Gaystopo tactics in Newton
And I fear that the forces of Leftist totalitarianism have reached even Newton.
Bob Eschliman is a Christian- and the former editor of the Newton Daily News. The News fired him Friday for writing an article in his personal blog criticizing "the Queen James Bible," a falsified version of the Bible which writes out its condemnation of homosexuality.
Eschilman- quite properly- is suing the News. The News had this bizarre editorial response:
“The First Amendment does not eliminate responsibility and accountability for one’s words and actions,” Rung wrote. “While he [Bob] is entitled to his opinion, his public airing of it compromised the reputation of this newspaper and his ability to lead it.”
Huh? How could the reputation of the newspaper be compromised by a criticism of a tasteless, insensitive, and blatantly inaccurate and dishonest exercise like the "Queen James Bible?" Seems to me that its firing of Eschilman not only compromises the reputatation of the News, but destroys any argument that can be made for its journalistic integrity.
The bottom line is that Eschilman is the latest Christian to lose his job for publicly expressing disagreement with the Leftist sexual agenda. I trust that nobody seriously believes that he would have been fired for expressing approval of the tasteless and dishonest parody of the Scriptures his blog entry criticized!
Make no mistake: the current struggle over how society relates to homosexuality and whether disapproval of a behavior is tantamount to prejudice or discrimination against those who engage in it isn't just about sexual mores. The Eschilman case simply drives home once again the critical point that whether it's a newspaper editor being fired for expressing a politically incorrect (though quite reasonable) opinion, or the national Administration carrying on a systematic attack on the religious beliefs of those with whom it disagrees, the First Amendment is what is at stake here.
What's at stake is our way of life, and the freedom to dissent even in the public expression of one's religious beliefs.
Or, as in Eschilman's case, even in objecting to an insensitive, tasteless, and intellectually dishonest public insult to those beliefs.
The patently dishonest "Queen James Bible" can be found here. And no- those other passages aren't matters of "interpretation."
They're matters of those responsible for the Queen James Bible "translating" dishonestly. Moreover, one wonders how many passages expressly and clearly condemning homosexual behavior would be necessary before the perpetrators of the QJB decide that they really mean what they say!
And neither, btw, can one "choose" Jesus. Faith is God's gift through the (unfalsified) Word, not- American cultural semi-Pelagianism to the contrary- of our "decision."