Why does Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper hate Christians?
By Bold SonFor some reason, Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic.net, an ISP based in Northern California - @dane - enjoys slipping in occasional, and sometimes nonsensical, jabs at Christians, pro-lifers, and the Religious Right in his Twitter feed.
Why he thinks this is a good idea is for anyone to guess. He must either
- presume that no one listening to him is a Christian, nor is anyone offended by the ridiculing thereof; or
- think it’s good business to make fun of an entire culture in a way completely unrelated to his industry; or
- think that Christians do not deserve the same respect as other cultures.
Is this a trend? A marketing strategy?
Most likely he assumes that any person in California intelligent enough to read his posts shares his views.
This is not the case, Mr. Jasper. Perhaps you could tone it down.
Ellen Ska. Said,
March 13, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Many politicians have a lukewarm faith, in name only, because it is nearly impossible for an “out” atheist to be elected, no matter how ethical they are or even if religious people share their political views. So I can tell you why it’s a good idea for Dane Jasper to express his opinions about a religion he considers nonsensical and illogical: atheism is persecuted in this country. More power to Dane Jasper and other “out” atheists who are practicing and thus protecting freedom of speech and religion in our great country.
I follow Dane Jasper on Twitter, and though I don’t share his atheism, I have not found him to be either hateful or ridiculing. Instead, you are trying to damage HIS business because he resists efforts to make the dominant religion into law for believers and nonbelievers alike.
Bold Son Said,
March 13, 2009 @ 11:57 am
I agree about politicians with lukewarm faith.
I think it’s great for anyone to express their opinions about anything, religion, politics, etc.
I don’t understand why someone would choose to publicly link their business with political views like this.
To link to this image and call it a win is, I believe, both hateful and ridiculing.
If I linked to an image that said “Wash your hands after touching homosexuals” or “Wash your hands after touching Muslims,” no one would deny that this is hateful and ridiculing.
You and Dane Jasper seem to believe that all or most Christians are attempting “to make the dominant religion into law for believers and nonbelievers alike.” I can only assume you’re referring to Prop 8. Logical debate is crucial for our society to continue to function. Ridiculing those whose opinions differ from one’s own only contributes to polarization.
I’m not saying that Dane is the only one who participates in this. I’m saying that he is *one* who participates in it, and that it makes poor business sense.
Elliott Guild Said,
March 13, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Regardless of what is supposedly bad or good (look up Hamlet’s line for that), I’m skeptical that any hominid is able to truly embody the characteristics of an atheist or a believer of any stripe. It is all solopsistic behavior, transitioning eventually into the traditional definition of faith in the unseen.
Bold Son Said,
March 13, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
A human’s inability to flawlessly embody a worldview does not preclude the worldview’s accuracy.
Elliott Guild Said,
March 13, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
My point exactly. I’m an agnostic.
Ellen Ska. Said,
March 14, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
Jon Carroll (of the San Francisco Chronicle) wrote an insightful column several years ago, http://tinyurl.com/bobhbw, called “Nothing is Not Funny,” which has stuck with me all this time, in which he posits that something is funny to you if you laugh, even if you know it isn’t politically correct and you shouldn’t be laughing. Worth reading.
A sign about washing up after touching Christians exists, Dane thought it was funny, Dane posted it. You didn’t laugh; you found it offensive. But at least recognize that there are many people who do find it funny, and others who find blonde jokes funny, or cancer jokes, or the one about the rabbi, the priest, and the Easter Bunny. Ridiculing, yes; hateful, no.
The ethical thing about Dane Jasper is that he doesn’t censor himself based on what’s good for business; that is; he doesn’t pretend to be a different (or “better”) human being than he is. I find that a consistent and ethical stance. He won’t be a hypocrite about being an atheist, any more than you should pretend not to be a Christian when it’s inconvenient.
My own experience is that many (most?) evangelical Christians DO think God’s Law should be the law of America, and they will argue it on that basis. They believe that God talks to them specially, that they are the favorite children, and that God likes them better than He likes His other children. They vote for politicians solely on the basis of religion. Prop 8 and other marriage laws, the Ten Commandments in courthouses, “In God We Trust” on money, prayers at high school sporting games, swearing oaths on the Bible, gays being beaten and murdered as “abominations,” anti-abortion laws, unequal adoption laws — and then that stripe of conservative Christian complains that their religion is under persecution if my sister is allowed to marry her partner, because it undermines their own marriage? Give me a break.
Personally, I didn’t find the “wash your hands after touching Christians” funny, and I wouldn’t post it myself because I have dear family members who are Christian. But I am glad that Dane Jasper won’t be thrown in jail because he did, and this is the kind of right that has to be tested by some in order to be available to all.
Walter Galt Said,
March 15, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
For the sake of conversation I thought I would point out a few things in your comment:
1) No one ever advocated Dane being “thrown in jail” for anything regarding his posts. His right to free speech would be defended vigorously by any member of this site.
2) While Dane certainly has the right to voice his opinion (ethically or not) about a specific group he disagrees with, that doesn’t make it smart business practice, which was Bold Son’s (the post-er, not the site in general) point in the first place. From a business perspective, it’s a terrible idea.
There’s a vast difference between not being a hypocrite and holding to your beliefs, and going out of your way to say things that at the very least show little class. Again, as Bold Son said, what if the sign had said “wash after touching Muslims” or “wash after touching homosexuals” or “wash after touching Democrats”. There would be hell to pay, and we all know it.
3) Wow, stereotype much? That’s quite a brush you’ve painted many/most Evangelical Christians with.
Bold Son Said,
March 16, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Your paragraph starting with “My own experience” is powerful and pretty much inarguable, since you’re saying that this has been your experience. All I can say is that this is a terrible, tragic thing that you have gone through.
If evangelical Christian means someone who believes Jesus is the only way to eternal salvation and that they need to get this message out (or something along those lines), it is quite a leap to say that many/most Christians believe all of the things above. If you’d like I can try to parse and rebut each of your points but that will do little to heal the major wounds that individual Christians, or Christian talking heads, have inflicted upon you.
I understand the tendency to lump together individuals/communities (and their visible flaws) with their belief system, but I would encourage you to attempt to address them separately. Just like some of Hitler’s stances were evolutionary natural selection gone horribly awry, and we should not therefore conclude that all evolutionists want to commit genocide, the original claims of Christianity should not be cast aside because there are some misguided individuals who claim to be believers.
J Norman Marsh Said,
March 17, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
I’m way late to the conversation. Only points I have to add:
1.) “Many (most?) evangelical Christians DO think God’s Law should be the law of America…”
I think most Christians realize the importance of religious freedom in this country and would never seek to eliminate the rights of Muslims, Buddhists, et. al from practicing their religion in public and private. However, to expect Christians to separate themselves between private and public spheres - believing that certain actions/behaviors are wrong (privately), but then vote in such a way that encourages such actions/behaviors (publicly) - is impossible for someone who actually believes in Christianity. If one’s religion is simply play-acting on Sunday morning, then this isn’t a problem (eg. the politicians you’re talking about), but for true believers, it would be impossible. I’m the same Christian in my home that I am when I enter the voting booth: flawed and imperfect, wholly dependent on God.
2.) “…and they will argue [God's law being the law of America] on that basis.”
There are both religious and non-religious arguments for/against many of the political issues you mentioned. Clearly, you don’t appreciate the religious arguments - and that’s fine - but there are other reasons to be for/against such issues beyond “God talks to [us] specially.”
J Norman Marsh Said,
March 17, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
And real Biblical Christianity - for the faults of all of its followers - does not, should not and will never endorse “gays being beaten and murdered as ‘abominations.’”
Any Christian who endorses that opinion, like anyone else, is absolutely wrong: Biblically, morally, spiritually, ethically and any other descriptor you’d like to throw in for good measure.
Just didn’t want anyone to think I was including that sentence when I wrote that “there are both religious and non-religious arguments for/against” such practices.
avid Said,
June 19, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Follow @sonicnet if you want messages related to the industry. I found Dane’s comments to be fairly mild, more pro-liberty than anti-christian. Do you want everyone who does any sort of business to engage in self censorship? How can Christians feel so persecuted and still claim to be in the majority?
In fact, a Christian can vote not to restrict others from doing things they feel are morally wrong. Only in a theocracy would the morals of any one religion align perfectly with the rights of its citizenry.
Bold Son Said,
June 19, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
avid, thank you for your comment!
There are lots of ways to be anonymous or private or protective about what sorts of information/updates you make online. To prominently display your high position in a company alongside tasteless jokes and political statements should be… legal! It should be… unrestricted! There is nothing illegal or wrong or punishable about what he did, and there never should be. Or else the USA becomes China, Iran, etc. in terms of horrific censorship. I agree with you completely.
I am merely stating that on a business/marketing/PR level, it seems odd to make a public profile saying you’re the CEO of a company, and post business- and industry-related comments commingled with insults against a group to which you do not claim to belong. That seems like a bad idea. The post was merely to point out that in a way, if you support Sonic.net, which does many many cool things, you are also supporting their CEO, who likes to bash Christians in a public forum. So what? Let the reader decide! Did I affect anyone’s perception of Dane or Sonic.net? Probably not. Did I libel him? I certainly hope not. I reprinted his statements along with some opinion/analysis.
I don’t really understand this question so I can’t answer it: “How can Christians feel so persecuted and still claim to be in the majority?”
“In fact, a Christian can vote not to restrict others from doing things they feel are morally wrong.” I’m not sure I understand this either. Anyone from any worldview can vote for anything that they want, and their moral views will certainly influence their decision. Whether it’s someone at the UN voting for sanctions on Sudan, or someone in California voting that the state should not recognize same sex marriage, anyone who votes does so with their own (subjective) view of reality. There’s no way to avoid that.
“Only in a theocracy would the morals of any one religion align perfectly with the rights of its citizenry.” This seems pretty off-topic, and a pretty common chorus among liberals when a conservative expresses his or her views. Did I say something should be outlawed? Did I say every Christian should boycott Sonic.net? I pointed out the kinds of comments he made, said they didn’t seem appropriate to be publicly associating with his company, and suggested he “tone it down.”
And might I add, whether influenced by this post or not, I have seen many fewer blatantly political or religious statements in his updates since I wrote this. Although I may not have been paying close enough attention!
Bold Son Said,
June 19, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Sorry I misread “…a Christian can vote not to restrict others…” as “can not vote” instead of “can vote not” - so I agree with your statement. And in terms of voting, it’s a pretty rare issue on which I would disagree with you. Just because something’s legal doesn’t mean it’s advisable or considerate though.
avid Said,
June 19, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
#12
Bold, It’s not bad business- I’d rather buy my internet from the libertarian atheist because I know they won’t mess with it.
You say you don’t support censorship- I’m ready to believe that. But large groups of Christians, the ones Dane seems to be referring to, have historically banded together to pass laws that restrict all kinds of personal freedom on moral grounds. In the category of sexual mores to which Gay Marriage belongs, Christian voting blocs have passed laws regarding Sex Ed in schools, Sex toys, public nudity, sex in funded art, pornography (2257 laws), prostitution, and a very strange definition of obscenity.
I like seeing a person in a (sort of) high position voice his opposition to Christian lawmakers. There are sure a lot of powerful people in much higher positions who are influential in the other direction. A lot of us aren’t in the position to voice our complaints against mainstream Christianity because we would be fired.
Face it, this post you made with its sensational “hates Christians” headline is a form of retribution. The suggestion that it is bad business practice is a veiled threat. And you suggest that your post has led to Dane voicing his political opinions less often. Great work!
Do you understand why I have a hard time seeing Christians as anything other than the persecutors?
Commenter #9 said:
“believing that certain actions/behaviors are wrong (privately), but then vote in such a way that encourages such actions/behaviors (publicly) - is impossible for someone who actually believes in Christianity”.
It’s not impossible. It’s the only way to be a good neighbor. I vote according to my reality, as you said, but I vote against any restrictions on others’ personal freedom except as necessary for society to function. And that’s the trouble with Christians…
Bold Son Said,
June 22, 2009 @ 9:57 am
“The suggestion that it is bad business practice is a veiled threat” - a veiled threat of what?
Yes the headline was sensational (would you have bothered reading it if it wasn’t? ;), and frankly the example posts were not the best. I have much less problem with the political comments as I do with the “wash hands after touching Christians.”
One of the most clearly enforced liberal-influenced politically-correct rules is that you do not publicly ridicule a group to which you do not belong, especially if you have strong disagreement with and/or disdain for the group. To harp on Christians for their generalized assumed political views is one thing, but to then take shots at them on a base level of “they are dirty/unclean” goes beyond expressing opinion to the realm of hatred. If I strongly disagree with the political views of the gay community, and speak out against them, then also post comments that one should wash hands after coming into contact with them, that certainly crosses the line of common decency and undermines any credibility that my arguments might have had.
Do people hate Rush Limbaugh (or better yet Michael Savage) because he’s calmly stating his political views and critiquing those with whom he doesn’t agree? No, they hate him because he’s a name-calling loudmouth blow-hard who never passes up a chance to ridicule the positions or personhood of anyone who disagrees with him. It’s his smug, condescending, attacks that offend people, not purely his political views.
Have you ever listened to Dennis Prager? He’s a much tougher guy to hate, because he tries to lay out the facts, & reasons through his positions.
I agree, there are people on the right, and on the left, who are pushing their agenda way too hard. And libertarian positions in my opinion are a solution to a lot of the mindless partisan rhetoric. But I do not believe that Dane’s comments fall strictly within the realm of libertarian positions, and they take on a very targeted and vicious tone.
And targeted viciousness is bad business.