratic Party is always carping about and we know their diversity may be in the skin color of their voters but it is not in diversity of thought. Within the Republican set of principles, there is great diversity in thought and if these Republicans could just sell our best points instead of complaining about our very strength then perhaps they could woo more independents and even some Democrats to our side.

As I have said numerous times, the Republican Party has no vision. It doesn’t know how to talk to people and it doesn’t know how to inspire people. It doesn’t know how to appeal to both the hearts and minds of the people. And that indeed is its problem. So people such as Tisei, instead of getting excited about our principles and our diversity and presenting a vision of hope and opportunity to the American people, they just gripe about the fact that we’re not more like Democrats. So I have no idea why he is a Republican and why he is even running as a Republican. It doesn’t appear he shares its ideals except for the fiscal ones, so why does he bother? I don’t care one wit that he is gay because if he believes in God that is between him and God. But just as he is asking the Republican Party to change for him, perhaps he expects God to think like he does also. Well I don’t ask the party to change for me, and I won’t ask God to change for me either. I accept the Republican Party for its ideals, and I accept the moral principles that God has laid down in the natural law and in Scripture. If Tisei is leading a movement to remove me and other social conservatives, then ’s fine because I’m used to being in the minority.


{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Understanding Liberal Argumentation: Jehmu Greene vs. John Stossel

March 18, 2014

This past week I watched an episode of John Stossel where he clearly and persuasively debunked the phony “war on women” liberals fomented in 2012 out of thin air, a problem that of course only Democrats in government can solve. In a segment on Obamacare, one of his guests was Obama apologist extraordinaire Jehmu Greene, […]

Read the full article →

Liberals and the “Discrimination” Ruse

March 9, 2014

This weekend I was listening to a talk radio show discussing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where the subject of “women’s rights” came up. Sirius XM radio host David Webb had a liberal and a conservative guest providing opposing perspectives on the purported pay disparity between men and women. While it has been conclusively […]

Read the full article →

Arizona SB 1062: When People Willfully Suppress Truth for Lies

March 2, 2014

Again, the LGBT community preferred to make truth a casualty as they lobbied hard to kill a simple update to already existing Arizona law. And they were joined by prominent Republicans, the NFL, and even Governor Jan Brewer who vetoed the bill on Friday purely out of political pressure and a lack of conviction. The […]

Read the full article →

What Gays Need is More Love, Not More Attention

January 27, 2014

Over the past year, a number of television personalities and athletes have “come out” as being gay, to the collective yawn of the American people. In what they believe to be a “courageous” move, we find that “coming out” isn’t courageous at all because these people who come out are finding they aren’t being treated […]

Read the full article →

Walter’s Healthcare Reform Plan

November 27, 2013

I can’t really say this is mine because it comes from a number of ideas floating around out there. But this is what I am advocating for as a replacement for that horrid and horrible government power grab called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). In essence, the problem that needs to be […]

Read the full article →

Liberals and Big Government Have No Claim to Moral High Ground

October 13, 2013

Last Friday I watched the Sean Hannity show, which was a special on Obamacare.  It was in a forum format consisting of various liberal and conservative pundits. What never ceases to amaze me is the smug, self-righteous demeanor of these liberal commentators who believe themselves to be morally superior, but in truth are drowning in […]

Read the full article →

Thoughts on Zimmerman and Deen (Certainly Not a Classic Rock Duo)

June 29, 2013

Just a few thoughts on George Zimmerman and Paula Deen, as I am a bit disappointed at some the reaction to these stories on both sides. On the Zimmerman story, I do not like the race-baiters who see this thing entirely from the perspective of race. Who knows what is in the heart of Zimmerman, […]

Read the full article →

The LGBT Movement and the Pursuit of Ends

June 26, 2013

The problem, in my view, with the LGBT movement is not that they have a particular view they are advocating for, but the manner in which they pursue it. Regardless of whether I agree with their ends, which I don’t, I could at least respect them if they didn’t have to demonize the church or […]

Read the full article →