There's a position going around that says that freedom of speech only protects you from being arrested by the government, but doesn't protect you from being forced out of your place of employment. Basically, a position of justifying the ostracism against people holding positions which are unpopular among the cultural elites.
As it currently stands, this view is used to justify the harassment of anyone who holds the position that marriage is, by nature, to be between one man and one woman with the openness to the possibility of children.
Now, I have written before that whether or not a person's public actions justify termination of employment depends entirely on the nature of the employer. To summarize, I said that when a place of employment is explicitly established as holding that certain public behaviors running against the beliefs of the company, the violation of said behavior can justify the termination of employment. But, when the controversial behavior does not run against the established values explicitly, termination is not justified.
For example, if a person thinks Catholicism is wrong and publicly denounces it, as much as I would find such a person offensive, I would not think such a position justifies him or her being fired from a job as a pizza delivery person. However, if that person taught at a Catholic School, such a public position does justify termination because it would explicitly run afoul of the nature of the employer.
Likewise, when Brendan Eich was forced out of his position at Mozilla, his support for traditional marriage in no way violated the policy of the company, because it had nothing to do with the essence of what Mozilla is.
However, we now have a situation where a mob can agitate to get a person holding an unpopular view ostracized and believe such a position is justified because of the unproven position that thinking a thing is wrong means the person holding it must be a bigot.
Now the danger is: if those opposed to these values can legitimately force the ostracism of the person with unpopular views, then when political fortunes change, those who wind up on top will have the same right to ostracize those who are now on the bottom.
In other words, perhaps in 2020, those people who worked against the Defense of Marriage Act might suddenly find their employer pressuring them to resign... and they will be able to make no objection without sounding hypocritical.
The key thing to remember is this: If you are unwilling to let the tactics you use against your enemies be used by your enemies against you, that is a good sign that you are behaving hypocritically and your tactics are unjust.
Think about it...
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Think About It...
Think About It...
There's a position going around that says that freedom of speech only protects you from being arrested by the government, but doesn't protect you from being forced out of your place of employment. Basically, a position of justifying the ostracism against people holding positions which are unpopular among the cultural elites.
As it currently stands, this view is used to justify the harassment of anyone who holds the position that marriage is, by nature, to be between one man and one woman with the openness to the possibility of children.
Now, I have written before that whether or not a person's public actions justify termination of employment depends entirely on the nature of the employer. To summarize, I said that when a place of employment is explicitly established as holding that certain public behaviors running against the beliefs of the company, the violation of said behavior can justify the termination of employment. But, when the controversial behavior does not run against the established values explicitly, termination is not justified.
For example, if a person thinks Catholicism is wrong and publicly denounces it, as much as I would find such a person offensive, I would not think such a position justifies him or her being fired from a job as a pizza delivery person. However, if that person taught at a Catholic School, such a public position does justify termination because it would explicitly run afoul of the nature of the employer.
Likewise, when Brendan Eich was forced out of his position at Mozilla, his support for traditional marriage in no way violated the policy of the company, because it had nothing to do with the essence of what Mozilla is.
However, we now have a situation where a mob can agitate to get a person holding an unpopular view ostracized and believe such a position is justified because of the unproven position that thinking a thing is wrong means the person holding it must be a bigot.
Now the danger is: if those opposed to these values can legitimately force the ostracism of the person with unpopular views, then when political fortunes change, those who wind up on top will have the same right to ostracize those who are now on the bottom.
In other words, perhaps in 2020, those people who worked against the Defense of Marriage Act might suddenly find their employer pressuring them to resign... and they will be able to make no objection without sounding hypocritical.
The key thing to remember is this: If you are unwilling to let the tactics you use against your enemies be used by your enemies against you, that is a good sign that you are behaving hypocritically and your tactics are unjust.
Think about it...
Monday, April 7, 2014
Pontius Pilate Rides Again
Introduction
Depending on which movie version you see about Jesus, the character of Pontius Pilate who condemned Him to death has a wide range of personalities. They range from the man trying to free Jesus, but gets thwarted at every turn to the callous, indifferent man who only cares about keeping order.
These different movie portrayals tend to miss one major point... that Pontius Pilate knew he was being asked to allow a gross miscarriage of justice over a person who he knew was innocent to satisfy people he knew wanted Him silenced for selfish reasons. Not only that, but Pilate had the power to prevent this gross miscarriage of justice, but refused to use it, because he feared repercussions might affect him personally.
In the news lately, we seem to see many things in the news that seems to show that the mindset of Pontius Pilate is alive and well.
The Supreme Court
Today the Supreme Court, faced with the possibility of reversing an injustice created by the New Mexico where a person can be compelled to take part in a so-called "gay marriage" against his or her beliefs on the grounds that to do so was discrimination.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, setting a precedent other states can use to similarly force people to act against what they believe is right. They had the legal authority to make this right, and refused.
Mozilla
Last week, Mozilla, when faced with a digital mob trying to oust a man for supporting a Proposition protecting the traditional understanding of marriage, chose to encourage his resignation and offered an apology to the mob because this man believed that it was the right thing to do.
For all of Mozilla's weasel words claiming they tried to save Eich's job, the fact still remains that Mozilla had the power to call the bigotry what it was and tell the mob that Eich had just as much freedom as they did to support what he believed was right.
Instead they thought his behavior (done when even Obama claimed to support traditional marriage) was something reprehensible and needed to be apologized for by the company.
Conclusion
There are many different ways to stand up for what is right. Some of them may involve personal inconvenience, maybe even persecution. But when it comes down to choosing between comfort and right, a person needs to choose what is right.
To do otherwise is to follow the path of Pontius Pilate, refusing to do right and washing one's hands of the whole affair.
Pontius Pilate Rides Again
Introduction
Depending on which movie version you see about Jesus, the character of Pontius Pilate who condemned Him to death has a wide range of personalities. They range from the man trying to free Jesus, but gets thwarted at every turn to the callous, indifferent man who only cares about keeping order.
These different movie portrayals tend to miss one major point... that Pontius Pilate knew he was being asked to allow a gross miscarriage of justice over a person who he knew was innocent to satisfy people he knew wanted Him silenced for selfish reasons. Not only that, but Pilate had the power to prevent this gross miscarriage of justice, but refused to use it, because he feared repercussions might affect him personally.
In the news lately, we seem to see many things in the news that seems to show that the mindset of Pontius Pilate is alive and well.
The Supreme Court
Today the Supreme Court, faced with the possibility of reversing an injustice created by the New Mexico where a person can be compelled to take part in a so-called "gay marriage" against his or her beliefs on the grounds that to do so was discrimination.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, setting a precedent other states can use to similarly force people to act against what they believe is right. They had the legal authority to make this right, and refused.
Mozilla
Last week, Mozilla, when faced with a digital mob trying to oust a man for supporting a Proposition protecting the traditional understanding of marriage, chose to encourage his resignation and offered an apology to the mob because this man believed that it was the right thing to do.
For all of Mozilla's weasel words claiming they tried to save Eich's job, the fact still remains that Mozilla had the power to call the bigotry what it was and tell the mob that Eich had just as much freedom as they did to support what he believed was right.
Instead they thought his behavior (done when even Obama claimed to support traditional marriage) was something reprehensible and needed to be apologized for by the company.
Conclusion
There are many different ways to stand up for what is right. Some of them may involve personal inconvenience, maybe even persecution. But when it comes down to choosing between comfort and right, a person needs to choose what is right.
To do otherwise is to follow the path of Pontius Pilate, refusing to do right and washing one's hands of the whole affair.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Taking a Stand on Mozilla
I have added my site to the list of those who are blocking the Firefox web browser on account of the forced resignation of Brendan Eich from Mozilla. That a person can be "encouraged" to resign over doing what is right shows that Mozilla has no respect whatsoever for those they disagree with despite the popular buzzword of tolerance.
While it is true that Google (makers of Chrome) and Microsoft (makers of Internet Explorer) are hardly champions of Christian moral values, they at least don't force people out (yet?) on account of their moral values.
Now I know that the Arnobius of Sicca blog is extremely small in terms of reach and influence. By itself, it can have no effect. But if enough people of good will stand for what is right, we can have an effect, saying, "we will not go quietly in having our rights taken away."
We do not take this stand out of any hatred or fear of persons with a same sex attraction. We take this stand because we believe that a marriage can only exist between one man and one woman in an exclusive, life-long relationship open to the possibility of children.
The Catholic Church has this to say on the subject;
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)
We are forbidden to hate or to harm a person with a same sex attraction... not because "it's a rule" but because of our love of God who teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves. But true love does not mean living a lie.
For more information on how we can oppose this intolerance, please see the following:
Taking a Stand on Mozilla
I have added my site to the list of those who are blocking the Firefox web browser on account of the forced resignation of Brendan Eich from Mozilla. That a person can be "encouraged" to resign over doing what is right shows that Mozilla has no respect whatsoever for those they disagree with despite the popular buzzword of tolerance.
While it is true that Google (makers of Chrome) and Microsoft (makers of Internet Explorer) are hardly champions of Christian moral values, they at least don't force people out (yet?) on account of their moral values.
Now I know that the Arnobius of Sicca blog is extremely small in terms of reach and influence. By itself, it can have no effect. But if enough people of good will stand for what is right, we can have an effect, saying, "we will not go quietly in having our rights taken away."
We do not take this stand out of any hatred or fear of persons with a same sex attraction. We take this stand because we believe that a marriage can only exist between one man and one woman in an exclusive, life-long relationship open to the possibility of children.
The Catholic Church has this to say on the subject;
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)
We are forbidden to hate or to harm a person with a same sex attraction... not because "it's a rule" but because of our love of God who teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves. But true love does not mean living a lie.
For more information on how we can oppose this intolerance, please see the following: