The new McCarthyism

April 2nd, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Cupid.com, the popular online dating site, called for a boycott of Mozilla Firefox to protest the world’s Number 2 web browser naming a gay marriage opponent as chief executive.

OkCupid visitors who accessed the website through Firefox on Monday were told in a message to use other browsers such as Microsoft’s Internet Explorer or Google’s Chrome.

“Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples,” the message said. “We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.”

“Especially in the kind of modern hero culture, the CEO is equivalent to the company,” said Christian Rudder, an OkCupid co-founder. “We have users who are trying to find other people and we wanted to point out that this browser might be in conflict with their own values.”

The non-profit Mozilla Foundation’s appointment of Eich as CEO on March 24 has attracted criticism from software developers, including its employees who have publicly called for Eich’s resignation on social media.

Eich, the inventor of the programming language Javascript and a Mozilla co-founder, donated US$1000 in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in June.

I find this outrageous. Eich made a $1,000 donation to a cause he supported in 2008 (a cause around 40% of Americans agree with) and those with an opposing view basically say he should be blacklisted from employment.

I disagree with Eich on , but his views do not affect his ability to be CEO of Mozilla.  One can absolutely legitimately have a view against , but still be an excellent employer and CEO. Remember Barack Obama was against until 18 months ago – and Bill Clinton was also when he was President.

Turning that issue into a sort of litmus test of acceptability of employment is a new form of McCarthyism.

Tags:

102 Responses to “The new McCarthyism”

  1. peterwn (3,277 comments) says:

    Some South Auckland Pacific Islands pastors will now be extolling the virtues of Firefox from their pulpits this Sunday.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David Garrett (7,318 comments) says:

    What’s this “same sex marriage” DPF?? Dont you mean “marriage equality”?? No-one can disagree with that, while many of us are opposed to the first…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    So he is also the inventor of Javascript language? Well therefore OkStupid should boycot that as well…
    Oh wait, their company would go under overnight as its website would not work without Java…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Welcome to the new world order, where the human rights inquisition will root out ALL that do not adhere with the doctrine of the high priests of liberal progression.

    They shall be tarred and feathered
    They shall be burnt at the stake for their sins
    The inquisition will never stop until all people are purified by the ‘doctrine’ of justice.

    You will bend the knee, or you will be punished.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    There is now a growing long list of this. If Rainbow political activists are not careful, they will generate a backlash against the liberties and freedoms they’ve carved from the goodwill of mainstream society. If you’re going to talk “equality’ “tolerance” “love” as your brand words, then acting like Brown Shirts is all the more hypocritical.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    If you’re going to talk “equality’ “tolerance” “love” as your brand words, then acting like Brown Shirts is all the more hypocritical.

    I guess some of us knew it was never about any of that stuff to begin with and called them out as hypocrites quite some time ago.

    If only the ‘useful idiots’ had have listened…..

    Oh well.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Meanwhile in NZ all Labour party employees resign over McCarten’s unpaid PAYE and there is a general call from all political parties to boycott Labour in the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. JMS (331 comments) says:

    Ultra conservatives and radical progressives irk me in equal measure.

    Both believe in banning and enforcing rather than ‘live and let live’.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. XavierG (34 comments) says:

    Your claim that this is McCarthyism is ridiculous. OkCupid have informed users of Mozilla that the head of that company has a history of being opposed to marriage equality, information which they, OkCupid, believe may be important to users’ decisions about whether or not they use the service (for some it might, others maybe not). This is simply consumer choice at play. If Mozilla feel like their hiring of an opponent to marriage equality was ultimately a bad decision, then they will make a business choice accordingly. Don’t be so shrill.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Nicely put JMS, couldn’t agree more. For some, there is no ability to have a differing opinion, those that do must be ostracised and hounded from the face of the earth.

    Me, I find vegetarians revolting. How ANYONE could refuse a bacon sanger is beyond me, and shakes me to the very core of my being, I find it utterly repugnant that they will eat bean sprouts. DEATH TO THEM ALL.

    Or not. Tolerance of others beliefs, especially those I don’t agree with, and support for those who wish to express their differences of opinion. God forbid we become one grey amorphous mass that agrees about fucking everything, with no dissenting opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda says:

    to the new world order, where the human rights inquisition will root out ALL that do not adhere with the doctrine of the high priests of liberal progression.

    Please don’t contribute to the misappropriation of the word “liberal” by the purse-lipped politically correct self-appointed arbiters of everything.

    I’d wager DPF would call himself a liberal. I certainly would. And a true liberal viewpoint is exactly that expressed by DPF in the post… anyone should be able to believe what they please and support any cause (provided they don’t attempt to impose that view on others) and not have it affect their employment. (With the obvious caveat that an organisation can hire whomsoever it likes).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. KiwiGreg (3,255 comments) says:

    I imagine the same people campaigning to exercise their right not to trade with his company because of his views would not be in favour of, say, a wedding photographer refusing to photo a gay wedding because of HIS views.

    But of course, no one should be FORCED to deal with someone they don’t like or whose views they don’t agree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    The ethic of reciprocity
    liberal thought center piece.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fentex (986 comments) says:

    This is the same question that was topical in NZ about Jackson and Tamihere being the focus of protests about their attitudes – when, and to what degree, is it appropriate to leverage popular anger towards boycotts of companies and individuals?

    In this case it seems a bit extreme and inappropriate to hold Mozilla to the fire because one disagrees with the personal opinions of an employee of theirs when that opinion seems wholly unrelated to their responsibilities.

    And I’m guessing the call for boycott will fail because people in general will not hold Mozilla accountable for this persons opinions.

    It would be interesting to know if OK Cupid suffers any backlash and loss of business from people who find their attitude offensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Fentex (986 comments) says:

    Turning that issue into a sort of litmus test of acceptability of employment is a new form of McCarthyism.

    No it’s not. Private actions unsupported by governments are not new forms of state sanctioned oppression.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    DPF,

    I disagree with Eich on same sex marriage, but his views do not affect his ability to be CEO of Mozilla.

    True.

    Turning that issue into a sort of litmus test of acceptability of employment is a new form of McCarthyism.

    What is the overarching principle here?

    What if an employee is a member of the KKK? What if they think all Muslims should be shot on sight? What if they endorse the North American Man Boy Love Association? Now I’m not saying they are actually taking action and persecuting blacks, or shooting Muslims, or fiddling with boys, just outlining potential opinions they may hold whilst remaining law abiding.

    Is there a line that can be crossed when one’s personal views are so unacceptable as to justify losing one’s employment even when it doesn’t directly impact on their ability to do their job? If there is how do we decide where that line is and conclude that anti-homosexual views are within the bounds of acceptable disagreement whilst supporting NAMBLA is not. What is the range of acceptable opinions I suppose is the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    XavierG that is ridiculous. Do you agree with hanging signs outside washrooms (NO Blacks) in case they give Whities germs? So, why is it ok online. Nonsense. They are using their OPINION as a gateway to usage and entry.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg (3,119 comments) says:
    April 2nd, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    But of course, no one should be FORCED to deal with someone they don’t like or whose views they don’t agree with.

    Should ambulance staff be permitted to refuse treatment to someone because, lets say, they are of a different religion?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Not one of them will buy apple or fly virgin then.

    cleantechnica.com/2014/03/02/apple-ceo-tells-global-warming-deniers-drop-apple-stock/

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/10/richard-branson-climate-deniers-get-out-of-the-way

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    What if they endorse the North American Man Boy Love Association?

    I have a feeling that that will be a badge of honour in the not-too-distant future. So-called ‘intergenerational love’ will be the next big cause (after polygamy, of course), and those who don’t support it will be the next to be bullied.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    iMP (2,122 comments) says:
    April 2nd, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    …liberties and freedoms they’ve carved from the goodwill of mainstream society.

    Ohhh so this is where liberty and freedom comes from… and some people say such things are inalienable. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. thePeoplesFlag (247 comments) says:

    What if he owned a signed copy of Mein Kampf? Would that affect his ability to be CEO of Mozilla DPF?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom (5,107 comments) says:
    April 2nd, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    …anyone should be able to believe what they please and support any cause (provided they don’t attempt to impose that view on others) and not have it affect their employment. (With the obvious caveat that an organisation can hire whomsoever it likes).

    That doesn’t seem so much a caveat as a contradiction of your first statement since it negates the freedom to “believe what they please” without it affecting their employment.

    If you are advancing a libertarian non-agression principle (people can believe what they want, employers can hire for whatever reason they want) then the same should apply to the general public (they can boycott whomever they want for whatever reason).

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mandk (998 comments) says:

    Here’s the problem with many people who would regard themselves as liberal progressives: they are actually very illiberal.
    You cannot disagree with them without being labelled judgemental, bigoted or intolerant.
    That nasty little piece by Marama Davidson in the Herald at the weekend was a perfect illustration.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Is there a line that can be crossed when one’s personal views are so unacceptable as to justify losing one’s employment even when it doesn’t directly impact on their ability to do their job? If there is how do we decide where that line is and conclude that anti-homosexual views are within the bounds of acceptable disagreement whilst supporting NAMBLA is not. What is the range of acceptable opinions I suppose is the question.

    I believe that all morals and values come from God and from our Judeo-Christian heritage. The roots of that have been cut off, although the tree still survives (just). So there is this vestigial idea of what is moral that is founded on that heritage. Once this latest generation dies off though, there will be nothing left and anything will go.

    We may cope for a while on the spiritual and moral heritage of our forebears. But if we don’t make that heritage our own, then we will be in trouble. The Swiss theologian, Emil Brunner, put it like this:

    The feeling for the personal and the human which is the fruit of faith may outlive for a time the death of the roots from which it has grown. But this cannot last very long. As a rule the decay of religion works out in the second generation as moral rigidity and in the third generation as the breakdown of all morality. Humanity without religion has never been a historical force capable of resistance.

    Stephen Keillor, in Prisoners of Hope, says:

    The initial act of eliminating our Creator God from our thinking is so immoral and unethical in itself as to render the following concern with ethical fine points quite absurd. It’s as if students were to murder the teacher and then sit down to have serious discussions about proper manners in the classroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Zapper (1,021 comments) says:

    “What if he owned a signed copy of Mein Kampf? Would that affect his ability to be CEO of Mozilla DPF?”

    Probably not. The correct Dotcom analogy would be “would not paying any employees affect his ability to be CEO?”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Fletch (5,662 comments) says:
    April 2nd, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    I believe that all morals and values come from God and from our Judeo-Christian heritage. The roots of that have been cut off, although the tree still survives (just). So there is this vestigial idea of what is moral that is founded on that heritage. Once this latest generation dies off though, there will be nothing left and anything will go.

    We may cope for a while on the spiritual and moral heritage of our forebears. But if we don’t make that heritage our own, then we will be in trouble. The Swiss theologian, Emil Brunner, put it like this:

    Although I don’t believe morality “comes from God” I think it would be difficult to deny that religion has played a huge role in shaping societal mores over time.

    I don’t accept your analogy to the root of a tree, now withering away, as what is considered traditional today was once revolutionary. The notion that there is a fixed concept of morality that has withered away seems inconsistent with history. Social mores appear to have evolved constantly throughout human history. Where once the Bible was interpreted to permit slavery, certain religious movements were instrumental in reforming social mores towards intolerance of slavery. If the old tree withered away then it could be argued a new and better tree was put in its place.

    Religion is perhaps less a source of morality as it is a reflection of social evolution over time. Human society tends towards certain orthodoxies that persist until the next revolution comes along. Tolerance of homosexuality is the new conventional wisdom and I for one think it much preferable to the introlerance that once existed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Huevon (222 comments) says:

    In my experience, a lot of gays (especially the younger ones) suffer from the same mind disease as most Leftists – passive aggressiveness, lack of maturity, inability to put things in perspective, generally the behaviour of badly formed children. I think it comes from them being molly-coddled so much by the education system/general society nowadays. They simply can’t mentally cope with people who disagree with gay rights ideology, hence the campaigns to silence dissent, etc.

    I don’t see it as an issue of “liberties”, it’s mostly psychological. Like most things, it’s a matter of maintaining “frame”. I’m quite open about my views on marriage (ie between a man and woman). I don’t believe I should apologise for them, so I don’t. I’m not prejudiced, I have good reasons for what I believe (because I think it’s true and I have resisted the propaganda on the issue). I don’t go out of my way to insult people, and I would prefer to have open conversations with people who disagree with me. Sadly, this isn’t possible with *most* gays and their supporters (not all, though). So, what? That’s their problem, not mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. JMS (331 comments) says:

    Stephen Keillor, in Prisoners of Hope, says:

    The initial act of eliminating our Creator God from our thinking is so immoral and unethical in itself as to render the following concern with ethical fine points quite absurd. It’s as if students were to murder the teacher and then sit down to have serious discussions about proper manners in the classroom.

    That analogy fails on so many levels, it’s almost hilarious.

    It’s also not worthy of the keystrokes required to highlight them all.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    It’s not compulsory to like gay marriage, but it IS compulsory to like this guy, in conservo land?

    Fascinating… :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Huevon (95 comments) says:
    April 2nd, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    They simply can’t mentally cope with people who disagree with gay rights ideology, hence the campaigns to silence dissent, etc.

    I don’t go out of my way to insult people, and I would prefer to have open conversations with people who disagree with me. Sadly, this isn’t possible with *most* gays and their supporters (not all, though). So, what? That’s there problem, not mine.

    Perhaps what you don’t realize is that what for you is a philosophical discussion is deeply personal for others who have been bullied, excluded from their families or even assaulted on the basis of their sexuality. These sorts of outcomes are a consequence of social attitudes and cultural norms. Gays, quite understandably, are seeking to reform those attitudes so that not only do they have rights in law, but that they are not discriminated against in everyday life. That they may be successful in organizing social pressure to their own ends does not imply that you are being “silenced”. It just means that when you speak up you may find yourself arguing from the minority and you may feel the sting of social disapproval.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    There’s a point to this story that has yet to be mentioned. OkCupid, the firm that wants to dictate Mozilla’s hiring practises, is a dating site catering to both straights & gays.

    I suggest that their new found concern on who supports gay marriage vs those against may have heaps to do with self promotion amongst their clientèle & little to do with genuine opposition to a $1000 donation made 6 years back.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Urban_Redneck (93 comments) says:

    Turning that issue into a sort of litmus test of acceptability of employment is a new form of McCarthyism.

    What other outcomes could you have possibly expected? Did you really think homosexual marriage is all about “love, “commitment” and “family”? Homosexual marriage has always been a Trojan horse by which homosexuality and other forms of aberrant sexual behaviour are to be shoehorned into all corners of law, governance and popular culture – and those that don’t wish to comply with that will be maligned and ostracized.

    Homosexual activists won’t rest until all standards of decency and morality – and indeed expression thereof – are eliminated from the public discourse.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Urban_Redneck (31 comments) says:
    April 2nd, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    …and those that don’t wish to comply with that will be maligned and ostracized.

    Gays would know nothing about that! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Weihana says:

    That doesn’t seem so much a caveat as a contradiction of your first statement since it negates the freedom to “believe what they please” without it affecting their employment.

    It’s about balancing rights. The right of an employer to hire anyone they feel will best advance the interests of their business trumps the right of the would-be employee to believe something and to hold the job if the employer wants to take their views into account.

    If you are advancing a libertarian non-agression principle (people can believe what they want, employers can hire for whatever reason they want) then the same should apply to the general public (they can boycott whomever they want for whatever reason).

    Yes, individuals can and should be able to act as they please, including boycotting something. I just find it a very tenuous link between Mozilla and marriage equality… not really justifying the calls for Eich’s sacking. Now if he’d applied to be CEO of OKCupid, I could see how his views might cast his application in a negative light.

    I guess what concerns me is that Eich isn’t running for office, or involved in a company that has anything at all to do with the topic about which some people finds his views arcane (me included), yet he’s being targeted. So it’s not about his unsuitability for the particular role as a result of his views, but purely about his having those views to begin with.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. somewhatthoughtful (466 comments) says:

    Oh bullshit. They’re not saying he shouldn’t be employed, they’re saying (as is everyone else) that he shouldn’t be CEO of Mozilla given its purported mission.

    New McCarthyism, what a load of shit. Eich has been CTO of the same organisation for ages and no one minded, because he’s a great technician. His politics matter and that makes him a bad CEO because opposing gay marriage is both incomprehensible and abhorrent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Huevon (222 comments) says:

    Yeah, nice try Weihana. If you want to come into the public sphere and redefine an long-standing cultural institution, you’ve got to be prepared for a philosophical discussion. You can’t avoid the debate because someone’s feelings might get hurt in the process. Stand on your own two feet and argue your case on its merits.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Urban_Redneck (93 comments) says:

    Mark Steyn from his book “Lights Out”

    In the early days of gay liberation, most of us assumed we were being asked to live and let live. But, throughout the western world, ‘tolerance’ has become remarkably intolerant, and ‘diversity’ demands ruthless conformity.

    . . . sums it all up rather well.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Fletch, a God construct where this biblical God historically mass murders creation (including pregnant women and infants), then offers humanity a choice between obedience and access to heaven or a fate burning in hell forever – the coming of this kingdom outcome declared via bowls of judgment falling on the earth – is of the era of authoritarian and tyrannical government and brutish empire building.

    Repent and obey or die horribly is not a manifesto of morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Social mores appear to have evolved constantly throughout human history. Where once the Bible was interpreted to permit slavery, certain religious movements were instrumental in reforming social mores towards intolerance of slavery. If the old tree withered away then it could be argued a new and better tree was put in its place.

    Yet, it was Christians who helped abolish slavery. Abraham Lincoln in the U.S and Willaim Wilberforce in Britain.

    The “slavery” in the ANE (Ancient Near East) is not the same as the kind of slavery as in the Americas.
    In the ANE, people even used to sell themselves into slavery to pay off a debt, or parents used to sell their children into slavery – this was the most common. And it was not the slavery with chains and being locked up; it was more akin to being a servant and living in the same house as the master.

    “Scholars do not agree on a definition of “slavery.” The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of “slavery” shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term “Slavery” is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films…From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features…In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom…” [NS:ECA:4:1190f]

    See http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html if you want to know more.
    And also http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

    As far as the Bible, from what I understand, only theives and enemies could be made slaves, and the slaves must be treated well.

    Thus theives and enemies of the Jews could be made slaves,(cf. Ex 22:2; 2 Chr 28:8-15) but a Jew who arbitrarily took a slave would be punished by death.(Ex 21: 16)

    Nevertheless, we in our slavery to sin cannot imagine there being so harsh a punishment as the loss of freedom and forced labor over the course of years. This is why life in many of our prisons in the western world has become so comfortable -indeed luxurious- in comparison with the life our poor and middle classes live. A criminal can obtain university degrees, watch television, get good meals, have water and plumbing looked after, and enjoy other comforts without having to pay a thing. Not long ago, it was the norm that a criminal was truly and justly deprived of his freedom, of his family, of comforts, and forced into unpaid labor for years. That is to say, a vile criminal was made to be a slave to society. Our justice system, then, as far as it remains, is seen to support and insist upon this slavery, and quite rightly so from the point of view of real justice. For this reason, Scripture is seen to operate within justice, in making real criminals slaves.

    The Law of the Jews, as the laws of our prisons, afforded the slave certain rights and corresponding protections. The master of a slave would, according to the Law, be punished for killing him (the manner and degree of which is unspecified in written tradition).(Ex 21:20) If a master caused a woman slave to miscarry, there would be a fine determined by the woman’s husband, and “If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”(Ex 21: 22-23) Slaves would rest on the sabbath day (Ex 20: 8-11) and be restored to freedom after six years of servitude (except for non-Jews, which shall be discussed later). In these things, then, the Jewish Law on slavery is quite comparable to the slavery with which criminals in our society have been and still are frequently punished.

    As the quote points out, don’t we make slaves of modern day criminals? Yes, we have prisons now, but it wasn’t so long ago that prisoners were forced to make licence plates or crack rocks. That really isn’t much different.

    As far as I can see, God and the Christian religion are still the source of what is moral (or what should be moral), and this hasn’t changed any over time. The world has only more liberal and sinful.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Eich made a $1,000 donation to a cause he supported in 2008

    :lol:

    big deal.

    Panty twister for some obviously.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Fletch, a God construct where this biblical God mass murders creation (including pregnant women and infants), then offers humanity a choice between obedience and access to heaven or a fate burning in hell forever

    SPC, as I understand it, people choose Hell themselves. All there is for eternity is Heaven and Hell. If you don’t choose God, there’s no “time out” area which is neither (putting aside Purgatory, which is a ‘stop’ toward Heaven). There’s only Good and Evil. You can only choose one or the other. God gives the gift of Heaven freely – if you don’t accept it then Hell is all there is left because God will not force you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Nicely put JMS, couldn’t agree more. For some, there is no ability to have a differing opinion, those that do must be ostracised and hounded from the face of the earth.

    Like Bill Maher or the Dixie Chicks, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    I’d rather say that the call for the boycott is not one I would support than call it McCarthyism.

    After all, calls for consumer boycotts occur all the time, and the McCarthyism word is rarely brought up.

    For example some groups object to displays of sexuality on free to air broadcast TV, and use consumer pressure on advertisers to have the programmes taken off air and.

    And there is the case of US religious groups getting government service delivery roles and refusing to hire homosexuals for these jobs … . That might now apply here with gambling addiction services.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    There’s a point to this story that has yet to be mentioned. OkCupid, the firm that wants to dictate Mozilla’s hiring practises, is a dating site catering to both straights & gays.

    From what I remember reading on another forum, the OKCupid site has only “male” and “female” to choose from, and those of other orientations don’t find it that accommodating.

    On the other hand, I’m a bit reticent to hold OKCupid up as a paragon for queer rights of any kind–OKCupid isn’t particularly inclusive [...]
    Unfortunately, OKCupid isn’t really about creating love. It’s about creating love for some people. The site ignores anyone who doesn’t fit the gender binary by limiting gender choices to male or female, and also limits orientation to straight, gay, or bisexual. That’s hardly an accurate representation of the multitudes of orientations out there. For a company that claims to represent inclusivity for all types of relationships and people, it misses a good amount of them.

    http://www.thegloss.com/2014/04/01/sex-and-dating/okcupid-boycotts-mozilla-firefox-anti-gay/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Fletch, is hell a refuge from those who hate and would punish others with a different world view to themselves? Where hot women go because they tempt the righteous and men who like them anyway go to make sure they do not left alone with each other.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    ….”the OKCupid site has only “male” and “female” to choose from”….

    Well, if you find those parameters a little restrictive you have the right to choose another dating site Fletch. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    I don’t care what homosexuals do or don’t do, just stop thrusting it in my face!!!! I certainly don’t go around introducing my self as “Hi I’m whoever and I’m straight”!!!! I have had a woman come up to me say introduce herself “Hi I’m whoever and I’m gay”. This is the greatest turnoff there is and they wonder why people fail to support them!!! In fact I have made a complete about-face because of their attitude. I refused to sign the original petition years ago against the homosexual reform bill, BUT I signed the petition against homosexual marriage as I believe marriage is for the procreation of children and therefore between one man and one woman, not two of the same. I use the analogy, if you take a toaster with a male plug and try to put it into another male plug, your toaster won’t work and you will get no breakfast.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    You make a good point corrigenda. The gays who insist on an “in your face” attitude to sexual preferences do themselves & their ilk few favours. I backed gay marriage only because I can see no valid reason why they shouldn’t be able to & the enjoyment it affords me in seeing the Godwhacks tie themselves in bitter knots over something that’s none of their business.

    I can go for months at a time without celebrating my heterosexuality on the rooftop & seldom find a need to introduce the fact into casual conversation.

    Perhaps someone should tell the gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    corriegenda, perhaps those who are gay think being upfront about it with those they meet is sound etiquette? Have you considered whether in the past they had not done this and it resulted in outcomes that were not pleasant for them and others?

    It is one way to screen out those who would be offended at having a gay person as a friend/social contact – especially when they did not know this was the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Fentex (986 comments) says:

    it was Christians who helped abolish slavery. Abraham Lincoln in the U.S and Willaim Wilberforce in Britain.

    Two unrelated facts, that these people were Christians had nothing to do with their acts against slavery except possibly as an expression of their personal morality they confused with their churches, as is obvious by the many Christians who did not oppose it.

    To be Christian was not, and continues not to be, synonymous with being opposed to slavery.

    This timeline of the coming and going of slavery makes interesting reading, reflecting as it does on the changing popularity of the practice.

    And the ambivalence of Christian authority to the issue stands out for it’s lack of commitment to elimination of the vile practice. If one were to pick religions on the strength of this moral position we should prefer the Buddhists and Daoists of China for their superior morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    No it’s not. Private actions unsupported by governments are not new forms of state sanctioned oppression

    I am sorry, but McCarthyism was not a form of state sanctioned oppression. For example, the Hollywood Blacklist did not have legal force, it was a private action by private media companies (albeit one made in the context of congressional hearings about communist infiltration).

    More importantly though, the term McCarthyism refers to demagogic attacks on the character of political adversaries. As a neologism, it has long being used to describe the searching out and harassment of dissenters. To that extent, it is an useful metaphor.

    I am glad that David has condemned the calling of a boycott of a company on the basis that one named employee supported a mainstream political cause which until very recently enjoyed almost overwhelming support (and reflected the position, at the time, of Barack Obama) . It seems highly unlikely they would have stuck their necks out at a time when it could have made a difference to the cause of gay marriage – the victory of which is now all but assured.

    To do this now seems to me about self-righteous moral display more than being directed at achieving anything useful. Moreover, it has all the hallmarks of bullying. Further reasons for why David’s comparison to McCarthy is apt.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Liam Hehir, McCarthyism involved presenting lefties as Un American people whose loyalty to the USA was in question.

    Confusing that with this issue is possibly testimony that the culture war within that society, between Christian identity order of rule and secular and inclusive, is now one of the central issues of their political society.

    In their religious society belief in end time Advent/judgment of the world in their lifetime is now mainstream (it was in the past called a heresy) and that would explain the “culture war” between the “heaven or hell” bound national people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting
    Red-baiting is the act of accusing, denouncing, attacking or persecuting an individual or group as communist,[1] socialist, or anarchist, or sympathetic toward communism,[2] socialism, or anarchism. The word “red” in “red-baiting” is derived from the red flag signifying radical left-wing politics.[3] In the United States the term “red-baiting” dates from at least 1927.[4] In 1928, black-listing by the Daughters of the American Revolution was characterized as a ‘red-baiting relic’.[5] It is a term commonly used in the United States, and in United States history, red-baiting is most often associated with McCarthyism, which originated in the two historic Red Scare periods of the 1920s (First Red Scare) and 1950s (Second Red Scare).[6] In the 21st century, red-baiting does not have quite the same effect it previously did due to the fall of Soviet-style Communism,[7] but some pundits have argued that notable events in current American politics indicates a resurgence of red-baiting consistent with the 1950s.[8][9]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Liam Hehir (125 comments) says:

    McCarthyism involved presenting lefties as Un American people whose loyalty to the USA was in question.

    Thank you for that SPC. I am well aware of what the historical McCarthyism was. I think you will find, however, that David used the term as a metaphor. That appears pretty clear to me from the insertion of the word “new” between “The” and “McCarthyism.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Yep, actually, McCarthy was correct.

    WASHINGTON — Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized
    American politicians of the last century, new information — including
    half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations — are
    showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations.

    “With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who’ve written the history which
    condemns him,” said Dan Flynn, director of
    Accuracy in Academia’s recent national conference on McCarthy,
    broadcast by C-SPAN.

    Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in
    Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts — FBI recordings of Soviet
    embassy communications between 1944-48 — the record is showing that
    McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every
    case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing
    atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories
    in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.

    Check out the book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies

    Drawing on primary sources—including never-before-published government records and FBI files, as well as recent research gleaned from Soviet archives and intercepted transmissions between Moscow spymasters and their agents in the United States—Evans presents irrefutable evidence of a relentless Communist drive to penetrate our government, influence its policies, and steal its secrets. Most shocking of all, he shows that U.S. officials supposedly guarding against this danger not only let it happen but actively covered up the penetration. All of this was precisely as Joe McCarthy contended.

    Blacklisted by History shows, for instance, that the FBI knew as early as 1942 that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the atomic bomb project, had been identified by Communist leaders as a party member; that high-level U.S. officials were warned that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy almost a decade before the Hiss case became a public scandal; that a cabal of White House, Justice Department, and State Department officials lied about and covered up the Amerasia spy case; and that the State Department had been heavily penetrated by Communists and Soviet agents before McCarthy came on the scene.

    Evans also shows that practically everything we’ve been told about McCarthy is false, including conventional treatment of the famous 1950 speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, that launched the McCarthy era (“I have here in my hand . . .”), the Senate hearings that casually dismissed his charges, the matter of leading McCarthy suspect Owen Lattimore, the Annie Lee Moss case, the Army-McCarthy hearings, and much more.

    http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/1400081068/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376951539&sr=1-2&keywords=blacklisted

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Liam Hehir, clearly you did not comprehend the point of my post (and as an aside the issue then was more than about character but to questioning of leftists loyalty to the USA). If anything it is the new divide that is more about good and bad character, the Christian heaven bound and the other hell bound – the so called cultural (conservative or liberal morality) divide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    SPC you call it being upfront, I call it shoving it in my face. I am not at all interested in who does what to whom in the privacy of their own home, but I object strongly to it being thrust under my nose in the first few minutes of meeting. This flaunting is what puts me off not the person or their sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    As I commented on another thread, some wag on another forum wrote, “homosexuality used to be known as ‘the love that dare not speak its name’. Now it is the love the absolutely will not shut the f*** up”.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    corriegenda, you think someone informing you that they are gay is flaunting it in your face. How long a time before their telling you is appropriate? Or would you rather never know?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Thank you SPC.

    I’m not sure what you mean. I know that the historical McCarthyism involved the questioning of patriotism by American leftists. However, it seems that David is using a metaphor – figure of speech illustrating that one thing is, on some point of comparison, the same as another thing, McCarthyism is routinely invoked on all sorts of subjects where public shaming of specified individuals is used to delegitimise dissent,

    I don’t think anyone believed that David was saying that OK Cupid were literally McCarthyites – alleging that Mozilla is somehow a communist front organisation. Are you always like this?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Cato, nor did I say that. Your point? Am I always like what, stop stalking.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. wreck1080 (3,924 comments) says:

    Anyone against gay marriage is a bigot … .at least, that is the accusation made by pro-gay marriage people.

    A bigot is a bad person by definition.

    Bad people should not be given good jobs. Only good people should be appointed to important jobs.

    Therefore, logically he should not be employed.

    This is the whole thing with the gay movement though— if you are against anything they say then you are some kind of monster.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    Both sides of the debate need a good dose of Libertarian philosophy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    SPC, why should they tell me at all????? Who cares anyway???? I have absolutely no interest in that side of a person and a lot of others would say the same. Maybe if someone was coming on heavy and making unwanted advances but in a purely social interaction there is no need at all for the subject to be breached!! My attitude is: Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know. I am not that interested in you in the first place!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    corrigenda

    Imagine, if you will, perhaps you’re in a bar out to score. You get talking to SPC and you’re thinking – his shirt would look good on my bedroom floor… A bit of eyelid batting, lip licking and hair flicking is going on… SPC tells you he’s gay. Would you have rather taken him home before he told you. Perhaps when you were starting to wonder why he was more interested in your flatmate than you. Perhaps that would be too early, and you’d find out when he started snogging your flatmate ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fentex (986 comments) says:

    McCarthyism was not a form of state sanctioned oppression

    It absolutely was, in particular via the federal investigative powers of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

    Also numerous anti-Communist committees, panels, and “loyalty” boards in federal and state governments leveraged the states power directly against individuals.

    Not to mention, even if such power were not utilised directly by the state, the prevalence and compulsion was such that individuals acting in positions of government responsibility were not free of pressure to do their jobs honestly and without prejudice. You might argue that this has become true of the modern movement for equal treatment of all sexual orientations as DPF seems to suggest but whether or not you do the fact of actual state oppression as part of the McCarthy agenda and period remains.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    That is what I said, if someone came on hot and heavy maybe tell, but in an ordinary situation where that sort of scene is unlikely to arise, then it is nobodies business but theirs!! Burt, having been married for nearly 50 years, I am a little bit past the eyelash batting and hair flicking, so there is no need whatsoever for anyone to confess their shortcomings to me in the first few minutes of meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. BlairM (2,341 comments) says:

    One can be supportive of gay rights in general, yet virulently opposed to the government redefining marriage to include gay couples. (It is not the role of government to tell us what religious and/or social institutions should be called, and thereby discriminate against those who disagree.)

    To make government redefinition of marriage the litmus test of support for gay rights is ridiculous. They are not the same thing, and it is a disturbing development for people to start equating the two.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. berend (1,711 comments) says:

    DPF: Turning that issue into a sort of litmus test of acceptability of employment is a new form of McCarthyism.

    Things like this were explicitly discussed here (because we already know where same-sex “marriage” was heading as stuff like this has been happening in every country that has redefined marriage).

    It was never about equality. It was never about marriage. It was about reconstructing society so gays (and every other aberrant behaviour) would never encounter any opposing view. Their conscience is already hard enough to oppose for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    Brendan O’Neill asks the question of how gay marriage (which has been legalised in Britain only a day or so ago) has come about so fast…

    The conservative commentator Christopher Caldwell has a point when he says: ‘Public opinion does not change this fast in free societies. Either opinion is not changing as fast as it appears to be, or society is not as free.’

    There has been extraordinary cultural pressure on people to conform to the notion that gay marriage is not only a good idea but the good idea of our era. This pressure has taken the form of demonising dissent, where those who criticise gay marriage are instantly written off as homophobes and bigots. As Damon Linker at The Week says, those who don’t bend the knee at the altar of gay unions risk ‘ostracism from public life’. Gay-marriage advocates seem determined to ‘stamp out rival visions’, he says, ‘hurl[ing] insults as a means of bullying [opponents] into submission’. As a result, many who feel morally uncomfortable with gay marriage are likely to hide their true views, for fear of being cast out or publicly branded with the ‘phobe’ tag.

    This intolerant, confrontational style of the gay-marriage lobby, its virtual trawling for the remaining few people who oppose gay marriage so that they, too, might be pressured into mandatory celebration, reveals something about the true nature of this issue – which is that it has become a barometer of social decency, one of the few things which otherwise at-sea politicians and campaigners can use to define themselves as purposeful in these morally amorphous times. This leads, inevitably, to ostentatious showdowns with the other side, the bad side, making gay marriage into a ‘zero sum game’, in Damon Linker’s words, where campaigners demand not just tolerance of their views but ‘psychological acceptance and positive affirmation’ of them. The more the political and media classes define their moral worldview through gay marriage, the more they need to hunt down and point a finger at the lingering opponents of it in increasingly intolerant exercises in moral juxtaposition. This leads, not to a genuine acceptance of gay marriage, but to a kind of acquiescence to it, a compliance with it, as individuals sign up under duress, certainly under pressure.

    So in a stunningly short period of time, not only has gay marriage been normalised, but opposition to it, traditionalism itself, has been denormalised. This reveals the extent of the corrosion of the old conservative values of long-term commitment and family life, whose one-time proponents in the church and elsewhere have effectively vacated the moral battlefield and stood back as marriage has been redefined. (‘The terms of our surrender’ was the fitting headline to a recent sad article by one such conservative.) And it also reveals the ability of newer cultural elites, especially the media classes, to impose new narratives on public life and to set political and social agendas. The media have been key to the gay-marriage crusade, playing a leading role in promoting it, defining it, and demonising those who question it. As a consequence of an historic emptying-out of political life in recent years, of the decline and fall of the classes and interests whose tussles were once the lifeblood of politics, the media have come to be an increasingly important political actor, their concerns and prejudices often taking centre stage in public life.

    The unstoppable rise of gay marriage really speaks to the replacement of older, conservative elites with a new elite, one that is, remarkably, less tolerant of dissent and more demanding of psychological affirmation of its every idea, whim and campaign than its predecessors were.
    So perhaps we should put all that champagne on ice. For the transformation of gay marriage from just an idea to a juggernaut in the blink of an eye actually has little to do with the expansion of tolerance, but rather speaks to the very opposite phenomenon: the emergence of new forms of intolerance that demand nothing less than moral obedience and mandatory celebration from everyone – or else.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gay-marriage-the-fastest-formed-orthodoxy-ever/14855

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    The main difference between this and the 1950’s is that then it was Congress and industry blacklisting the left from employment, this is just a consumer boycott (and there are many others).

    Then few on the right opposed the blacklisting, now many who support equality also support free speech and would not support the consumer boycott. Thus the approach will not get any traction – its just a publicity drive by the company concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Fletch, more a case of those who supported discrimination in the past now uncomfortable about the idea of any order of rule not their own predominating. And calling the change an injustice.

    Don’t worry the same freedom of speech that allows porn will allow opposition such as your own to be expressed.

    As for employment consequences, the right of homosexuals to live as they choose and yet find employment and the right of those who oppose marriage law equality to declare this and yet also find employment.

    Just let the human rights activist and the civil libertarian defend you as well as they did those your order of rule oppressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Fletch 6.46Pm, as per lefties in the USA working with the Soviet Union as a justification for McCarthyism. More a case of persecution leading to perverse outcomes. Intolerance to the left in the USA did not encourage their inclusion in American society and allegiance to it.

    Do you think a policy of blacklisting Moslems from jobs in the USA after 9/11 would have been a sound policy – it was the McCarthyist option.

    Do you not perceive that if Christians were to say see Russia as a champion of their values and see a secular polity in the USA as wrong they might, if persecuted in the USA (say blacklisted from jobs for opposing same sex marriage), then betray the USA and side with a foreign power to bring that secular polity to an end.

    A nation that wants the allegiance of its people must be on the side of all of its people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    “The unstoppable rise of gay marriage really speaks to the replacement of older, conservative elites with a new elite, one that is, remarkably, less tolerant of dissent and more demanding of psychological affirmation of its every idea, whim and campaign than its predecessors were.”

    True. Liberal elites are only able to do this for one reason though. The State. The State gives Liberals the power to define and enforce their notion of truth and reality. The State is the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    “A nation that wants the allegiance of its people must be on the side of all of its people.”

    Getting rid of the nation state solves that problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    what replaces it the present status
    not to keen on Laissez-faire capitalism.
    anarchy is collapse
    authority must come from the populace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    Anarchy rightly understood is not collapse, it is the decentralization of power from a central state to the local. Small scale local democracy is vastly preferable to Big government – big money “democracy” which rides roughshod over freedoms and rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, the nation state preceded any change – say what you mean, it was the later emergence of democracy that provided the means to empower the people in place of the old elites.

    You want monarchy in place of democracy, and monarchy requires the nations state to continue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I don’t care what homosexuals do or don’t do, just stop thrusting it in my face!!!!

    I’ve never had it thrust in my face. Then again, I’ve never been kneeling before gay men dressed in women’s clothing. You might want to rethink your lifestyle if you find thrusting penises in front of your nose a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    ” it was the later emergence of democracy that provided the means to empower the people in place of the old elites.”

    By creating all new elites. Local, small scale democracy means far more genuine representation. The large state cannot do this, and it ends up limiting genuine democracy. Look at the anti-smacking law. Every poll showed a vast majority against, but the state was able to ignore this and carry out it’s will regardless. Big government dilutes real democracy to such a degree that it becomes meaningless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    “You might want to rethink your lifestyle if you find thrusting penises in front of your nose a lot.”

    Or just stop watching porn. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    “You want monarchy in place of democracy, and monarchy requires the nations state to continue.”

    No, I want local small scale democracy and a limited constitutional monarchy whose sole purpose is to uphold the non-aggression principle. This requires no central state. Monarchy preceded the modern nation state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    ShawnLH when did the modern nation state emerge in England? And when did the nation state first emerge in the territory of the realm of the Crown?

    Did not the kingdom define the nation state border? So what would you describe as the change in governance that made it nation state government rather than kingdom government?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    Well this is disputed somewhat but certainly by 1700 and in continental Europe in 1648 with the peace of Westphalia. The real change was the emergence of large centralized bureaucratic states from 1700 onward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    I suspect you mean transition from Christian throne to secular nation state polity – a necessity after the wars of religion between Catholic and Protestant. Secular polity involved secular service delivery (state bureaucracy) rather then church delivery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    “I suspect you mean transition from Christian throne to secular nation state polity”

    Yes, to some degree, though remember that small scale local kingdoms and tribal groups also existed in Europe in pre-Christian times.

    As to whether or not it was a necessity, I would say no. It was one possible answer, and imo the wrong one. It lead to the horrific world wars in 20th century Europe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. berend (1,711 comments) says:

    An exclusive interview with Brendan, where I read:

    More than 70,000 people have signed a petition asking for Eich to resign if he can’t unequivocally say he supports marriage equality.

    That’s what it is about: if you cannot unequivocally support same-sex marriage, if you do not wear that special mark, no man will be allowed to buy or sell.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. OneTrack (3,117 comments) says:

    berend -next step will be to be sent to the gulag for unapproved thought crimes.

    Don’t these guys realise 1984 was a satire not a guide book .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Riiiiiiiiiiiight, and religious social conservatives don’t engage in boycotts of products and services they find “ideologically impure” by their own prescriptive standards? Here, let me introduce you to the so-called “American Family Association”

    According to its Wikipedia page, AFA has boycotted

    companies for various reasons, most often relating to Christmas controversies, “pornography”, support of pro-choice activism, support of violence or sexual content in entertainment, and support of LGBT rights,including same-sex partner employee benefits. These organizations include: 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl’s Jr., Clorox, Comcast, Crest, Ford, Hallmark Cards, Hardee’s, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Movie Gallery, Microsoft, MTV, Paramount Pictures, Time Warner, Universal Studios, DreamWorks, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Walt Disney Company, and PepsiCo. The AFA has criticized the People’s Republic of China for its persecution of Christians.

    In 1986, 7-Eleven stopped selling Playboy and Penthouse magazines after a two-year boycott by the AFA. In 1989 the AFA boycotted WaldenBooks in an attempt to persuade the company to stop selling those same magazines. As a result, WaldenBooks launched an advertisement campaign against censorship, asserting First Amendment rights. WaldenBooks, American Booksellers Association, the Council for Periodical Distributors Association, the International Periodical Distributors Association, and Duval Bibb Services launched a lawsuit against the AFA in October 1989, under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Florida State RICO Acts, which protect an organization’s right to conduct business without harassment or threats.The case was settled by the parties without a court ruling.

    Christian Leaders for Responsible Television (CLeaR-TV), affiliated with the AFA, has approached sponsors of programs that it considered immoral. In 1989, CLeaR-TV successfully persuaded General Mills, Ralston Purina, Domino’s Pizza, Mazda, and Noxell to withdraw advertising from Saturday Night Live. AFA also boycotted PepsiCo that year also for supporting Madonna, whose video for “Like a Prayer” Wildmon felt was sacrilegious.

    During the summer of 1993 the AFA purchased full-page ads in The New York Times, USA Today, and Los Angeles Times denouncing the sexual and violent content of the upcoming ABC police drama NYPD Blue.[42] It also urged ABC affiliates not to broadcast the program and citizens to boycott sponsors of Blue. About a quarter of the 225 existing ABC stations followed suit, but such affiliates were mostly in rural areas of the US. The AFA campaign increased hype for the show in larger American media markets, and Blue became one of the most popular shows of the 1993–1994 television season. In 1996, the AFA launched a boycott against Walt Disney Company when the company began giving benefits to same-sex employees in domestic partnerships. The AFA has claimed that Michael Eisner, the CEO of The Disney Company, “was involved in a media group that actively promoted the homosexual agenda” and was pushing the “gay agenda”. The AFA ended the boycott in the spring of 2005 after Eisner left the company. Tim Wildmon stated “We feel after nine years of boycotting Disney we have made our point.”

    In 2003, the AFA, with the American Decency Association, Focus on the Family, and Citizens for Community Values, lobbied and boycotted Abercrombie & Fitch, calling on “A&F to stop using blatant pornography in its quarterly catalog.” In December 2003, the company “recalled the holiday catalog from all its stores, saying it needed the space on the counter for a new perfume” and stated it would stop printing catalogs and start a new campaign.

    In 2005 the AFA boycotted the company American Girl, seller of dolls and accessories, because the company supported the charity Girls, Inc., which the AFA called “a pro-abortion, pro-lesbian advocacy group”.

    In Spring 2005 the AFA launched a boycott of Ford for advertising in gay magazines, donating to gay rights organizations, and sponsoring gay pride celebrations. After meeting with representatives of the group, Ford announced it was curtailing ads in a number of major gay-themed publications, due not by cultural but by “cost-cutting” factors. That statement was contradicted by the AFA, which claimed it had a “good faith agreement” that Ford would cease such ads. Soon afterwards, as a result of a strong outcry from the gay community, Ford backtracked and announced it would continue ads in gay publications, in response to which the AFA denounced Ford for “violating” the agreement, and renewed threats of a boycott.The boycott ended in March 2008.

    On Independence Day 2008, the AFA announced a boycott of McDonald’s,which had a director on the board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. In October 2008, AFA announced the end of its boycott following the declaration to be “neutral on same-sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association” by McDonald’s in a memo to franchisees.

    On August 25, 2008, the AFA announced their boycott of Hallmark Cards for their decision to start selling same-sex wedding cards.

    In December 2008, the AFA issued an “Action Alert” which called for members to protest about the Campbell Soup Company, which had purchased two two-page advertisements in the December 2008 and January 2009 issues of LGBT magazine The Advocate. The Action Alert said that Campbell’s “sent a message that homosexual parents constitute a family and are worthy of support”. The advertisements showed a married lesbian couple with their son. AFA spokesman Randy Sharp said “the Campbell Soup Company is saying ‘we approve of homosexual marriage.'”

    In November 2009, the AFA called for a boycott against clothing retailer The Gap, Inc., claiming the retailer’s holiday television advertising campaign failed to mention Christmas. “Christmas has historically been very good for commerce. But now Gap wants the commerce but no Christmas” wrote an AFA spokesperson. The Gap soon released an advertisement in response to the boycott, specifically referring to Christmas, albeit with a number of other holidays that take place at the same time of year and added the word “Christmas” to in-store decor.

    In 2012 the AFA led a boycott against Archie Comics when they published a comic book featuring a same-sex marriage.
    In July 2012, they considered boycotting Google due to Google’s “Legalize Love” campaign which supports LGBT rights.

    http://www.afa.net

    ..and in a pluralistic society, they have the right to do so, just as much as LGBT communities have the right to persuade possibly unaware consumers to boycott products that finance antigay religious social conservative efforts. It’s all about consumer choice, and freedom to choose not to consume particular consumer items or to purchase them is one of the benchmarks of a democratic capitalist society.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    And here’s another example, from the US Conservative Political Action Conference…

    In 2010, the conference marked the first year in which one of the co-sponsoring groups was the John Birch Society. The 2010 conference also featured co-sponsorship by a gay Republican organization called GOProud. In response, some groups, such as Focus on the Family, made threats to leave the conference, but none actually did so. Rep. Ron Paul won the straw poll for the first time.

    A so-called “conservative civil war” marked the 2011 conference because of another controversy over the participation of GOProud.Numerous prominent organizations, including the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and the Media Research Council, among others, joined a boycott organized by the American Principles Project, which said GOProud stood in “diametrical opposition” to core principles of the conservative movement.

    Senator Jim DeMint also announced he was boycotting the conference.Those boycotting the conference also pointed to alleged financial mismanagement by the ACU and the invitation issued to Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels, who had called for a “truce” on social issues, to be the keynote speaker. Mike Huckabee declined to attend the 2010 and 2011 conferences, citing his concern that, because of the inclusion of GOProud and Ron Paul’s victory in the 2010 and 2011 straw polls, CPAC is turning libertarian.Some conservative figures were moving to turn the more recently created Values Voter Summit into a “full-fledged rival to CPAC” by expanding its social issues focus to include economic and security issues.

    For the 2012 conference, the ACU board voted to not invite GOProud or the John Birch Society to the 2012 conference.

    http://www.cpac.org

    [I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Both sides of politics engage in consumer boycotts of product and services that back perceived donors and supporters of their political opponents. -CG]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    Chardonnay guy – 1st of all your post is so long. It’s really rude to cut-and-paste hugely long articles. So some manners would be good on your part.
    2nd of all you are as usual completely wrong. It is not moral equivalence. It is not one side doing one thing and the other side doing the same.

    The American family association may boycott this organisation or another but it is not using the force of law to prosecute them. The homosexual lobby is actively using the force of law to prosecute those people who do not fall into line.

    The couple up North who were prosecuted for not renting out their room to a gay couple. The cake maker in America prosecuted for not baking a cake for a gay marriage. The young couple running a photography business prosecuted by lesbians for not wanting to photograph their gay marriage. The Swedish pastor prosecuted for speaking against gay marriage in his own pulpit. The evangelist arrested in Britain for daring to say that homosexuality is a sin.

    Now that is a result of us pandering to the homosexual lobby. Gay marriage may not be compulsory but acceptance of gay marriage absolutely is becoming so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Refusing to provide accomodation services and specific consumer products to same-sex couples is service provider discrimination and it has been illegal to do so in New Zealand for the last twenty years, Scott. Moreover, the Swedish Pentecostal minister’s right to free speech was upheld and hate speech is not prohibited in New Zealand and aspects of the UK Public Order Act that led to the arrest of antigay ministers have been repealed. Not all LGBT community members believe in hate speech censorship bans. I don’t.

    And what about Mississippi passing legislation to enable business service provision discrimination against whoever they want on the basis of purported “religious” background? I call that special discriminatory rights for conservative Christians. Now, what were you saying about actively using the force of law again?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. somewhatthoughtful (466 comments) says:

    And he’s stepped down, a great credit to his character that he recognised that he just isn’t the right person for the CEO job at an organisation like Mozilla.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    Private businesses should be ably to discriminate on any basis they want on the basis of the right to voluntary association.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. ChardonnayGuy (1,207 comments) says:

    Again, this matter was resolved twenty years ago in New Zealand with the passage of the Human Rights Act 1993. This is service provision discrimination and it is against current New Zealand law. I know objectivist libertarians don’t like it, but they’re a tiny, fringe political movement. In any case, it also protects conservative Christians from being discriminated against by people who don’t like their religious doctrines and stance on public policy, so it is, after all, politically neutral.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Huevon (222 comments) says:

    Now he’s resigned…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/60033882/mozilla-ceo-resigns-after-okcupid-boycott.html

    Nice work by the Thought Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    ” I know objectivist libertarians don’t like it, but they’re a tiny, fringe political movement.”

    I’m not an Objectivist. That aside, whether it was passed into law is not relevant. The law was wrong. Voluntary association should not be infringed for any reason other than genuine criminal activity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    So you’d be happy to be denied service on grounds of your kooky religious beliefs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ShawnLH (5,293 comments) says:

    “So you’d be happy to be denied service on grounds of your kooky religious beliefs?”

    Boring. But yes, people have the right to discriminate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    A negative outcome for employee rights – a win for those who hold people accountable for their private lives/political opinions when they seek employment.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11232251

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. billsb (1 comment) says:

    I couldn’t agree with you more. When I heard about his resignation, I googled “McCarthyism okcupid” and ended up here. In the 1950s, communist leanings were very unpopular and there were groups that persecuted suspected communists by putting economic pressure on their employers or their sponsors (in entertainment).

    I am having a difficult time seeing how OKCupid’s acts are any different.

    Mozilla.org should be ashamed of themselves. They should support Eich as a qualified leader and chastise OKCupid for their strongarm tactics in pushing a social agenda. If they are interested in same-sex marriage they should sponsor same sex couples on their site and in their advertising (I can’t remember an OK Cupid ad with a same-sex couple).

    Like the author of this post, I cannot disagree more with Eich’s views and support of a “same-sex marriage ban” – but, I respect the process and don’t want all people who’s social views differ from mine get drummed out of industry.

    Thanks for your post – I wish the first google hit had been in the Silicon Valley and not New Zealand though. Maybe it’s time to move.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote