The New Age of Conformity

Phil Jensen


Obey_2For six years, I was given free reign to write from an explicitly Christian perspective on any issue at a new national news site, I published irenic opinion pieces or newsy articles about current events, including gay marriage, transgenderism, and the legal harassment of Christians.

Just after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling, I was chosen as a reliable news source for direct publication to the Google news-search cycle. I was the fourth-most read author in the Western region and twelfth in the nation (out of over three hundred writers).

But after publishing the truth about gay marriage, I lost my side job as a news writer.

Rick Kriebel 2016


After Obergefell, I had cranked out five articles in six days. That last day I published my last article, “The increasing marginalization of Christianity and why it is a good thing.” Thirty minutes later my inbox had the dreaded email: “[Your] content is not the right fit.” It was so unfit that they deleted all six-years’ worth of my articles.

I was not surprised. It was a fitting warning for a new age of conformity. They had the legal right to lay me off for any undisclosed reason. Other writers had their anti-Obergefell articles removed as well.

I am not a martyr. I am not complaining. But I am urging Christians to “watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong.Let all that you do be done with love” (1Cor. 16:13).



Woodrow Wilcox


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Pastor Shawn Mathis is the pastor of Providence Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He writes representing his own views, not necessarily those of his church or denomination. His focus includes homeschooling, the Christian roots of American legal rights and practical apologetics.
Shawn Mathis
View all articles by Shawn Mathis
Print Friendly
  • DCM7

    Once again, it is the anti-Christian side that has to censor opposing views and bully people into silence. That should speak volumes to anyone who wonders who to, and who not to, listen to.

    • franklinb23

      It’s why I immediately call out any insane references to “hate speech laws” (which would never pass anyhow). You only hear this from the Left, and while they think they’re well-intentioned, it can only lead to a complete shut-down of intellectual inquiry and free speech of any kind. After all, what’s simply honesty to one person is offensive to another.

  • Thisoldspouse was perfectly free to fire the author for any reason they deemed appropriate, but God help the Christian news organization if they dismiss a homosexual for the exact same rationale.

    • DCM7

      Well, that’s what you can expect in the world of double standards, “freedom for me but not for thee,” and “tolerance” toward all (as long as they’re in agreement).

  • improbus

    It would be interesting to see what Shawn’s concept of “the truth” was. We hear the word “truth” bandied about so much by racists, conspiracy theorists, politicians, and self-styled journalists, that you can’t just say “the truth” without giving details. We would need to see for ourselves if your truth was truly irenic, or if it could be construed as violating the laws against hate speech.

    I, too, was the voice crying in the wilderness at a conservative web site, stating my opinion politely and calmly, only to be met with derision, condescension, and outright aggression. I was eventually blocked for questioning the accepted truth (on that site) about the Supreme Court decision. All of my posts were deleted.

    They were within their right to do so, but if a site can’t handle opposing opinion without resorting to extreme measures, then maybe it’s a little insecure of its own truth.

    • DCM7

      “you can’t just say ‘the truth’ without giving details”
      I’ve found that some truth will be questioned and argued against by people who don’t want to accept it, regardless of the level of detail with which it can be supported or the simple clarity of the relevant facts. Ours has become a world where any sufficiently unpopular truth will be officially treated as if it were indisputably false.

      This is largely because people insist on believing what they want to believe. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone who didn’t think certain things were true, but would have really liked it if they were. I’m personally most likely to respect and believe someone if they believe things that aren’t convenient for them and require significant changes from them, for the sake of a greater good (which is basically the essence of the Judeo-Christian ethic).

      “a conservative web site… met with derision, condescension, and outright aggression”
      Even allowing for the fact (which you’ve demonstrated) that you’re not likely to be in agreement with much at such a site, I can say that I’ve been to conservative sites where there’s some very harsh (and often not very mature) talk coming from people on *both* sides of an issue. I stay away from such places myself. I’ve often found that I can technically be in agreement with someone’s basic position, but can also be in strong disagreement with how they express it.

      • improbus

        “Ours has become a world where any sufficiently unpopular truth will be officially treated as if it were indisputably false.”
        I don’t know about that. If someone were to say, “This is the truth about 9/11” – for many people, the first thought is, “Here’s another conspiracy theory.” So many unusual ideas are cloaked in the guise of “the truth,” and we’re surrounded with that every day, it’s healthy to be a little skeptical, even when it seems, prima facie, to agree with your own viewpoint.

        “Given that such laws are often there more for the purpose of silencing dissenting opinions than anything else”
        I think that’s not the intent of such laws, but that’s what you believe to be true. I actually agree that such laws could be abused.
        However, if the title of his article were “The Truth About Jews” or “The Truth About McDonalds,” you’d be reasonably certain that you are not going to get an unbiased opinion about either subject. The former could contain racism and be considered hate speech, and the latter could possibly be libellous. The former could expose a publisher to criminal prosecution; the latter could expose a publisher to civil action. Either way, the publisher would no doubt prefer to err on the side of caution.
        I would definitely agree with your last paragraph. Both sides of your political fence are so polarized, it’s ridiculous. And yes, it doesn’t do anybody’s position any good when you have a loose cannon on either side. Although you have expressed yourself strongly in our conversations, I would say that at least you have been civil (in my recollection), and I appreciate that.

        • DCM7

          “if the title of his article were ‘The Truth About Jews’ or ‘The Truth About McDonalds,’ you’d be reasonably certain that you are not going to get an unbiased opinion about either subject.”
          It’s “true” (ha!) that “truth” is a frequently misused word. That doesn’t mean, of course, that everyone who uses it (even in certain ways) is misusing it, or that truth isn’t knowable where controversial subjects are involved.

          “it’s healthy to be a little skeptical”
          Everyone’s skeptical about something, and most people who are skeptical about certain things have other things that they’re far too un-skeptical about. This is especially applicable to those who apply the term “skeptic” to themselves.

      • jmsarxt

        TMI!!! Please take a breath!!

    • Thisoldspouse

      What difference would anyone’s definition of “truth” make related to Shawn’s retention at the news site? You are interjecting a red herring, and a pretty obvious one.

      The fact is that those in charge didn’t like what he was saying, and what he was saying is provably in agreement with the views of a majority of the world’s population. If you want “truth” to be arrived at by consensus, then there you go.

      • improbus

        New avatar? Looks spiffy.
        Not sure how it’s a red herring. He suggested that he wrote a story about “the truth.” The article is, according to him, the cause of his dismissal. If he had said, “I wrote an article called the Truth about the Jews,” you might have second thoughts about championing his cause. If he said, “I wrote an article called the Truth about the Muslims,” I would hope you would want to at least consider what he wrote before leaping to his defence. Did he say something completely indefensible, or did he say something inconvenient and not PC?
        That was my point about the “truth.” Without seeing the article, you just don’t know the whole story. You can make assumptions, and your assumptions may be correct.
        For myself, I wouldn’t rush to judgment. I think the Facebook comment guy said it well. “What truth was he telling about marriage that they don’t already know?”

    • Yes, lots of liars and con artists talk of “the truth.” It’s a good way to deceive people into thinking you’re selling it to them.

      Nevertheless, there IS a truth, and the fact that bad people attempt to mislead others from it should not leave us cynical about its existence.

      We’ve seen how you “state your opinion politely and calmly,” which rational people quickly realize as overt hostility for the truth, even when the truth is backed up with large amounts of fact and logic. It’s the same sort of denial that the Examiner has descended to.

      As Thisoldspouse has pointed out, as a private business, the Examiner had every right to dismiss Shawn Mathis because he told a truth that made them uncomfortable.

      But Mathis also has a right-even an obligation-to warn others that in doing so, the Examiner has declared itself to be an enemy of the truth, the U.S. Constitution, and the American way of life. The evidence of the utter corruption and anti-Americanism of the Obergefell opinion is overwhelming.

      • improbus

        I don’t know if being skeptical is cynicism. As I said in another reply, it’s healthy to be a little skeptical, even when it seems, prima facie, to agree with your own viewpoint. Otherwise, you may find yourself agreeing to something you didn’t really want to.
        I wouldn’t say I have been overtly hostile in my conversations here. I have expressed my opinion calmly, and I have rejected your arguments probably more politely than you have rejected mine. If you wish to imply any hostility towards your version of the truth, I would have to say it’s more subtle than overt.
        I’m sure the link you supplied would be interesting reading; however, just from its title alone (“Firebombing…”), I can tell that it may not be entirely impartial.

        • Yes, you have been hostile toward the truth and reality in your short stint of spreading Leftist propaganda at this website. The error and fallacy of your opinions has been laid waste by a wealth of facts, only to have you turn your nose up at them like a finicky cat.

          A rational person would look at facts when presented to them, come to terms with them, and admit “I was wrong.”

          But like the petulant, spoiled child that all liberals are, you would rather deny truth than bring yourself into conformity with it.

          As I mentioned on another thread, this website exits to provide information to people who pursue truth, whether they have already found it and want to know more, or are looking for it. It is not an opportunity for you to spread lies and attempt to mislead people who are interested in the truth. We’re not into games here; what we examine is far too important to trivialize. You couldn’t take a hint earlier and behave with more maturity, and I don’t have time attempt to educate fence posts, so your time here is at an end.

          Let me know if you’re ever willing to accept reality.

  • franklinb23

    I looked for Shawn’s articles online. One of them detailed how he believed legalized gay marriage would necessarily lead to legalized polygamy.
    Whether this is true from a legal perspective, I can’t say. I’m not a lawyer.
    Is it “true” from a social perspective, though?
    I look at it this way: it’s currently completely legal for one man to shack up and live with multiple women. Is this culturally a norm, though? I haven’t seen it. Ever. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just seems to be a fringe human behavior despite its legality. Why would legalizing these “unions” as marriages increase its likelihood?
    Further, who are the folks that seem to be pushing for it? Fundamentalist adherents to the Mormon religion, that’s who. If we say we believe in almost unlimited “religious freedom”, on what grounds do we reject their request to legalize their unions (which they believe brings them closer to Jesus)? Further, if you read the Biblical analysis of numerous conservative religious scholars, most will concede that while polygamy was never considered the ideal, it was never explicitly condemned throughout the Old Covenant (and sometimes even commanded in the case of Levirate marriage).
    Now before you folks start shrieking at me: I find polygamy repugnant and misogynistic. It’s stupid for women to allow other women to share their bed. I can also think of legal reasons how it can still be denied.
    I’m just saying that I don’t see a link between gay marriage and polygamy. Apples and oranges. It’s an opinion, sure. Is it true? Speculation can’t really be true until it’s fact.