Brendan Eich is the inventor of the JavaScript computer programming language and co-founder of Mozilla. He is a big fish in Silicon Valley. On March 24 he was appointed CEO of Mozilla. But, at the very beginning of April, barely 10 days after his appointment, he was forced to resign.
On appointment, a number of Mozilla employees and users started a campaign on the more-often-than-not manipulated people’s courts of Twitter and other social networks. OKCupid, which advertises itself as the best free dating site on earth, replaced its usual homepage for users logging in with Firefox with a note suggesting they not use Mozilla’s software to access the site.
Why this umbrage?
Did the directors discover that Eich was defrauding the company perhaps of millions of dollars? Was he discovered to be a closet paedophile? Was he breaking down under the pressure of leading such an important company? Was he technically and managerially incompetent?
Eich was guilty of none of the above.
But he was found guilty of much more nefarious and reprehensible behaviour. This being a family paper I hope the editor will let me mention his crime that (probably) dare not speak its name. In 2008, Eich contributed the princely sum of €723 (Yes, just €723!) to support the campaign that was lobbying California’s voters to cast their ballot in a referendum in favour of the party advocating marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Eich’s meagre contribution abetting the democratic process, together with his exercise of the fundamental right for association and for free speech, raised the ire of sections of the gay lobby which seven years later reacted with this vindictive and abject act of intolerance that led to his forced resignation.
Stereotypically, such intolerance would be associated more with the fundamentalism of the Bible Belt than the liberalism of open-minded (sic) Californians. It is really a case of the meeting of extremes. The reveille seems to be: secular fundamentalist and religious fundamentalists of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your intolerance. [And please do not forget to hug the cabal of Maltese pseudo-liberal fundamentalists.]
Back home we have the Maltese equivalent of the Bible Belt ‘Christianity Pastor Gordon-John Manché. I shiver in disgust every time I hear him speak. His hypothesising about a possible divine interference causing the unfortunate incident that befell Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Labour Party supporters (all of whom I wish rapid healing) borders on the blasphemous. If what Manché says is Christianity I will become an atheist tomorrow.
But what I feel about Manché does not in any way lessen my resolve to defend his right to embark on his now well-known initiative about adoptions by gay couples.
Manché is totally within his rights to gather signatures to lobby politicians to refrain from allowing adoptions by gay couples. His actions are a legitimate example of popular democracy in action.
I would say the same thing about him (or someone else for that matter) had he decided to gather signatures to approve of gay adoptions. Even that would be an exercise of popular democracy. On the other hand, those who say Manché has no right to do what he did are being intolerant.
Probably many of those who deny Manché’s right to propose his initiative were ferociously defending Brian May’s right to urge the Maltese to vote against spring hunting. Whether one agrees or not with May’s position (I happen to agree strongly) his right to say what he said cannot be denied. Criticising May is a right but trying to negate his right to say it is intolerance.
It is very clear that intolerance and the persecution it often begets, is not the exclusive property of any political or religious persuasion. It is also true that those on the receiving end belong to different political, religious or non-religious persuasion.
But the truth of the matter is that wherever the right to freedom of conscience and religion is trampled on, Christians are the one group always being persecuted.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently went as far as to say that Christians are the most persecuted group in the world today. New incidents of persecution of Christians are reported almost every day. Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Sudan, Iran, Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and to a lesser extent, some European countries are among the culprits.
Some readers may be surprised that I mentioned European countries among the offending countries. Those who visit the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians will find several examples where Christians are denied equal rights and where they are socially marginalised in some European countries.
Such marginalisation takes different forms: religion is relegated to the purely private sphere; the public celebration of Christian festivals is discouraged; Christians in public roles are sometimes expected to act against their conscience.
The Church’s retreat from the public sphere is lamentable indeed
While this is going on, many among us seem oblivious to the suffering and persecution affecting many Christians of different persuasions in many countries around the world. Worst still, most live in a state of complete denial about the existence of religiously motivated persecution.
This has been going on for a very long time. Former British prime minister Tony Blair was quoted as saying in March 2009 that we are living in an age that is ‘aggressively secularist’ and that there is the risk that people see faith just as a personal eccentricity. It was his own spin doctor, Alastair Campbell who interrupted Blair with “We don’t do God” when Blair was speaking about his faith.
This type of mentality has been creeping and assuming prominence in Malta. Attempts to privatise religion, the de facto denial of a place for it in the public sphere (barring charitable activities and ritualistic presence on state occasions) and branding of Christian positions as bigoted are among the manifestations of the tactics of the pseudo-liberal lobby.
Truth be told I am not unduly worried by these developments. What really worries me is the mentality present in an ever increasing number of Church people in high and low positions that the Church should be mainly involved with the salvation of disincarnate souls, an activity which mainly happens in the temple or in limited and well-defined spaces and periods.
The Church’s retreat from the public sphere is lamentable indeed.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt