We Should Have Kept Our Heads Down Rather Than Support Chick-fil-A
They ridicule us, threaten us, heckle us. On Wednesday, they sent us many wishes that we would choke and die on our chicken sandwiches. What about the hate that we feel from those actions? Are we supposed to keep our heads down in the face of actual hatred because others feel hatred when we defend ourselves? What actions would society allow of Christians under these circumstances?
I’ve seen keep-our-heads-down suggestions that we should merely buy chicken without fanfare and give it to charity. That wouldn’t offend anyone, correct? Actually, it was just such a donation that put Chick-fil-A in the culture crosshairs. From Michelle Malkin back in February 2011:
Over the past month, several progressive activist blogs have waged an ugly war against Chick-Fil-A. The company’s alleged atrocity: One of its independent outlets in Pennsylvania donated some sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which happens to oppose same-sex marriage.
Finally, we should be given credit for the nature of our protests, which typically support or champion an idea. But it doesn’t appear that society even notices the divide between the nature and goals of various protests.
With an enemy as powerful as the liberal MSM, it’s easy to understand how the goals of the protest will be misconstrued by society. Talking heads on MSM are not going to point out the 1st amendment champions on the right, they will spin the protest as maliciousness against homosexuals.
Maybe this was a poor fight to pick, maybe not, I don’t know.
Personally, the whole episode is extremely depressing to me.
Why isn’t the frightening youtube footage from Anaheim, CA all over the news? Where is the coverage of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in the news? Our nation is bankrupt, the cliff is dangerously close. Yet all we see is Chik-Fil-A on the mainstream media. If it is possible to reject the MSM culture war circus and redirect attention to issues of importance, that should be the goal.
Obama will win if the attention is on the small issues that good folk can disagree on. He will lose if the attention is on the big stuff that matters.
Well despite the msm hatefest seven hundred thousand showed their support while only abouth fifteen thousand showed up at the Pc event.
We are winning.
We can only pray that all the CfA supporters remember to vote in November, and in the same ratios.
The one word I didn’t see in the artical was “”tyranny”, defined as: tyr·an·ny (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.
This is, in essence, what the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco are practicing when they alone can decide which companies are allowed to do business in their towns. What they are doing is absolutely Un-American.
Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote. He has not gained followers.
My news circuit includes the Houston Chronicle because I’m a Houstonian, but I don’t know why I should bother. A week or so ago, when big news included the Olympics, the headline of chron.com was the Texans cheerleader tryouts. The day after Ted Cruz’s victory, chron.com went with the big jet and–I am not making this up–one of our local news anchor’s high school drill team pictures. Her 20th reunion is coming up. Cruz was the first item in State and Local about 4 sections down on the homepage. Today, however, the top story is the kiss-in. I think my neighborhood magazine is more useful than chron.com. Its a waste of load time. I need better local news.
That’s not the Houston Press, either. Earlier came this tweet: https://twitter.com/penguinponders/status/231752642043469824 for HPress kiss-in coverage. One of the employees had brought refreshments out to the protesters. A policeman was nearby, presumedly in the HPress’s words to protect the employee from the gayness. No. If he wanted to be protected from the “all the gayness”, he wouldn’t have brought them refreshments. The cop was likely there to prevent the protesters from being aggressive. After the vandalism and past experience with other leftist protests, protester aggressiveness is the concern.
Are you supporting the Chron by subscribing?
Certainly not! Just the website, which I only put on my rotation for local news. It’s not even good for that, really.
Artic Ave:
Who picked this fight?
Do a little research on the Vietnam War. The media drove the emotion and sentiment from their boardrooms with a Chinese joystick.
What’s changed? Only the technology, that enables faster transfer of their propaganda.
The American people are in an information war with the Democrat Party and their Soviet media.
The next Presidential election will not be for Obama, but for the the deliverance of the American People from the Democrat/Soviet Party domination. Obama is just their pawn.
Exceedingly well stated, Cybergeezer.
May I suggest some musical accompaniment? My favorite childhood hymns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9vkGf1vO3o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwW_sN_KDDk&feature=related
“Maybe this was a poor fight to pick”
Yes, somehow every conflict is rationalized as “a poor fight to pick”, or as is usually the case “a poor fight to defend ourselves in”
By their deeds ye shall know them.
Amen, brother!
The left will always hate the rest of us, no matter what we do, because that’s who they are. Their inner life (such as it is) is not our concern.
I found the show of support for Chick-Fil-A to be heartening. America finally stands up to leftist bullying!
You’re right. Leftists are of a mindset that if you oppose them you are evil and should be destroyed. People don’t seem to understand this about them. That’s because we’re looking at a political religion. Simply put the real adherents have rejected all religions as well as God just as Marx demanded and worship the state instead and the tenets of liberalism. It is a monotheistic and, at least as far as Christianity is concerned, is exclusive. This explains their hostility going so far as to call supporting traditional marriage hatred. It’s a clever psychological ploy actually to win people to their side and it has been working for decades.
Correctomundo. Additionally, the author is correct in that taking it without a fight is never going to get us anywhere. Most of us here were raised with the old adage “Never kick a man when he’s down”,but libs believe one should “Only kick a man when he’s down”. That’s why when you take it lying down,you’re playing right into their hands.
Here’s the deal, the left is loud,it’s partisan as hell,and it’s pretty ignorant,but it’s a paper tiger. They’re charging at us with BB guns and screaming bloody murder,they’ve got nothing.
Raise and call,we WILL win.
As a gun-toting atheist libertarian, I could pretty much care less whether gays marry or not, but the sort of Statist thuggery on display by the twinks in Chicago and Boston could not have gone unanswered. I stood a bit longer on line that day, but ended up ordering my usual.
When the gays can cook a better chicken sandwich at a comparable or better price, I’ll eat it!
It has been some time since I have called myself a believer, and I do not support Cathy’s position on gay marriage. Still, I regret not being in a market with a Chik-fil-a. I believe in the “fight to the death for your right to say it” attitude, so waiting two hours for a sandwich would have been a small price.
More to the point, I was taught that one should embrace persecution. It was doubly blessed to be despised in His name. Of you do not stand the line for what is right, you are not doing your job. Again, I don’t keep to the spiritual parts these days, but I do try to apply that attitude tourers being an American.
feelings of umbrage at the so called main stream media, is going main stream as well these days. calling this bunch of marxist cheerleaders journalists, is like calling a mule a thoroughbred. affirmative action and p.c. have all but destroyed any integrity one might have once attached to them. the fact that this line of crap (marxism) has infiltrated the faculty of once honorable schools of journalism just shows how far we have fallen as a society.
i just love to hear folks like juan williams and others rant at how the net folks (bloggers) are not up to standards. that may be true, but we have an excuse. what is their excuse for blindly following an obvious fraud? the bloggers were way out front on fast & furious. msm didn’t even want to cover it. still don’t. when i went to college (pre-aa/pc) they taught how to do honest research. maybe we should put an * next to their cred’s to signify lack of ethics and proper instruction.
Bad analogy, Dave. Your analogy is one of degree. One is better than the other.
The reality is quite different. Today’s MSM is the antithesis, the virulent opponent of journalism.
A better analogy would be this:
First they came for the chicken sandwich sellers, but I said nothing because I was not a chicken sandwich seller.
I knew someone would make that quip!
DEK;
I’ll buy that bumper sticker. You take PayPal?
Crucify the kulaks, make an example out of them…
Those who refuse to surrender, those who will not be broken must be sent to the psikhushka to be cured of the religious mental illness. The State shall be the only god.
Keep your heads down folks! Heads down! That’s the true American spirit. Heads down! Move along folks. Heads down! That’s the way a good comrad behaves! Now step into the boxcar.
If companies are people and people vote with dollars then the destination of the restaurant’s donations are open for public debate. It very well should be an issue as to where peoples’ hard-earned money goes after the chicken goes down their gullet. This issue has made our little feathered friend the modern martyr as Chick-fil-A laughs all the way to the bank. Watch the poultry be nailed to the cross and pierced by the spear of destiny at the hands of those devious cows on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08/holy-rollin-poultry-on-cross-chick-fil.html
Right you are:
Now, you have to post all your political affiliations and donations for public evaluation.
You’re just jealous because they can laugh all the way to the bank, and you have to snivel.
So, a group of people with a certain set of political ideals intended to boycott Chick-Fil-A and hurt them financially, and that is ok? But, when a group with an opposing viewpoint steps into offset the boycott, we are just fools who have inadvertently enriched a company who secretly mocks us? Do I have that right? Is it our fault the intended boycott turned out to be inept and toothless?
Anyone else wish “artists” would leave the politics to the people with educations?
Leslie: I don’t read the progressive blogs you refer to but for some reason don’t name. Will you please tell us who is saying to keep our heads down? When you warn against something you do a disservice when you are not forthcoming. You only create confusion.
I struggled with this one. The opinions came from two fronts. The first was a discussion thread on a facebook link to the ‘church failed today’ article, which has quite a thread of its own. Since that was FB, I do not feel it is appropriate to name names in this more public forum. The other is a blog, and not a progressive blog, but a blog of a missionary. That one was harder. I decided not to link because I thought the anger she might feel over a direct negative link would obscure the underlying argument and because someone else jumped in and made this basic case. (Actually, he said he was “forced to agree” with comments above, namely mine. I’m only tolerated over there so I try to push only on big issues, not because I care about my reputation but because constant argument is often counterproductive.) I read her often, so you could find her easily, but a direct link would shut her down, I fear.
So, you pulled a Harry with this article. Nice, very nice. Call out and confront evil with the light of truth and it shall disappear.
So, the “lady” with the strength to publish her position on the internet is allowed protection from disagreement because she is private? How much more public can one get than the internet? Facebook private? Really?
Very disingenuous of you.
Basically,yeah. I’m a Buddhist, I support gay marriage — or more precisely, I don’t think the law should consider religious traditions in contract law — and I don’t like Chick-Fil-A’s food particularly. But when Rahm Emanuel, and the Mayor of Boston, and the Mayor of San Francisco start telling Chick-Fil-A whether they may build a new store based on his speech, then I get a craving for waffle fries.
Same here. I have never been to a Chick-Fil- A- restaurant in my life but do travel a lot.
From now on I will make them a must stop. No one ever again will tell our capitalist society they can not come into their city. Even if it is the arm pit of the midwest shecaaaago. The Tea Party and talk radio are very much alive and well. Between Glen Beck, Limbaugh and the rest of the talkers the wannabe commies will be lucky to survive the year.
Rumor has it there is a Chic-Phil-Ah! coming soon that only serves tofu chicken made exclusively by a LGBT union shop.
It’ll be adults only, though.
LOL! One can only imagine the delectable shapes!
LGBT means “Lettuce, Guacamole, Bacon and Tomato, right?”
United Federation of Lettuce, Guacamole, Bacon, and Tomato workers, Local # 69.
Actually, it isn’t that our laws respect a particular religious tradition. Which religious tradition has ever recognized gay marriage? None.
Marriage is between a man and a woman (perhaps several women in some cultures) because it is about defining duties and rights associated with biological children. There are no biological children arising from same-sex marriages. Guaranteed.
The Boston mayor’s position raised a concern, so I sent the following email to his office; no replay as of yet:
I was planning to visit Boston next year to run in the Boston Marathon. Then I heard on the news that people who believe in traditional marriage are not welcome to open businesses in Boston, i.e. Chick-Fil-A. Does this also mean that you are going to restrict visitors who believe this as well? I feel sorry for all your residents who are now considered unwelcome to do business there. That would include evangelical Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews.
Or maybe it would be OK to come as long I don’t say anything about what I believe. Is that what you meant? You are a city of inclusion but not free speech? If I stay “in the closet” can I come?
As an ex-marathoner;
PLEASE KEEP US POSTED WITH THE RESPONSES.
THANKS.
I am in awe (not in a good way) of those who wish to keep “their heads down” when it comes to backing an outspoken Christian businessman.
But those same people come to the defense of those clearly outside the bounds of the Bible’s teachings.
Even in some of our “Christian” churches these days, up is down and right is wrong. (I’ve seen a similiar belief play out in churches near me.)
All I can say is “stand strong” to all of the bold Christians out there who are willing to get outside of their church “safe zone” and do what Christ did…stand up for right and do so with the knowledge of your faith and the power of Christ.
One last thing I will say is, from a political perspective, if we don’t stand for our rights as Christians and citizens, we will be guaranteed that those very rights will, and can, be taken away and suppressed by a dictatorial, suppressive government.
Read your history….it’s happened many times over.
just to be on the safe side I’m going to boycott Chick fil A on Sunday. i wish i didn’t have to boycott them on Sunday.
The “Christian” is to live a spiritual life as opposed to a political life. The spiritual life does not preclude christians from voting, speaking, or spending their values and beliefs.
On the other hand, christianity in no way infringes on non-christians right to pursue the same.
BTW, morality is not only a christian goal or idea, every person or group has some line that “thou shall not” cross. Morality is for everybody, and exists for the benefit of all of society.
Not if you’re muslim!
Oh, balderdash! Paul took advantage of his Roman citizenship when it was within the scope of spreading the Gospel. We still live here. The trick is to not fall for the lies and stupidities of people who are sold out to living here.
I’m reminded of the song, “Onward Christian Soldiers” with the second line, “marching as to war”. The leftists depend upon the religious conservatives to be quiet, to keep their head down. We have seen what happens when someone questions Islam. The attacks. Even fellow conservatives and Christians refuse to recognize the problem and are afraid to speak out.
Applied to today:
“Onward Conservative Soldiers…………….”
With all your dots I want a corollary: “marching as to war…”
ISTR the original lyrics were “marching off to war”. The sentiment that changed those lyrics is the same one that says Christians and those who oppose the de-Christianization of our culture should “keep their heads down”.
“Second, the left feels like we hate them, and we are wrong to do anything that makes them feel that way.”
That is not the reason why. They keep their heads down because they lack the courage it takes to become themselves the object of the left’s attacks. It is so much easier to stay under the left’s radar. But it does no good. The left is such that Christians need only do one thing to make the left feel hated and this is simply by being a Christian, even if you keep your head down.
The idea of keeping my head down brings to mind Galatians 1:10
Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
I knew someone here would get this too. It’s the ‘I’m not one of those mean Christians’ dodges. It is always a red flag to me if someone is primarily concerned with what others think of Christians, or of Americans. We should consider what is right, make sure we are right, and then act. What others think about what is right isn’t part of that analysis. For diplomacy, that’s another matter.
The Apostle Paul was definitely not one to keep his head down. There were riots over The Message practically everywhere he went, but Paul was willing to die for Truth. A couple of weeks ago, before Rahm and Friends decided that they could use government to stop free speech, I challenged a group of 7th grade girls to challenge the status quo when they go back to school. Confront the gossips and the bullies, even though it may make you a target, do the right thing and then pray for the people doing the wrong thing. Christ looked different to the world because He was different. He stood up to the PC crowd of the time, the Pharisees, and said, “No. God looks at your motivation, more than He looks at your actions.” I haven’t had the opportunity to drive to the nearest CFA this week, but I will be eating there on the way to Mississippi next week. Dan Cathy took a stand for what he believes, which just happens to be what I believe – traditional marriage as defined in Genesis 3 (“for this cause shall a man…cling to his wife.” – opposite sexes and singular nouns) works best. Man has a way of perverting that from Jacob marrying Leah AND Rachel and Esau marrying, I think it was four different women trying to find Rebekah liked to today. None of those were God’s original plan, but He works it for good. If I didn’t believe what Dan Cathy believes, I would still defend his right to say it because it would insure my right to say that I disagree with him.
Also, I don’t think that my religious definition of marriage should have anything to do with contract law, which is what governs the civil marriage license that my husband and I also have. I’m cool with gays having that civil contract if they want it; I’m not cool with the idea that one day they will want my Baptist minister to give them a religious ceremony too and I think that’s what they want eventually. “Your God is supposed to be tolerant,” someone said to me. “Really. I think you need to read the Bible again, cover to cover. He promises to judge sin from Genesis to Revelation and He provided Himself as a Lamb to take the judgement for the repentant. Nowhere does it say my God is tolerant; everywhere it says He is merciful.”
Eva – “Galatians 1:10 – Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
————-
Thank you for posting this.
It brings to my mind that it is not easy for many to boldly stand and proclaim what their beliefs are when the Left will attack you publicly and with such vitriol.
Often many barely have enough self confidence to rise above what others think of them and what they should believe about themselves. If they did, many would be able to overcome many things in their lives.
To see the display of unity by many on Wed at the Chik-Fil-A’s is heartening as many are getting tired of the Leftist beat-downs. It’s time we did something and did it together.
wri7913, you are welcome. You are right, it is not easy but He never said it would be. For those who think they haven’t the strength, they need to remember that Peter was once afraid too.
And not just of getting his car keyed, Heaven forfend!
I am in awe (not in a good way) of those who wish to keep “their heads down” when it comes to backing an outspoken Christian businessman.
But those same people come to the defense of those clearly outside the bounds of the Bible’s teachings.
Even in some of our “Christian” churches these days, up is down and right is wrong. (I’ve seen a similiar belief play out in churches near me.)
All I can say is “stand strong” to all of the bold Christians out there who are willing to get outside of their church “safe zone” and do what Christ did…stand up for right and do so with the knowledge of your faith and the power of Christ.
One last thing I will say is, from a political perspective, if we don’t stand for our rights as Christians and citizens, we will be guaranteed that those very rights will, and can, be taken away and suppressed by a dictatorial, suppressive government.
Read your history….it’s happened many times over.
Argh! People!
It is not about the gay thing!
It’s about opposing haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs.
Chick-Fil-A’s chief expressed a religious/moral opinion in an obscure periodical.
It wasn’t even an anti-gay opinion; it was a pro-traditional-Christianity opinion which leftists, reading between the lines, reflexively interpreted as anti-gay.
Some politicians used this event as an excuse to pander to the less-sophisticated and more-fascistic segment of their left-leaning constituency. The pandering took this form: These politicians attempted to prevent Chick-Fil-A from doing business in the states/counties/wards where these politicians had authority (an abuse of office, certainly an unconstitutional suppression of Dan Cathy’s freedom of speech, and probably illegal in other ways also).
Now a lot of left-leaning folk realized this was crossing the line and said so. But as I said, the less-sophisticated and more-fascistic segment of the left cheered these crooked politicians on. Apparently the mantra of this portion of the left is something like, “Less free speech! More self-righteous haughty political correctness! More intimidation of business owners with politically incorrect opinions!”
Now, people with traditional American attitudes towards freedom don’t like this kind of thing. They were itching for a chance to exhibit contempt for these haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs, and it turned out that the easiest and tastiest way to do so was to buy a lot of food from the business the dweebs had been threatening.
So they did.
And, since this attitude towards the haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs intersects strongly with Tea Party membership and not Occupy Movement, the event was not violent and involved no public defecation, hate, or profanity, but instead featured a lot of friendly people genially enjoying their lunch and waving at one another.
There were gay people who went to Chick-Fil-A that day. Self-hating? No; they opposed haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs.
There were libertarians who favor gay marriage who went to Chick-Fil-A that day. Hypocritical? No; they oppose haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs.
There were Christians who are personally morally opposed to same-gendered persons engaging in mutual masturbation but who don’t agree with outlawing such private behavior there. Were they hating the sinner as well as the sin? No, they were just showing radical unconcern for haughty self-righteous censorious oppressive dweebs.
That is what the Chick-Fil-A appreciation day was ABOUT, folks.
The mainstream media, naturally, is spinning it as a frightening exhibition of the size of a resurgent Ku Klux Klan, or something. Don’t believe the hype.
In 1994 the National Organization of Women organized a boycott against orange juice when the Florida Citrus Commission decided to advertise on conservative Rush Limbaugh’s talk show.
Limbaugh supporters countered by increasing their purchases of orange juice.
The boycott was a FLAT FAILURE.
There were also members of the Florida State Legislature who tried to get the contract reversed, to no avail as the citrus growers were a private not public organization, for the same reasons as the mayors of Boston, Chicago and SFO went after Chick-Fil-A.
In Chicago, it was not about traditional marriage. Rahm Emanuel (a misnomer as his name means God-with-us) embraces Farrakhan who far more militantly opposes homosexuality. It’s about Christian-bashing. They’ve so far successfully driven us out of the public places, demonized the tenets of our faith, and silenced us because of our unwillingness to stand up for our beliefs. That’s why our opposition only spoke of the ‘tolerance’ aspect and not of the ‘free speech’ aspect of the debate. Christian religious freedom is under siege in the USA. The left sees no problem with ‘free speech’ because they have it – we don’t.
Not sure if you got emails from Christians at all. The Scripture says there will be those who claim to be Christians, but that He knows them not. I plan on living as if there is no mystery to anyone what my faith is, especially not God. When a person begins to fear man more than he fears God, he might as well call himself an atheist, for he has forgotten the nature of God.
About two years ago, while I was still in London, my small study group had this exact discussion. Being British, they had demurred and done the religion is a private thing for so long that they were now embarrassed to wear a cross or otherwise admit they were actual believing Christians. They realized that because of this, they were partially responsible for the problems in UK society–they hadn’t led– while at the same time they were no longer in a good position to do anything about it. Realizing they had to start to stand firm and push back was daunting for them. They were all willing, but scared. We don’t want to get there.
We are there Leslie.
” They were all willing, but scared.”
Scared is a position of ignorance. A lack of faith in G-d. They have lost their way and may not make it to the promised land. I pity their souls and pray for their redemption for it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
BINGO!!!
I’m glad the “Keep our head down” crowd didn’t prevail when a few fellows got together in Philidelphia and wrote the Declaration of Independance.
Cowardice is easy.
Making Cowardice look like wisdom is easy. (See Neville Chambarlain)
Standing Up for something (which by its very description includes one’s head NOT being Down) will never be easy! Otherwise everyone would do it.
Courage is the form of every virtue at the testing point. CS Lewis
Free speach is only respected if you agree with the gays
Dems support muslims who want to stone gays and gays support dems…odd
Im beginning to feel better about muslims and less concerned about gay rights
Just like a good little liberal
Should Christians have kept their heads down in this issue? No. The statement that Rahm took issue with came from a BAPTIST magazine, and was a statement of concern for the fate of America for offending against God with regard to the proper form of Marriage. It was a Christian talking to Christians in a venue that utterly NOBODY in the American Elite would bother monitoring. I don’t agree with Mr. Cathy’s statement: the murder of 40 million+ human beings under color and protection of Law is more deeply offending to God. However, my objection is irrelevant, since if he had made that statement, a different liberal faction would have whipped themselves into a frenzy.
As far as I am concerned, this was an attempt to “censor” INTER-CHRISTIAN communication via intimidation and threats. Consider the recent national magazine cover with a picture of Romney and the word “Wimp”. Same thing.
I agree with the implication made by an earlier poster that this constitutes persecution in the biblical sense. Jesus regarded himself as being persecuted long before he was physically abused, so if He’s our example, we need to follow HIS definitions, not the ones made up post-facto.
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was about standing up to the bully. The bully that is a big-city mayor who decides a business can’t open in ‘his’ city despite adhering to all the laws, regulation, building codes etc. The bully that is the media elite who tell you want to do and how to think. The bully that is Political Correctness.
Perhaps you don’t want to stand up to the bully, but understand this; We are in a war for the heart and soul of our country. If you are not ‘all in’ for this fight then it’s already lost. Not on my watch, it’s not.
We do not allow the Fascist to use PC on US!
Chick Fil A Appreciate Day Schaumburg, Illinois
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vo6eBNX7x8&feature=player_embedded
I cannot put this in bold enough print:
THE UNSCRUPULOUS ARE CONDEMNING THE SCRUPULOUS, FOR IMITATING THEM.
No different than Obama himself; He has not the real meaning, nor cares, of what he speaks.
I’m pagan. Our beliefs ignore homosexuality as simply not relevant to anything.
I fully support Chick Fllt on this, though, and regard the “keep our heads down” crowd as not following the Christian precepts I was taught in Sunday school, long ago, before leaving Christianity.
We’ve lost control of the language. ‘Tolerance’ now demands approval, even celebration. Anything less is ‘hate’.
But, of course, this a one-way street. The Left never observes any of its own rules. And it’s been this way for a long, long time.
Glad we’re all awake now.
“Over the past day, I’ve seen more than a few discussions amongst Christians that we should not have done the Chick-fil-A event on Wednesday.”
Ms. Loftis: I do not know where you have read these discussions among so-called Christians, but I suspect these people must be very young, indeed.
Also, ignorant of history.
The reason for the demonstration had nothing whatever to do with gays and everything to do with fighting the rise of government fascism. The last time the American government threatened a private business because of its owners religious opinions was never—never. This kind of thing does not happen in the United States. We coexist in spite of our differences. We eat in restaruant regardless of whether the owner is a Christian or a Muslim or a gay or a Black or a woman. We don’t ask to see moral credentials before we do business with someone.
In fact, the last time a government threatened its citizens’s livelihoods because it didn’t approve of their beliefs was in the early 1930s. In Germany. Under Hitler. The mere idea of such a thing should nauseate Mayor Emmanuel. But maybe he looks good in a brown shirt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh95Ijf5BjI
“Over the past day, I’ve seen more than a few discussions amongst Christians that we should not have done the Chick-fil-A event on Wednesday.”
Some people self-identify as non-Christians despite their claims:
1) If someone believes that “God hates gays”, then that person’s beliefs conflict with Christianity.
2) If someone thinks it’s better to go along to get along, then he doesn’t understand Christianity as well as he thinks he does. I mean, unless that person actually believes we’re at another “hide in the catacombs” stage like in 1st-5th century Roman empire, or in Asia today. But one thing I’ve realized over the past several years is that if you don’t have powerful, evil enemies, you’re not trying hard enough.
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 6:1)
Leslie, I imagine you know more about Batman than you do Jesus.
“In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”
Matthew 5:16
Matthew 9:8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
John 15:8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
1 Peter 2:12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
My apologies, I’m am still learning the ways of Christ. I was unaware “good works” meant fighting, war, and killing communists. I appreciate your insight, thank you for correcting my misinterpretation.
If that’s the kind of post you put up in public, attacking one of your fellow Christians, then you have a long way to go before you understand.
And I’m sure that Pope John Paul II would have loved to hear your discussion about how fighting the Cold War wasn’t “christian”.
I’m old school and prefer the KJV, in which the distinction between these verses is more obvious. Chapter 6 is about alms, prayers, and fasts, about not doing the forms of Christianity for the purpose of showing what a great Christian you are. These people have their reward already (Matthew 6:5) because they gave and prayed for the approval of Man. The verses cited by Carmelita are our instructions to declare our faith to the world, and to seek to do God’s will, regardless of what the world throws at us.
Again, motivation is everything. Why do you do good works? For your own glory or God’s?
Beware of quoting out of context when you use the Bible lest you be caught unawares by something that looks good but really doesn’t support what your argument. Here are the verses immediately following your verse.
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
(Matthew 6:1-4 ESV)
This is nothing about standing up for your faith and everything about ginvg to the needs which Chik-fil-A Day was nothing about.
“Earls” would condemn the martyrs for expressing their faith while being slaughtered in public.
Repeat three times
‘I’m not one of those mean Christians’
‘I’m not one of those mean Christians’
‘I’m not one of those mean Christians’
before the cock crows.
I just enjoy putting FB status updates about craving waffle fries, how I wish I had a peach milkshake right about now, that I hope I don’t run out of gas in this super long drive thru line and the perfect dipping sauces for fried chicken.
Everyone on my friends list already knows I’m a Christian. I just figure if the atheists I know can get in their little passive-aggressive digs about my God and my savior around my holy days, I can start evening up the score.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
“I’m a Christian.”
So you _say_.
“I am a Christian.”
so you _say_ Right back at ya. I gather from your post this is you ‘turning the other cheek’. Don’t look now but there’s timber in your eye.
I only humbly beg for your forgiveness and hope you will pray for me so that I may one day see as clearly as you do. Thank you.
Your posts are dripping with self-righteousness.
Oh, yeah. Here ya go:
If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him
Luke 17:3
You might want to read a little of the history of how that verse has been understood by Christians. The pacifist reading is actually a tiny minority view. A slap on the cheek is an insult; it does not threaten your life.
How many times must we hear “this isn’t the hill to die on” from these cowards? If you look back at the past 50 years of the Culture War in this country, you’ll see lots and lots of “hills” that were meekly surrendered to the Left. Those “hills” are in no small way responsible for the degenerate state of this civilization today.
I guess the “this isn’t the hill to die on” people still haven’t gotten the new memo: we’re done with timid, prevaricating, equivocating, cowards. If they lack the intestinal (or otherwise) fortitude to take the fight to the Left, then they just need to STFD and STFU. Some of us are now fully aware that this is indeed a Culture War, not some gentlemanly parlor game. You don’t win a street brawl with the Marquess of Queensbury rules.
Hear! Hear!
Billions of small steps add up (some have been rather large). They arent going to ever be appeased until Euro-Christendom is destroyed.
So you have the choice that the Israeli Jews have, will you choose to be liked and commit suicide….or will you choose to exist and live, in the face of hostility and hatred.
The choice is yours.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to keep their heads down.
It won’t be the hill to die on until they actually march us up the hill we really will get to die on.
I’m not giving up any more hills. Already been there, done that, for decades. It was a mistake. Every hill we gave up, in order not to “offend” anyone, just led to them storming another hill and castigating us as we abandoned it.
Just now reading MissAnthropy’s comments above, and I concur.
No more meekness. No more silence when truth needs to be spoken. No more little accommodations to tyranny, and certainly no more large concessions to tyranny.
I will not live under tyranny. I don’t want my children to live under tyranny.
Injustice and tyranny do not retreat when exposed. They must be OPPOSED.
To quote Trotsky, who even though a Communist was a very smart man, “You may not be interested in war; however, war is interested in you.”
For the left, the personal is political, and politics is war. They will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to obtain their goals because they believe their ends are worth it. Stalin and the Kulaks, the Holodomor, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Hitler and the Jews/Gypsies/Homos/Disabled, the “Great Leap Forward,” etc. The list of lefty mass slaughter is a very long one. Make no mistake, if you’re conservative or religious the leftists hate you and will do whatever they can to hurt and silence you. They’ve already done a lot.
The question is really what you’re going to do about what they’ve already done to you.
The answer is simple. Do not turn the other cheek to the communists. k*ll them!
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”
We are all subject to judgement, by G-d. No where in the Bible does it say that you must die without a fight. G-d only helps those who help themselves. If a man tells you he is going to kill you and you do not act to preserve your life and those of whom you love then you are not a man of G-d. Pacifism is wrong.
Okay, now we are getting fired up. So when is a PJM author going to finlly broach the topic of what we should do post election regardless of the winner but mostly if Dear Leader wins???
How come there are not more Dan Cathy’s? Why, according to what author understands, must be be temperate in our feelings and objections to the disgust of the left? Did the author inform the hold your heads down people that we have been doing that for years? All it has gained us is the loss of our nation, our traditions, our pride, our ethnicity, our culture. What has hypen-American done for America?
When will the b$tching and complaining finally become an action?
“If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first.” — BT, Berakot 58a (Soncino translation)
Your scholarship is thin, “Earls”. “Murder” does not mean all killing; it excludes self-defense.
Preventing your subjugation under a totalitarian regime counts as self-defense.
HTH. HAND.
You might want to learn what “murder” means. It is a much narrower definition than “kill.” Are you sure that your name isn’t really Moby?
“there is more joy in giving than there is in receiving”
May be it is high time to give them plenty of what they deserve.
The objective should not be to win the election but to forever delete the DP from American political life.
The DP has greatly advanced the Conservative cause by electing a complete moron who is showing the nation how the “deepening of the Progressive model will look like”. The chicken joint may last more than the Democratic Party. Mark my words.
The evil will always hate the good.
Satan is the great accuser.
As Samuel Adams eloquently stated, and I project his quote upon Christians who would march us to the coliseum and martyrdom for the sake of “peace”.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Maybe if Jesus didn’t chase the money changers from the temple, or called the Pharisees “whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean” he wouldn’t have been crucified. Maybe the apostles should have learned from their first time in prison that preaching their hate was going to get them imprisoned again. Maybe Christians around the world who face death for even possessing a Bible ought to burn it and kowtow to the powers that be.
Spoiled, rotten, American Christians who believe that protesting peacefully at Chick-fil-a is not in the spirit of love; you want to hand your birthright to your accuser? Shame!
“Keep our heads down” has been the theme of the conservative movement for decades. As a result, we’re on the verge of losing the country completely. We need to stop worrying about keeping our heads down and start learning how to arguing effectively and passionately, and even start expressing legitimate outrate when it’s called for. “Nice” isn’t a virtue. Courage, honesty, compassion, kindness and charity are, but not “nice.” People on the right need to figure that out.
“Keep Our Heads Down” = SURRENDER
NIEMÖLLER, anyone?!?
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Why is hatred wrong, I hate pedophiles, rapists, Wahhabism and Salafist Islam, I hate killers and child abusers and elder abusers I could go on and on. Yes I hate the progressive left because their values are devoid of commonsense, their logic is so upside down and loopy it belongs in a rubber room not the public square. Unlike the left I don’t call for their voices to be banned, I might hate them but at least I value free speech.
Christianity requires that you try to hate the sin and not the sinner. “Love” the sinner, in Christianity, means that you desire greatly that he repent of his sins so that he can spend eternity with God in Heaven. With prayer and love, you do and say what you discern will best help him to repent (hint, rarely involves initiated violence or internet slams on blogs). Remembering all along the admonition of specks and beams… (So that for a Catholic, the first thing you do is go to confession and confess your own sins.)
Sometimes you have to physically injure the sinner in order to stop him from committing more sins, to protect the weak from the strong but you have to be careful there; oftentimes this is an excuse by violent people to commit violence ie “God told me to kill the abortion clinic guy”. But if someone had shot the movie theater guy before he killed all those people, that would have been more like it.
I’ve “kept my head down” long enough. The liberals never stop. They will always push for more, and there is nothing we can do to make them like us. Now people like me are pushing back. We must sweep liberalism out of power and keep them from ever getting it back. We did not learn this lesson in 1994 when we won the Congressional midterms – we thought we had won and stopped teaching conservatism. We must win in November, and then keep pushing because the left will go crazy in order to get their power back. They must not succeed.
As for me, I bought my first Chik-Fil-A last week to demonstrate that I’m sick of being labeled a hater for not going along with the gay agenda. And I’m sick of being labeled a racist for not supporting Obama. I’m sick of all the labels that the left sticks on me and others they disagree with.
I’m also sick of business people intimidated into spouting leftist ideology, and I wanted to demonstrate that I’d support a business person who had the integrity to stick to their principles instead of spouting politically correct claptrap.
We’ve kept our heads down—and now we no longer have our First Amendment rights!
Well, if we keep our heads down, maybe we will retain some modicum of religious freedom in our basements, going forward.
Dont anger our masters!
The left hates any Christianity that is not a subordinate arm of the left. The left will hate us merely for existing. The left will not stop hating us if we keep quiet. Far better to fight back.
The chick-fil-a flap is very much like the anti-Israel boycott movement, another stupid lefty idea. The boycott has accomplished nothing after a decade or more except a few cancelled concerts by washed up rockers. The response here is the most effective one, just outspend your opposition which are far fewer in numbers and resource.
The BDS anti Israel movement fails mostly because they are targeting excellent products that people want to buy such as Victorias Secret, Ahava beauty products and Caterpillar stock. Chick fil a is a product like that.
They can only make symbolic gestures. Try and list all American products made by companies run or owned by conservative Christians and see how far you get. It would be impossible to boycott all that stuff. It is always fun to point out that the BDSrs are running their campaign on computer software and hardware developed in Israel (Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Motorola all have R&D there).
When the haters see that what they are doing is counter productive, CFA made record profits as a result, they will quickly lose steam. Emmanuel knows that he would lose a legal battle if he carried out his threat, and probably an election as well so it is all hot air.
Whatever the company president thinks CFA stores are local franchises. The people who work and eat there have nothing to do with any of this which is not going to attract followers to your cause. The whole case is built on a flimsy foundation and will never carry weight with the average Joe.
The left feels hate at the mere fact of being Christian. Any expression or passing reference to God is (to them) an insult and an expression of hate. There is no placating these humans, other than becoming an evangelical atheist.
I could care less if the homo-fascist and the rest of the perverted left hate us….. so long as they learn to fear us.
Here’s your fr$ggin keep your heads down result. Go to the AT website and read “Chick-fil-A kiss-in protestors show their colors” open the link to Legal Insurrection and watch the video. That is not just a black man but it is everyone of you. He God Bless him is us.
I’d love to know the name of the pos heckler….
Now if you are going to remain sanguine about what to do vis a vis the left then we are in for trouble.
“I would rather die standing than to live on my knees”
I saw that. Absolutely infuriating. Did you think, too, that under any other circumstances a bunch of young clean cut white boys heckling a poor black man would have touched off a flood of news coverage? But since these clean cut white guys were gay and the black man was a Christian…
Leslie, stop helping the leftists! Stop obeying them!
Stop using their word!
These people are NOT “gay“.
They are homosexual.
That’s the correct word, and they hate it. So use it!
Stop obeying the mandate to call them, “gay”!
Sounds like the chickens weren’t the only ones with their head cut off!
It’s not about Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy simply stating his beliefs. It has more to do with him using the company to financially support organizations that seek to keep same-sex marriage outlawed. We are not being persecuted for stating our beliefs; we are being opposed because we’re actually doing something wrong.
And since you mention the Bible: I don’t recall forcing Christianity through the law being in the Bible, either. Have you ever read Acts? The Apostles preached the Gospel, but they never tried to change the laws of the Roman empire to enforce Christian morality. Not only that, but God pretty much gave them super-powers (for lack of a better word), so they could have forced people to do what they wanted but didn’t. Outlawing something because Christianity opposes it is an un-Christian thing to do.
Now back to the persecution thing. People like you are damaging to Christianity and actually-persecuted Christians. Are you aware that atheists and liberals in general think we have a victimhood complex because conservatives are quick to cry “persecution”? They never believe (or at least don’t give a damn about) reports of severe harassment of Christians in Islamic and Communist countries because of stuff like this. So all of you just calm the hell down and stop with this persecution nonsense.
You say “It’s not about Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy simply stating his beliefs. It has more to do with him using the company to financially support organizations that seek to keep same-sex marriage outlawed. We are not being persecuted for stating our beliefs; we are being opposed because we’re actually doing something wrong”.
With respect, you are mistaken, on a bunch of levels, but I’ll deal with the obvious one.
If you have the right to speak, you have the right to use whatever you have at hand to get your message across, within the law. The problem – and the persecution – come because individuals in power have deemed his message unworthy and have then used that power arbitrarily to attempt to punish Cathy and his company for having an opinion that they have deemed to be incorrect. (And, in truth, they did it because they thought it was a gimme political boost. All too often in recent years, the left has thought – and asserted – that insulting people with conservative or Christian viewpoints is acceptable because those viewpoints are “wrong”.)
And that’s your error: to assume the predicate – that Cathy’s opposition is “wrong”. It is hard to find a story on this controversy that doesn’t claim a “majority” for the “same-sex marriage” position (although nearly every such story blurs the line between those who favor extending equivalent rights such as civil partnerships – as I do – and those who demand that marriage be re-defined – you do not get to a majority position without both groups). In any event, the fact that a majority of people agree with your position on anything does not render it objective truth nor make supression of contrary minority viewpoints acceptable.
In the end, that’s really your argument: it is ok to supress an unfavorable minority viewpoint. You don’t need to read a lot of history before you realize that position is the first step on the road to a very bad end. Imagine the hue and cry if a group of mayors used their political power to refuse licenses to some other chain whose owners supported the idea.
The fact is that there are people out there who fear one of the messages of the Gospels, that there is objective truth. They fear the Tea Party and people like Rep. West, for the same reason – not that they are “wrong”, but that their message is compelling, and will displace the powerful unless supressed. They fear the message, and rightly. So, they attack the messenger. It has ever been thus.
Banning a business for having an opinion is not okay. Financially supporting organizations that seek to persecute gays should not be acceptable, though, and businesses like Chick-fil-A can justifiably be opposed because of this.
Not letting gays have the right to marry is a good example of suppressing a minority, so *I* am not the one who is arguing for the suppression of minorities–those against making same-sex marriage legal are.
Sorry, mate, but it is you who are arguing for this. Your premise – it is ok to protest against corporations who support ideas you don’t agree with – is perfectly fine. That’s why the rally to support Chick-fil-A AND the Kiss-In are acceptable. What’s not acceptable is the mayor of Chicago using his political power to punish EITHER group for excessing an opinion. The “buy-cott” was more about the shared anger conservatives feel when the left abuses political power to hurt their ideological adversaries.
No one is being punished for simply expressing an opinion. Chick-fil-A is doing more than that. I say again: “Financially supporting organizations that seek to persecute gays should not be acceptable”.
Gays can marry. They just don’t get state recognition of it. Oppression would be threatening to send them to prison for marrying, as was the situation in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
That’s the problem — the state won’t recognize same-sex marriages, and so gay “married” couples do not get the same benefits opposite-sex married couples get.
Doesn’t get the same benefits = oppression?
I suppose that you think that because convicted felons don’t get the same benefits as everyone else, that means that they are oppressed?
Because polygamous families don’t get the same benefits as monogamous couples, they are being oppressed?
Felons have given up the right to be treated the same way as others by committing crimes. Homosexuals are a bit different than felons, doncha think?
Discrimination = oppression, yes.
My point was that the equal protection argument used for same-sex marriage is bogus.
“Financially supporting organizations that seek to persecute gays should not be acceptable…”
Persecution? You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it does.
I guess you think keeping people who have sex with animals from “marrying” their “lover” is wrong too.
“we are being opposed because we’re actually doing something wrong.”
What do you mean “we”, Paleface. Until God apologizes to Sodom and Gomorrah, I’m going to believe he meant it when he destroyed them, and I don’t want to meet the same fate.
I’m not saying God is okay with homosexuality. I’m saying we (Christians, since you seem so confused) shouldn’t force our religion through the law.
Excellent! I see we’re making progress here. So, you would perforce agree that the same limitation applies equally: it is wrong for them (the Left, since you seem confused) to enforce their religion (deification of the State, secular humanism, or what you will) through legislation?
It is not okay for leftists to force us to be secular. Good thing they’re not doing that!
So you want to legalize murder and theft too? Something in the Christian bible abut those too.
Face it homosexualism is a perversion and is wrong recognized …pretty much by the whole width and depth of the human race for pretty much all of recorded history.
Like bestiality, homosexuality is wrong. Marriage is One Man and One Woman. Not Man and Man or Woman and dog.
As for Christianity. If you support the Homosexual mirage of same sex marriage, you are no Christian.
“So you want to legalize murder and theft too? Something in the Christian bible abut those too.”
No. Murder and theft are things that most people of any faith (or lack thereof) believe is wrong. It is true that Judeo-Christian morality opposes both, but most other moral codes oppose them, too. Also, murder and theft is not something that only affects the criminal; it deprives the victims of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Homosexuality has no “victims” in the secular sense of the word.
“Face it homosexualism is a perversion and is wrong recognized …pretty much by the whole width and depth of the human race for pretty much all of recorded history.”
You and I think it’s wrong, so we don’t practice it. But, since it DOES NOT hurt or negatively affect those who do not practice homosexuality, we cannot force others to abide by our rules. Sure, it is spiritually damaging because it mars the purity of their souls before God (like any other sin), but it has no secular consequences and therefore the government, which is supposed to separate Church and State, shouldn’t stop anyone from doing it.
There have been plenty of societies in which homosexual behavior was regularly practiced, whether the practitioners were actually “born gay” or not.
“As for Christianity. If you support the Homosexual mirage of same sex marriage, you are no Christian.”
If by “support” you mean believing it is a beautiful thing and it’s great that gay people are getting married, no, I do not “support” same-sex marriage. But I want it legalized because I don’t want people to be forced to respect Judeo-Christian practice. The ban on same-sex marriage is a giant hole in the wall between Church and State.
Regularly practiced does not equate to condoned by society. It would be fair to say that the homosexual, as well as other perversions such as bestiality, have been regularly practiced in every society. Certainly one can find , usually small limited cultures, in which said practices are embraced by whole of that society. Take Minoans and bestiality for example.
However these are not the majority, nor even a large minority of all society’s. The vast majority of humanity have rejected homosexuality and bestiality as the perversions they are.
We can even find society’s which embrace murder….. Aztec, and thievery, Gypsy and many American Indian cultures. Certainly not limited to these cultures/societies either.
This makes your argument about Universal, albeit you did say most, observance of murder and theft as somewhat specious in distinguishing those from homosexual marriage. As I note that only ten countries today(or there abouts) have legalized homosexual marriage. Which, by the by, guts your opposition because of Judeo-Christian morality because most other moral codes oppose them, too.
In fact, I do believe only a western promulgated secular progressive religion(may as well call it as it acts) is responsible for that limited achievement in forcing the perversion of the homosexual mirage upon an otherwise morally opposed world.
And,like with murder and theft, there is a reason that most societies and cultures reject such as homosexuality, bestiality and other perversion. They have found them to be detrimental to society as a whole. Homosexuality has a more than casual relationship to sex with little boys. Kinsey noted it. Hardly victimless.
As for that wall betwixt Church and State. It is no where to be found in our Constitution. The only restriction is State from Church, not the reverse.
To clarify that last. The only restriction in the Constitutions is one which precludes the State from making any law regarding religion. There are no restrictions upon the Religious from engaging the State.
My argument was not about opposition to murder and theft being “universal” but about it not being exclusively “Judeo-Christian”, making your argument that opposing homosexuality through the law is the same as opposing murder and theft through the law invalid.
Also, homosexuality does not necessarily have victims (in a secular sense). It can be practiced without abusing little boys. A gay married couple is not hurting anyone else.
Also, I maintain that there have been plenty of societies that accepted homosexuality. Regularly practiced by large segments of the population = accepted by society, since what’s “accepted by society” is determined by what most people in that society accept.
“The ban on same-sex marriage is a giant hole in the wall between Church and State.”
What wall is that? The Constitution makes no provision for that.
Ever heard of the Establishment Clause, Cramer?
The Establishment Clause is a Federalist provision, limiting the Federal Government…not a general principle of governance to be applied everywhere and anywhere at any level of governance.
Certainly doesnt limit individuals from expressing their religiosity within institutions….or informing legislation, regulation, and policy.
But alas…
To start you on your de-indoctrination, read the original State Constitutions, in the 13 states that existed before the ratificaiton of the US Constitution.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the U.S. government from preferring one religion. Banning same-sex marriage shows a preference for Christianity.
I’m not talking about individuals expressing their religiosity, I’m talking about the government not recognizing same-sex marriages because of Judeo-Christian morals.
I’ve been indoctrinated by what?
What other laws are you going to insist should be repealed? Our murder statutes? The entire legal distinction in American law between first and second degree murder comes out of Leviticus (and that’s part of why it isn’t in English law, which has a more Germanic origin). Why not repeal our rape laws? They reflect Christian morality, too. And laws against stealing?
What about slander/libel? And perjury?
Refer to my reply to Fantom.
It would appear that your argument is that as long a bare majority supports a law, that is not enough, but if an overwhelmingly majority supports a law, that is sufficient. What’s the magic line on this?
Remember that into the 1950s, homosexuality (not even same-sex marriage) was a criminal offense throughout the U.S., and by pretty huge majorities. Had we kept those laws, we would not be arguing about same-sex marriage today. I guess that means that you would have found that acceptable, because of the level of support.
My argument is not about majorities. I’m saying that comparing banning same-sex marriage to banning murder and theft and rape and what-have-you because they are all based on Judeo-Christian values is incorrect because being against murder and theft and rape is not based only on Judeo-Christian values.
Also, murder and rape and theft have victims (in the secular sense). Homosexuality does not.
So your argument is that if other religions disapprove, it’s okay to prohibit a behavior. But not if Christianity disapproves.
YOU and Fantom were saying that we should allow murder, rape, and theft if we allow same-sex marriage, your rationale being that I didn’t want to ban same-sex marriage because that would promote Judeo-Christian morality through the law, and since Judeo-Christian morality is against murder, rape, and theft, we would have to allow those, too, as if banning them was also favoring Christianity. I’M saying that though YES, Christianity is against murder, rape, and theft, those laws are not in place exclusively because of Christianity, so banning murder, rape, and theft is not violating Separation of Church and State — banning same-sex marriage is because the opposition is based almost entirely on preserving Judeo-Christian values. This has nothing to do with majorities and whatever.
” Are you aware that atheists and liberals in general think we have a victimhood complex because conservatives are quick to cry “persecution”? They never believe (or at least don’t give a damn about) reports of severe harassment of Christians in Islamic and Communist countries because of stuff like this. So all of you just calm the hell down and stop with this persecution nonsense.”
Translation: they won’t listen to evidence, so shut up suck up the abuse!
GAP — fighting the kind of abuse done NOW in the US is the best way to prevent the abuses committed in socialist and Islamist countries from coming here.
Abuse IS NOT happening in this country, so there’s nothing to fight. When we say “Christians are being persecuted in America” and that turns out to be false, and then we say “Christians are being persecuted in Egypt/Iran/China/whatever” they dismiss the claim even if it’s true. It’s not rational of them, and it’s hilarious in a sick kind of way because atheists think of themselves as the only rational people, but that’s what’s going on, and some of the blame belongs to us.
GAP,
The definition of “persecution” is the same whether it’s toward the Left or the Right. You have a double standard; I don’t know if you’re unable to see that, or if you’re just unwilling. But you seem to think that it’s not okay for a bunch of people to protest by buying a very tasty chicken sandwich, but it’s okay for a bunch of white men to harass a black homeless guy or a CFO to harass a girl at a drive-through, because of the opinions they have. That’s the impression I’m getting. You’re entitled to your opinions, but you’re only debasing yourself.
I was never referring to the harassment of the homeless man reading a Bible or the girl at the drive-thru, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m pretty sure this guy is a Moby (pretending to be a Christian as a way of promoting internal conflict), but on the off chance that this is unaware:
Lookup Elaine Hugenin. She is a photographer who refused an assignment to photograph a same-sex “commitment” ceremony in New Mexico because she found it morally objectionable to her Christian beliefs. She was fined more than $7000 for doing so. I’m sure that you will find a reason why this is okay.
Are you aware that Christians were arrested a couple of years ago in Dearborn, Michigan for handing out Christian evangelical literature on a public street at an Arab street fair?
I’m not a Moby, and I’m not a “guy”. I’m just a Christian girl disagreeing with other Christians. You’ve gotta know by now that not all Christians are conservatives, right? (I’m not liberal, either, just kind of leftist on this particular issue.)
Those are unfortunate cases. In fact, I’ve communicated with David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi (two of the evangelists arrested) on multiple occassions. They’re nice people (though David doesn’t really like me that much), and it’s sad that they were unjustly arrested and even assaulted the year before that. But their cases won out in court. A few isolated cases do not demonstrate that Christians are regularly persecuted in the U.S. on the scale that a lot of the commenters here think.
Are Muslims persecuted in the U.S.? There are certainly many, many cases of harassment of Muslims, but that doesn’t mean they should be classified as persecuted. They aren’t regularly murdered, and their mosques and homes aren’t constantly bombed and burned down. However, by your standards they are, but I know you wouldn’t agree to that.
How many examples of Muslims being fined or arrested for practicing their faith can you point to? I’m aware of a community in Tennessee that tried to prevent a mosque from opening–and it was big news because of how rare that was.
Not many, though I recall a few years ago a woman who refused to take off her head-scarf before going into a security check and spent some time in jail. It’s difficult to accommodate Islam in Western countries, I know, but the Dearborn police had an excuse, too: multiple people claimed Wood and Qureshi were “harassing” Muslims. That turned out to be false (see the video recordings), but the police probably didn’t know that at the time.
Though anti-Muslim hate crimes aren’t very huge number-wise, there are still more than anti-Christian hate crimes.
Below you admit that you know about some of these persecutions. Winning in court doesn’t mean much; the cost of defending yourself from persecution is substantial.
Step away from the crack pipe, Panda.
Thank you, Ms. Loftis, for expressing this point of view so clearly and calmly. I’m saving it in my archives in case I need to explain this in my church.
I want to address the claim that opposition to same sex marriage is a purely Christian concept.
Not so.
Firstly, marriage as it came down to western civilization from Roman law had nothing to do with emotional or affectional relationships. It was purely a legal and economic structure for having legally recognized children. (Pseudo-)Demosthenes, in AGAINST NEAERA, states it clearly:
(¶ 122) For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means–to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own. Mistresses [hetaira] we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines [pallakê= "sex slaves"] for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.
So for two adult men (or women) to be married was non-sensical. If the whole point of marriage was to have legal children, why could two people, who necessarily could not produce children through their sexual relationship, be “married”?
Secondly, for an adult free male to be penetrated by another man was disgusting to the Greek or Roman. Homosexual relations (indeed sexual relations in general) were relations of power not “love”. The penetrator was expressing his power over the passive partner. (It was precisely this acceptance of domination that was repulsive.)
Thirdly, what was accepted by the Greeks and Romans was the domination of pubescent males by adults–exactly what ex-coach Sandusky did. So we as a society claim to be disgusted by what the Romans & Greeks accepted, and morally accept what they were repulsed by.
Clearly there is no moral ground to claim that same-sex relationships are “normal”. There is no normal.
All such judgments are based are irreduciably incommensurate moral assumptions. “Gays” have no basis to claim that they are “right,” any more than Christians do. In this pluralistic society, both have the right to speak for and work for their moral vision.
Yup. This is a point that I make when I teach Western Civ–homosexuality in classical times was something closer to pedophilia than the modern concept of homosexuality. Athenian law prohibited any man who had ever worked as a homosexual prostitute (a catamite) from voting. It was not a citizenship disqualifier to use a boy for this purpose–but it was to be the recipient.
Both Athenians and Spartans insulted each others armies by calling them homosexuals. They tolerated homosexuality, but seemed to regard it with considerable contempt. Roman society also was built around the power dynamic: men used boys and teenagers sexually, but it was NOT a reciprocal arrangement.
Unfortunately, the general acceptance of artificial contraceptives does dilute the power of this argument. People who affirm the use of contraceptives but oppose gay marriage do shoot themselves in the foot somewhat.
But several recent studies have shown that children do best within one man-one woman marriages; other arrangements (never-married, divorced, widowed, same-sex households) have higher rates of poor outcomes (drug use, suicide, high school dropout, failure to attend or complete college, unwed births). IIRC, divorced and lesbian relationships were at the bottom, never-married woman and two-gay male next, single male and widowed not as bad as the other. There are children in all situations who do well, but children born into a traditional marriage do best by far. Governments therefore have a stake in promoting these relationships.
the general acceptance of artificial contraceptives does dilute the power of this argument.
Granted, but only rhetorically. Analytically, this is a tu toque: just because people who (a) regard homosexual behavior as immoral but (b) make use of, or approve of the use of, artificial contraceptives are inconsistent, does not disprove the correctness of the premise: homosexual behavior is “immoral,” i.e., it violates some deeply rooted “law” about how humans “ought” to be behave. As stated, the argument only proves that the people who hold both (a) and (b) are being logically, and maybe ethically, inconsistent.
For the record, although I am a conservative Protestant, I suspect that the Roman Catholic attitude towards contraception is the only one both logically consistent with a judgment that homosexual behavior is immoral, and ethically imperative for Christians. (Whether it applies to any other tradition, it must decide.)
How does acceptance of contraceptives shoot the arguments against gay marriage in the foot? Where, exactly, does the Bible speak against contraception?
Because one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that marriage is the best model (shown over the centuries and also through some recent studies) for raising children; similarly, that sex is the route God made for us to reproduce and not just for entertainment purposes. So if married couples aren’t reproducing either, they lose one part of the argument against gay marriage.
Oy, I’m not managing to phrase this clearly, sorry. Here is an article by someone who’s day job is writing English words, so it’s phrased a little better:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/julyweb-only/consequences-of-contraception.html
You seem to be arguing that any sexual act that doesn’t result in a child is therefore wrong.
No. Catholic teaching is that every union between a man and woman should “respect” the creative aspect of sex and that the couple should be “open to” life. A lot of people make the same claim you do about Church teaching, and it’s been explained by people more qualified than I am, repeatedly, so if you’re actually interested in the idea, you can conduct an internet search (had to avoid the “G” word because I’m boycotting that tool now lol) and you’ll get explanations with more authority and skill.
No matter how old a couple is, they should be willing to be the next “Abram and Sarai” or “Elizabeth and Zacharias”; no matter how infertile a couple is, they should be willing to be the next “Isaac and Rebekah” or Jacob and Rachel”.
So it’s that the Church has an internal consistency that is somewhat lacking on other denominations, iz all.
Jeanette, I am thankful for the RCC position on abortion that helped non-RCC Christians find our true north, and who held the barracades until our compasses settled.
However, I do not see the church’s position on “contraceptives” as consistent or persuasive. The advocacy of abstinence before marriage I heartily agree with and support, but it reflects a position that one must rule one’s life according to principles and conviction, not be blown about by chance or passion if one can help it. “Being open to life” doesn’t exactly bespeak of RULING according to principles and conviction, including the conviction of the Holy Spirit when to have and not have children. The first person that comes to MY mind when I hear someone say “Let happen naturally what comes naturally” or “Be open to life” is not a priest, but a teenage boy trying to score.
It is also “inconsistent” in that it condemns “contraceptives” as a whole without distinguishing between those that are not TRUE “contraceptives”, in the same way that pro-abortionists lumped abortion, condoms, and the pill together as “birth control” in an effort to confuse the issue by arguing their moral equivalence based on end-results. An American Catholic who wrote me personally during an on-line debate decades ago very convincingly distinguished between the pill and barrier methods, comparing the moral consequences of the former with abortion while pointing out the lack of a victim in the latter.
PA,
There are quite a few “Catholics” who have rejected Humanae Vitae, yes. But it is Church teaching no matter how many people don’t follow it; your friend was wrong but fortunately, things are finally turning around and it’s becoming more accepted. Look, you’re going to do what you want, and if you aren’t Catholic, this isn’t part of your Catechism anyway. I’m just pointing out, as David WL notes, that there’s some internal inconsistency if one thinks sterile sex is okay between married couples. You lose a bit of moral ground on the “no gay marriage” argument. And I’m thinking one of the dissenters at the Lambeth Conference in the 1930′s even pointed that out? Not to mention the warnings in HV. (Anyway, I do like the improvement in our marriage since we started following this teaching. Divorce rates are around 5%, vs over 50% for nonpracticing Catholics)
In spite of the fact that around 70% of this country voted against gay marriage It was forced on us by the liberal courts and by our flipfloping president as a political move to fill his diminishing stockpiles. We are now being attacked as if we are the haters and in the wrong. That the burden of justification is on us. The people spoke and were ignored bullied if you please. Many have differing reason for their stance on gay marriage. Not all agree on the reason. My reason is because God said so. That will always be good enough for me. I know this sentiment is met with ridicule. They ridiculed Jesus and killed Him. If it was good enough for Him it is good enough for me.
“Because God says so” is good enough for you and I, but we should do our best to help others understand, to help them find Truth. If someone doesn’t believe n God, or reads a Bible with a translation that doesn’t make the case against gay marriage, we need to be able to make the case another way. But God gave us His commandments out of love for us, so they aren’t arbitrary rules (“ummm, this orifice but not that one and lessee: shrimp and cheeseburgers are okay to eat now but no drinking blood!”) but an owner’s manual or “Map of Life” as Frank Sheed called it. So reality bears out His laws: If God/Nature had considered anal sex to be just fine, He/She/It would not have created us so that organ is damaged when it’s used for sex ie there wouldn’t be “gay bowel syndrome”. If alternative family structures were just as good as one-man, one-woman marriages, children would do just as well in those arrangements. Every time you look at Christian teachings, you’ll see that it creates the most stable family life, and when most people follow Christian thinking, society runs better.
Good point about not running and hiding.
Jesus was pretty unambiguous about that, too.
Something about taking one’s light and NOT hiding it under a bushel basket, but rather putting it on a tall lamp stand so it can shine all around.
A marriage is between a man and woman. There is nothing inherently hateful about that statement. That the rabid left constantly claims there is reminds me of a teenager who throws a fit and claims you hate them for saying “no.”
Haters hate. If you give them no reason to hate you, they will hate you for that.
Those keeping their heads down are cowards. Pure and simple. Modern society is so pampered and safe that cowards are allowed to participate.
Can you imagine the Leftist reaction and MSM reporting if a conservative mayor in any town of any size in any state were to bar an abortion clinic or a gay bar because “it doesn’t reflect our city’s values?”
If the price of being “liked” by others is to permit them to constrain my actions, my words, my thoughts, then let them hate. My conscience and my life are my own. Let those others practice their own creeds and faiths, so long as they permit the rest of us to practice our own. Martin Luther once said, “Here I stand, I can do no other.” A half-millenium ago we of the West fought another one of those titanic wars to settle the issues brought up by clashes of conscience.
It is not a mere pity, it is a damning indictment of our ignorance of history (and more, our sense of perspective) that the solution, which boils down to “agree to disagree, and leave each other in peace,” does not seem to be tolerated in this day and age.
I have been reading all the comments and articles on mostly right wing web sites. I never comment. I have decided it is time to stand up for Christians, Jesus and God. I too feel that we have all been cowards myself included. Their are many who do stand up, but many more who stay silent. I am no longer going to do that. I don’t hate anyone and am tired of being told everyday that I do. Jesus also said if you do not stand up for me, I cannot stand up for you before my father. I am no longer going to silently let those who hate God and His values attack us and keep silent.
A comment, from an Orthodox Jew:
Imagine a Mayor informing the religious Jewish community in any US city it cannot obtain rights to build/run a synagogue, Jewish day school, Jewish community center, etc because its community donates to and supports Zionist activities in general, promotes emigration to Israel, and encourages its community members not to assimilate but to marry fellow Jews and raise them with Torah values.
How utterly absurd is that.
Go proudly now to do what needs to be done.
Soriya
(who was raised in a religious Jewish family on Zionist & Torah principles and is writing to you from Jerusalem, Israel)
Rebuild St Nicholas!
“Second, the left feels like we hate them, and we are wrong to do anything that makes them feel that way.”
They’ll believe that regardless of what we do. It’s a necessary component of their beliefs
No matter WHAT we do, like spoiled rebellious children they will STILL think that we “hate” them. They are actively trying to destroy a family-owned company, put thousands of people out of work in a recession, and even to bar them from engaging in trade— not for doing or saying ANYTHING hateful, but simply because the CEO said that they supported traditional families!
You think this is trivial? then you are naive.
The time has come to stopper our ears to the infantile shrieking of the left and of the homosexual community and, like responsible adults, make it clear by our actions “No, no matter how you scream and stamp your feet, your behavior will not be tolerated. We will keep right on telling you that it is wrong, we will keep right on voting against you, we will keep right on demanding you behave like this is a civilization.”
and I, for one, will keep right on eating Chik-fil-A at every opportunity.
GreekAsianPanda still doesn’t get it. I can only assume by now that this is deliberate, but if it’s not: I can explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you. Take this point “No one is being punished for simply expressing an opinion. Chick-fil-A is doing more than that. I say again: “Financially supporting organizations that seek to persecute gays should not be acceptable”. Persecute’s a big word, and a bit sneaky, too: it really means, in this context, “actively opposing gay marriage” – it’s code for “ideas with which I do not agree”. If you’d like to see real persecution, perhaps you might visit one of the many burned-out churches in some countries or visit the families of Christians killed in riots. That’s persecution.
In any event, the last comment was just back to your original point – you may not approve of someone supporting an organization of which you disapprove, and protesting that is fine. But a mayor using his political power to suppress views with which he disagrees? That is abuse; it is tyranny; it is wrong. Where’s Voltaire when you need him?
Think of the Christians who have acquiesced: The Episcopals, the PCA, UCC. They’ve all compromised in an attempt to “reach out” to the liberals. Did the liberals join their ranks and open their hearts to the gospel in return?
No.
The liberals kicked them to the curb and said: “Thanks, suckers.” These churches are now dying. Float some incense in a Dr. Phil seminar, and you’ll get more spiritual growth than from an Episcopal sermon. It’s almost as if there is some sort of Holy Spirit that lives on in Christians who love God’s word and dies in those who do not. Funny how that works.