The database is a tool used with the intent of reporting those who, agreeably, have posted vile and disgusting remarks about Charlie Kirk's assassination in order to get them fired from their job.
No, you have misunderstood the intent of the site. The intent is that the published opinions of people expressing vile opinions about the public murder of Charlie Kirk in front of his wife and daughter can be aggregated in one place, so that anyone who wants to can check if someone they know has published such vile opinions. That can include employers, but it is not limited to employers.
The morality of that intent is what's in question, in reference to the Biblical command and presupposition that work is necessary for one to be worthy of eating.
You're reversing the sense of 2 Thess. 3:10 -- the logical implication is from non-work to non-eating. You're trying to affirm the converse, that is, you're trying to affirm the implication from (an assumed imperative of) eating to work. This is a compound fallacy, as you're assuming multiple facts not in evidence in 2 Thess. 3:10 (and, indeed, nowhere in Scripture). There is no imperative to eat. If you want to eat, you must work. If you do not work (and do not eat), that is your choice.
This is not biblical reasoning about moral causality. If you commit a crime, and I report your crime, I did not "cause you to be jailed", you caused yourself to be jailed by committing the crime.
In general, I am "anti-snitch", but snitching is taking information
without consent. The consent here was already given by the individual publishing the information. This website is just an aggregation of that published information.
which will affect their household income and budgets (especially in a negative way in this current weak economy), for speech which hasn't murdered a victim is very extreme.
Yeah, I just absolutely disagree. In fact, I see your view on this as the extreme one.
There are other ways of dealing with hateful or vulgar speech besides using it to prevent others from providing for their dependents, which can, itself, lead to death.
Suppose, for a moment, that one of these purple-haired creatures have made spawn, despite the many ways they render themselves infertile, and suppose that they are actually
working to feed that spawn (doubly unlikely). In the unlikely event that some child's parent lost their job as a result of publishing vile information online there are THREE remedies available to avoid "death": 1) Get another job even if at McDonalds. 2) Apply for unemployment / child-nutrition assistance. (That's supposedly what all this leftist "social justice" is for, right?) 3) Adopt the child to family or a Christian home. So, no, the idea that this is somehow an attack on children is itself a ludicrous and extreme view.
Though I agree that employers can fire employees at their discretion and prerogative, it seems a bit draconian to actively archive expressions of speech which are detestable,
Absolutely not draconian. Here is what Scripture says about speech:
"Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
(James 3:5-10)
See the highlighted portion, "these things OUGHT NOT so to be", that is, God in his word actively prohibits them.
It is for this reason that most Christian states in history have used the force of the magistrate to silence blasphemy of God, and other such vile speech in the public square. The reason that does not work is that you cannot use the methods of Satan to stop the message of Satan, see John 18:36.
There is a simple solution to the problem of ending up in a database like this: don't publish vile speech.
with the intent to share those expressions of speech with a given employer, in order to take away the person's means of income, without which the employer may have never known about those expressions.
The highlighted bit is negligible these days. Most large employers pay "corporate intelligence" companies to do social-media search on their employees and so anyone with any lick of sense should
assume that their employer can indeed see what they put online.
Yes, we all will give an account before God for our words, but we also need to have some measure of grace and wisdom in dealing with those who spew vile things online, understanding that the central problem is their heart, not their place of employment.
This part I agree with. But you're not completing the thought all the way --- these kinds of things were once the primary domain of the church, not the State, and by banishing the church (by and large) from public life in our brave new "secular" world, we have taken away the regulatory mechanism that was suited to handling these kinds of issues with grace and wisdom. So, instead, you get merciless government and private technological measures. There is no grace in them. There is no discernment. They just judge without mercy. Kind of like the wrath of God...
www.charliesmurderers.com
