A post critical of litigious atheists, by Doug Giles.
Excerpt:
The atheists I grew up with in Texas were a tad bit pluckier than today’s lardy hagfish atheists who file lawsuits every winter when they see a child wrapped in swaddling clothes.
Yep, the anti-theists I used to hang out with in the Lone Star state were rugged individualists who were so busy milking this existence that they didn’t have time to bleat like a stuck sheep because a plastic baby Jesus statue endangered their delicate beliefs.
My other non-believing buddies who weren’t the robust Hemingway types were usually heady stoners who were into physics, Pink Floyd and Frisbee and were completely comfortable around people of faith versus today’s reflexively irate, touchy atheists who pop a blood vein in their forehead if they accidentally hear “Silent Night” playing at Macy’s.
For God’s sake atheists, übermensch up why don’t you?
Giles then goes on to explain one of the latest attempts by former-Pentecostal-hymn-singer Dan Barker to ban nativity scenes and other Christmas stuff from being displayed.
Then concludes:
Yep, according to the 21st century metrosexual atheist motif, anything that offends them should now be banned. That makes me scratch my head because I thought the atheists were the tough-minded ones who could stare death in the face and mock God and His dictates, but now a silicone statue of Yeshua in diapers puts them in a tailspin. Hello, sweetie.
He mentions Dan Barker in his article, so I think it’s worth linking to this post I wrote about how Dan Barker abandoned Christianity. To persist in the Christian life requires a certain amount of intelligence and wisdom. You have to be good at life. Dan couldn’t cut it.
When voters in Ohio’s 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully. No, he decided to get even. So he did what anyone does in today’s culture: he sued somebody.
Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his “loss of livelihood,” Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood.
During the 2010 elections the Susan B. Anthony List engaged in a campaign to identify and call out a group of allegedly anti-abortion-rights members of Congress who provided the margin that allowed President Barack Obama’s reform of the nation’s healthcare system to get through the U.S. House of Representatives. The Susan B. Anthony List said their vote in favor of the law, which did not include any pro-life protections, amounted to a betrayal of their pro-life principles.
According to Driehaus, who was one of that group, what the Susan B. Anthony List said in its public communications amounted to a malicious lie that contributed to his defeat. Amazingly, rather than laugh the suit out of court U.S. District Court judge Timothy S. Black, an Obama appointee, is allowing it to go forward. …
Driehaus’s suit is breaking new legal ground and may already be having a very chilling effect on political speech. It goes directly at the heart of our First Amendment protections and criminalizes what is at least a difference of opinion. And it’s curious that the case has not received more attention from the national press.
What is equally curious, however, is why Judge Black has allowed the case to move forward and why he did not recuse himself from it since, as Barbara Hollingsworth reported Friday in The Washington Examiner, he apparently is the former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. As seeming conflicts of interest go this one is a real humdinger.
So this politician takes certain positions and the SBA List makes known to the public what those positions are, and he sues them. And an Obama-appointed judicial activist thnks that the case should go forward. This is just another example of the left wanting to control speech and the flow of information. There is something alarming about the way that the left operates when dealing with dissent. They are so desperate to achieve uniformity of opinion, for all their misleading talk about diversity, that they don’t blink about using force to silence anyone who disagrees with them. And this doesn’t just happen on the abortion issue, where pro-life demonstrators are routinely hand-cuffed and arrested by police. It happens with everything from same-sex marriage to global warming to Darwinian evolution.
People on the secular left are the most close-minded people in the world, and they seem to think nothing about using force to punish those who disagree with them. They won’t debate – they prefer to overpower. Is it really so hard to believe? We just came off of the 20th century where the secular leftists murdered 100 million people, in places like Cambodia, North Kora, China and the Soviet Union. Human rights, like the right to life and freedom of speech, are invented rights on a secular leftist worldview. They aren’t objective – and that’s why people on the secular left find it so easy to violate them – because their worldview has no capacity to ground fundamental human rights. If there is no Creator and Designer of the universe, then anything is possible – we are all just matter in motion. Whatever standards of conduct we agree on are arbitrary and subjective – just conventions that vary from by time and place – from one society to the next. For a secular leftist, any immoral act is permissible. Their rule is “do what you like, and don’t get caught”.
Not all secular leftists are fascists, to be sure. But their worldview does seem to lend itself to narrow-mindedness and intolerance.
Here’s a video in which Frank Turek explains how he was firfed by Cisco and Bank of America for supporting traditional marriage.
This video got me thinking – which companies would support firing people who support traditional marriage?
The Human Rights Campaign
You may have seen a logo on car bumpers that feature a yellow equal sign on a purple background. That logo is the logo of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposes traditional marriage and believes that children do not deserve to grow up with their biological mother or biological father. They also believe in firing people who support traditional marriage, as we shall see below.
Larry Grard admits he had “a lapse in judgment.” But Grard – who’s been a reporter for thirty-five years, the last eighteen of them at the Morning Sentinel in Waterville – says the e-mail he sent from his personal account to a national gay rights group shouldn’t have been grounds for his dismissal.
Grard was fired by Bill Thompson, editor of the Sentinel and its sister paper the Kennebec Journal in Augusta, shortly after the Nov. 3 election in which Maine voters repealed a same-sex marriage law approved by the Legislature. Grard said he arrived at work the morning after the vote to find an e-mailed press release from the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C., that blamed the outcome of the balloting on hatred of gays.
Grard, who said he’d gotten no sleep the night before, used his own e-mail to send a response. “They said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I’m a Christian. I take offense at that,” he said. “I e-mailed them back and said basically, ‘We’re not the ones doing the hating. You’re the ones doing the hating.’
“I sent the same message in his face he sent in mine.”
Grard thought his response was anonymous, but it turned out to be anything but. One week later, he was summoned to Thompson’s office. He was told that Trevor Thomas, deputy communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, had Googled his name, discovered he was a reporter, and was demanding Grard be fired. According to Grard, Thompson said, “There’s no wiggle room.”
He was immediately dismissed.
[…]The week after Grard was fired, he said, his wife, Lisa, who wrote a biweekly food column for the Sentinel as a freelancer, received an e-mail informing her that her work would no longer be needed.
That’s what the Human Rights Campaign does.
Companies that support the Human Rights Campaign
I found a list of companies on the Human Rights Campaign web site that are also strongly oppose traditional marriage. Presumably, these are the companies that would fire people who support a child’s right to grow up with a mother and a father.
Platinum Partners:
American Airlines
Citi
Microsoft
Nationwide Insurance
VPI Pet Insurance
Gold Partners:
Bank of America
Deloitte
Ernst & Young LLP
Lexus
Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams
Prudential
Silver Partners:
Beaulieu Vineyard
BP
Caesars Entertainment
Chevron
Google
MGM Mirage
Nike
Bronze Partners:
Chase
Cox Enterprises
Cunard
Dell
Goldman Sachs
IBM
Macy’s Inc.
MetLife
Morgan Stanley
Orbitz
Paul Hastings
PwC
Replacements, Ltd.
Shell
Starbucks
TD Bank
Tylenol PM
And you can find the full listing of companies that promote discrimination against traditional marriage on the Human Rights Campaign web site. I notice that they have about 1 million people who like them on Facebook and 85 thousand Twitter followers.
Comments to this post will be strictly moderated in light of Obama’s signing of the hate crimes bill which prohibits free speech on controversial issues.
WINTERY KNIGHT 