No one's going to rag on the post's author for labeling himself "Christian" right at the top? He might have donated to Prop. 8 after all.
Edit: That's sarcasm, people.
Edit: That's sarcasm, people.
No one (that I've seen, anyway) is ragging on Brendan Eich for being a Christian. I don't even know whether he is, although it's a fair guess given his decision to support Proposition 8.
Many people are saying that Eich's support of Proposition 8 is a bad thing, makes him a bad choice for CEO of Mozilla, discourages them from using Mozilla's products, etc.
Attacking someone for being a Christian: religious bigotry based on disapproving of someone simply on the basis of their identity. Generally a bad thing.
Attacking someone for supporting Proposition 8: disapproval based on what the person has actually done and its likely consequences. No reason why it shouldn't be a reasonable thing.
This doesn't seem to me to be a very subtle distinction.
(Aside: I do find it curious that of the four people who first come to mind when I think of Mozilla -- Mitchell Baker, Gervaise Markham, Robert O'Callahan, Brendan Eich -- two are rather vocally Christian (gerv's blog is called "Hacking for Christ"!) and a third has become infamous for an action that's probably the result of a similar religious position. Just coincidence?)
An example more extreme than Brendan Eich's: Suppose someone is a devout Christian but also rather deranged, and believes that the Bible is full of coded messages telling him to kill (say) school biology teachers. So he goes and kills a bunch of school biology teachers. If I say "That was a terrible thing to do and he shouldn't have done it", that doesn't mean that I am going to hate on everyone else who is a devout Christian -- because, as it happens, plenty of people manage to be devout Christians without murdering biology teachers.
Perhaps (so far as I know this is pure speculation) Brendan Eich is a Christian and the particular variety of Christianity he adheres to tells him to try to stop same-sex couples' relationships being legally recognized. If so, then I think the particular variety of Christianity he adheres to is leading him to do harmful things and I wish he would stop. But that doesn't require me to object on principle to everyone who is a Christian, not least because plenty of people manage to be Christians without trying to stop same-sex couples' relationships being legally recognized.
Now, let us suppose there is a Christian denomination that has opposition to same-sex marriage as a central part of its teaching, and that does not permit anyone to belong to it unless they work to oppose same-sex marriage, including making financial contributions to campaigns like the one for Proposition 8. And suppose it turns out that some particular person is a member in good standing of that denomination. Then I'm quite happy following the following line of thought: This person belongs to that denomination; belonging to it means being a fervent opponent of same-sex marriage and contributing to campaigns against same-sex marriage; therefore this person has almost certainly done things I consider harmful and antisocial; so much the worse for this person. You may, if you please, consider this anti-religious bigotry. If so, I invite you to consider the following two questions. (1) Is it possible for a religion (or some particular version of a religion) to be morally harmful to its practitioners? (2) If you learned that someone was a member in good standing of an Islamic sect that had glorification of terrorism as a central doctrine, would you think worse of them as a result?
I have some hypotheses (e.g. Johnny doesn't blog, so isn't as "famous"), but I'm curious whether you have any yourself.