As soon as Frank Turek's wrongful termination broke out, folks have been posting their addresses and responses to Cisco's bigotry. The following posting is the more recent update from Max Andrews' Sententia blog regarding this example of hypocrisy and intolerance. As we think about this, remember that those who cry for tolerance in the secular city are usually first to be intolerant to those who hold to a set of objective moral and philosophical truth claims. That is what we call hypocrisy and a hatred toward an absolute Moral Lawgiver.
Exclusive Diversity – More Thoughts on Frank Turek and Cisco’s Discrimination
Soon after hearing about Frank Turek’s wrongful termination by Cisco Systems I blogged about the situation in hopes of getting this information out for as many people to hear as I could reach. Hundreds have since read my post and it has been shared by many organizations and individuals (thanks for sharing the news!). Recently, I discovered acomment that was left on this post by Kathleen, which stated,
You seemed to be confused about what diversity is. It doesn’t mean a company is going to welcome skinheads, white surpremacists [sic] or anti-gay bigots.
Actually Turek’s book qualifies as hate speech based upon its consistent use of lies and plagiarism. No one has to employ a lying bigot.
This is incredible. I couldn’t help but shake my head at such horrible logic, intolerance, and hypocrisy. Those who march under the banner of diversity and tolerance are the same ones who are just as or more intolerant than anyone else. I’m not anti-diversity nor am I anti-tolerance. Diversity is crucial for many things. Diversity increases flow of perspective and thought in the free marketplace of ideas. Diversity allows for a greater increase of making catalysts for attaining goals of an organization or group. I certainly do my best to tolerate others as well. However, tolerance is not the same as acceptance. Tolerance is allowing others to hold the opinions and ideas that they may have.
Acceptance is embracing those opinions and ideas. These two commenters who maliciously attack Dr. Turek are ignorant of what tolerance and diversity really mean. If they claim to be proponents of such ideas, then they're speaking out of both ends of their mouth. This whole "hates speech" deal is just ridiculous. Does having an opinion that doesn't accept an idea or practice, in Dr.Turek's case, homosexual marriage, qualify as hate speech? I don't think so. The whole idea of "hate speech" is just off in my opinion anyways. People can say whatever they want, if it's hateful, then they the freedom to do so, but it shouldn't be criminalized. Many proponents of the homosexual marriage lobby need to check their words and their ideas before accusing others of being intolerant, hateful, or non-diverse lest they backfire.