Today, I didn’t eat at Chick-fil-A because I am a mind-numbed conservative religious moron who thinks that everyone who works at Chick-fil-A or has a fish on their car is somehow better than everyone else. I also didn’t eat there because I hate gay people, or because I’m in love with Dan Cathy, or because I couldn’t wait to be hurtful to anyone who is LBGT.
I ate there, primarily, because I am willing to fight to the death for my First Amendment rights, and the right of anyone else, and I mean ANYONE, to have those same rights. It doesn’t matter if I agree, or if I think the views expressed are idiotic or hurtful or hateful or the best thing since Patrick Henry – you have a right to say what you believe and run your business to match. Also, in the same First Amendment, you have the freedom to practice your religion in the way you see fit, which can also include holding to a traditional view of marriage, even when it’s not in vogue to think that way.
I’m tired of being bullied by people who are constantly offended by the personal beliefs of others, and I think that we need to return to a true First Amendment society. Everyone whinging about the unfairness of Dan Cathy holding the same beliefs that President Obama did all of six months ago needs to just grow a pair and deal with differing opinions already.
Note that even though I am a Christian, I did not support Chick-fil-A because of my Christian beliefs, although I do think that could have been a valid reason. To me, the political and cultural implications are more than enough reason to support this business, without my faith getting involved other than from a strict First Amendment perspective.
Now, despite the fact that I attended Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on strictly secular grounds, I’d like to address what some Christians have used as reasons to not attend.
Many popular Christian bloggers (Rachel Held Evans and others) have pointed out that we are not “called to follow a corporation, but Jesus”. To which I reply: Amen. Now, how exactly is standing up for someone’s right to their opinion “following a corporation”? It’s become very popular amongst progressive Christians to insist that we won’t vote for anything that might be “hurtful” to anyone, that we don’t follow corporations, that we hate the politicalization of faith, and that all we care about is Jesus. Well, if that’s true I’m glad to hear it, but something is bothering me – why don’t these folks care about “hurting” traditional orthodox believers with their progressive views? How can they claim to hate the politicalization of religion and yet angrily hurl accusations of lack of compassion against anyone who holds a more traditional, conservative view? Plus, if all we care about is Jesus, and Jesus is God… …I think it amazing that I have to spell this out, but it seems to me that’s a dangerous tack to take for someone who is pro-gay-marriage, as the Guy they’re “all about” is pretty vehemently against it.
Here’s another line of thinking that’s similarly illogical but sounds really great. Many people have been posting on Facebook that those who go eat at Chick-fil-A should be feeding the hungry instead, or some similar “you jerk Christian, eating a sandwich and being hateful, how dare you” line of thinking.
Another blogger took it even further, saying, “I believe Christians need to avoid like the plague doing anything that serves the primary purpose of making us feel good about ourselves.” Meaning, of course, that we are all on our chicken-nugget-eating high-horses and feeling very holy about this whole thing. But let’s look at these statements critically. Of course we should all be looking out for the poor and watching out for our pride. I’m not trying to argue otherwise.
But really? You mean to suggest that because I choose to support a business whose values are close in line with mine means I can’t also help the poor? The reason this controversy started was because of the charities that Chick-fil-A chooses to support! And I shouldn’t do anything that makes me feel good about my faith? Oddly enough, I feel good about my faith (and, I guess, myself) on a daily basis. I feel good when I actually follow through and read my Bible. I feel good when I serve my church. I feel good when I take time out of my schedule to talk to or love someone who needs encouragement. Welp, all those activities are out the window, because I bought a chicken sandwich and am clearly a big bad baddie who’s pride must be contained. Sorry, Church, I will not be helping any more, because I am avoiding feeling good about myself “like the plague”. (Also, I would like to note that this Christian’s blog probably makes him feel good and he gets great satisfaction from expressing his views on faith and life. CLEARLY HE SHOULD QUIT.)
Also, the blogger I just mentioned and many others have said that they won’t eat at Chick-fil-A today because they can’t risk hurting their LBGT friends, and they usually throw in some reference to how Jesus would have shunned chicken nuggets and how most Christians just aren’t on the love-train, man.
Again, I have to ask: is it Jesus you serve, or public opinion? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sure that God cares what you had for lunch today, but I think He does care about whether we have the courage to speak the truth in love. I guess there’s a risk that you might hurt someone’s feelings by eating at Chick-fil-A, but does that mean that you shouldn’t? Are feelings what dictate our actions? Is it possible that those feelings, as much as we should be aware of them, are not appropriate? Should we not vote our conscience because of other’s feelings? If so, I will be VERY OFFENDED if you don’t vote for Mitt in November.
Did it work?
I didn’t think so.
Do you know why?
Because that’s not the real reason why they won’t eat at Chick-fil-A today. They are tired of being called bigots and homophobes and so they are responding by running the other way, proclaiming that they can’t imagine hurting their fictional gay friends and pretending to be oh-so-openminded and Jesus-y.
I contend that all of this is unnecessary, foolish, man-made drama. Just as Odd Man Out says that buying a Chick-fil-A sandwich is easier than fostering a child or whatever other selfless activity he suggests instead, I contend that speaking the truth in love is much harder than capitulating to the loudest voices. It is much harder to tell a friend, “I love you but I think you are wrong” than it is to just walk around “not offending” people. It is much harder to actually write out a blog of all of your thoughts, lay your soul bare for the world to see, than it is to simply write a holier-than-thou status update about how lovey you are to everybody and how much you hate chicken nuggets. It is much harder to stand for a holy, God-ordained religious tradition of marriage than it is to risk the name-calling, boycotting and outrage of our times.
However, I do agree with my progressive, anti-Chick-fil-A friends on one thing: it’s worth it to do the hard things. I believe in the First Amendment, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman*, and I believe that sometimes, we have to stand up for our convictions, even when it is hurtful, difficult and unpopular.
(*Incidentally, as a true Libertarian, I think that the Gummint should get out of the marriage business entirely. Everybody should be allowed to procure civil unions, and churches can decide on their own who can marry. Not that it will ever happen, but you know. A girl can dream.)
The vast majority of people boycotting Chick-fil-A are not doing so because they hate the first amendment or are against free speech. They choose to boycott because of the groups that Chick-fil-A supports. They’re certainly free to support whatever groups they want and define “traditional marriage” as between a man and woman.
By supporting Chick-fil-A, you’re not supporting free speech, you’re supporting what they do with their profits. And while that’s completely up to you. I choose not to support a company that supports hateful organizations.
At one time, a “traditional family” did not include inter-racial marriage. At one time (Deuteronomy), a “traditional family” included a man and the woman he raped. Some day we’ll look back on this and be ashamed with the way we treated gay couples for decades just as we look back on how we treated inter-racial couples.
Hey Blake,
That could be, although most people I’ve talked to are upset about Dan Cathy’s comments, not his profits, which ties directly back to the First Amendment.
Also, as a Christian, I would have been for interracial marriage but against homosexuality. The two are not equal. Be that as it may, I think it interesting that you bring up Deuteronomy, as I think it’s obvious that the God of the Old Testament took sexual activities pretty seriously: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702
But, regardless, I stand up for civil unions, First Amendment rights, and the right of businesses to do what they will with their profits. Of course, you are welcome to support anything you’d like, and say anything you’d like, which is why I ate at Chick-fil-A today in the first place… to advocate your First Amendment rights, even though we disagree.
I think you so eloquently and bravely spoke the heart and mind of many of us, Dani. What I think is interesting about so much of this conversation is where the word “hate” usually shows up first – as with the commentor to your blog post. Why say that the organizations that Dan Cathy supports are “hateful”? Are those organizations “hateful”? Really?? In what way? Because they don’t agree with changing the traditional definition of marriage which our society has held since it was established and has continued to ratify? And I don’t agree that we can put interracial and same-sex in the same argument. The Bible is full of interracial/inter-cultural marriages – God’s biggest command is that we be equally yoked – and that the yoking should be between a man and a woman. Marriage is a religious institution, a religious ceremony, that our society has recognized as being very beneficial to the well-being of society as a whole and this has NOTHING to do with Christian beliefs, just take an honest, intellectual look at the sociological data that is out there. As a society, we have provided incentives to people to behave and engage in activity that is beneficial to the whole of society, nothing new there. I, too, would fight to the end for our freedom of speech and religion. I, too, would rather win someone over with love than with argument. But we should at least play fair and honestly. And I completely agree that there should be recognition of civil unions that give people the right to partner up with whomever they want, and to share benefits with whomever they want, have medical decisions made on their behalf by whomever they want, etc. etc. and I believe that most states provide those legal rights and benefits. I want those rights for my fellow citizens and I don’t think people should be calling anyone “bad” names for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom; that is certainly not something I would do – but I also want the right to my religious beliefs without being called names. And I am sure Dan Cathy feels the same way…it only seems fair, right?
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/family-research-council-labeled-hate-group-by-splc-over-anti-gay-rhetoric.php
And you know that God didn’t write the bible, right? It was written by man, so like any other piece of literature, you may want to take it with a grain of salt and try to learn from it while still forming your own opinion. I always thought Jesus preached love and tolerance, not hate and oppression.
Hey Josh,
If you want to understand better why a Christian might want to share a Biblical perspective, this piece might help:
http://theyoungoak.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/coming-out/
Wow, you are so hypocritical I don’t know where to start. The fact that you think this is about the first amendment is sad. This is about one group of people trying to force their views of marriage and religion on others, the exact thing you claim to hate. You are actually supporting the people you claim to hate.
In your post you say:
“Also, in the same First Amendment, you have the freedom to practice your religion in the way you see fit, which can also include holding to a traditional view of marriage, even when it’s not in vogue to think that way.
I’m tired of being bullied by people who are constantly offended by the personal beliefs of others, and I think that we need to return to a true First Amendment society.”
You do realize that gay people who want to get married are just trying to “practice their religion the way they see fit”, right? They are the ones getting bullied by the anti-gay marriage groups, and all those who support them. The people you are supporting are the ones trying to force their beliefs on others. Not sure how you can’t see that.
It’s one thing to hold a belief, that’s fine. It’s another to dedicate all your time and money into forcing others to maintain that same view, which is what your buddies are doing. If you don’t like gay marriage, than don’t attend one. But don’t ruin other people’s lives because their views aren’t the same as yours. Live and let live people.
Hey Josh,
I’m sorry you feel this way, but like the big ol’ mean hypocrite I am, I will continue to fight for your right to feel this way and express it as much as you wish, in as many ways as you wish to, because I believe in the First Amendment so strongly. I have no desire to push my beliefs on anyone, but I’m also unwilling to step back and be intimidated by name-callers and those who wish to twist personal opinions into hate speech.
You say that it’s “fine” to hold a belief, but you spend most of your comment berating me for doing so. I’m sorry that my choice of lunch food and personal belief offends you so… to be honest, I don’t lose any sleep about other people’s choices, but I will fight tooth and nail for their right to make them.
I’m sorry if you felt I was berating you. I would have to disagree and say I was just pointing out the flaws in your logic. Instead of playing the victim, I was hoping you’d address any of the points I brought up.
It’s nice you’re concerned for the rights of the CEO who is donating his money towards hateful organizations, but what about the rights of gay people? That same CEO is trying to take away their rights. Why is one ok and not the other? You should read this blog post which makes a lot of good points: http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288
Hey Josh,
Your tone is incredibly condescending for someone who is so worried about love and respect for everybody, and although you complain that I didn’t address the “flaws in my logic”, I don’t see those flaws and wasn’t sure exactly what to address. So I apologize that my previous reply wasn’t thorough enough for your liking, although by this point I’m fairly certain I couldn’t say anything that would satisfy you or make you feel less disgusted towards me and my views.
Be that as it may, I still assert that you have every right to spew as much condescension and ill-will on me as you would like to, and I will fight for your right to do so, because of this little beleaguered thing we call the First Amendment.
Speaking of one’s rights to donate to “hate groups”….. all I can do is sigh. Standing up for traditional marriage is not hate. As I said in my post, I believe that civil unions should be issued by government and that churches should be allowed to perform the religious ceremony of marriage if they see fit. But that’s not enough for you, is it? Because you don’t really care about equal rights, because that’s not what this is about. This is about shutting up anyone who disagrees with you and demanding that we abandon our beliefs in order for you to co-op them into your own.
No one in America is a second-class citizen. I defy you to come up with a single example of anyone who has been prohibited from living the life they choose because of pro-faith groups. And, actually, I don’t think that pro-faith groups are trying to prohibit any certain way of life, but simply to stand up for the values that they hold to, and demand that they are respected in this culture war.
Because, despite the blog-post you just linked to, and all of your eagerness to call me a bigot and a hypocrite, you’re not actually interested in love. You want me to sit down and shut up and feel terrible about my personal beliefs. You take the Bible and use it as a weapon against the very people who are aiming to protect what it upholds.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again – Jesus was not a blind tree-hugger. He loves us all, yes, but He was never willing to let people live in their depravity. How many times did He call us out, demanding that we live according to a higher purpose and abandon our sin in order to follow Him?
I know that this is offensive to many people, but sexual impurity (hetero as well as homosexual) is a sin. A sin just like drunkenness or lying or any number of others that we all fail to correct every day. It appears from your comment to Lynne that you don’t believe in the Bible anyway, so I’m not sure why you would care about this, but the Bible is pretty clear in it’s stance, and thus, honest Christians must be as well.
Does this mean we can’t love each other even though we all sin? Of course not, but it also doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep trying to live the life God has called us to, even if it’s unpopular or belittled.
But I don’t really think you care about what God thinks, as I mentioned before, it seems that you are only using the Bible as a weapon when convenient for your ends. I guess that’s an OK tactic for making people feel small when commenting on blogs, but it’s not particularly honest, or, what was the word you used? Oh yes. Hypocritical.
As the dust settles and I look back on my comments, I realize that I have not practiced what I preached. Even though I strive to hold myself to a high standard of grace and decency even under fire, it is obvious that I did not do so in this comment exchange.
I leave these comments up for a reason – to show that while I am embarrassed by my harsh tone, I am willing to own up to my mistakes and ask all of my readers to be patient with me as I strive to ever improve my deportment on these sensitive issues. No one has asked me to give this apology, and I’ve not heard from anyone who was upset about my angry tone in these comments – this is an apology because I can’t claim my faith and then lambast those who don’t agree with me, no matter how much my sinful nature wants to.
Thanks for reading my thoughts. I still stand behind my reasoning and beliefs, just not how I delivered them in the comments, and I hope that we can continue a reasoned and fair debate in the future.
I was raised in a very conservative Catholic home. My parents, both immigrants to this country, are members of Opus Dei, as am I. My belief system asks that I attempt to practice my faith by including it in my day to day life and to give God credit when and where He is due.
I find myself in curious agreement here. Marriage, Matrimony, affianced are all religious terms. Many if not all the words we use to describe the union between a man and a woman can directly from various translations of God’s Holy Word. If you try to be a foot step follower of Christ Jesus, you soon learn to aknowledge all his dictates. He spoke frequently of forgivness of sinners, and asked those who lived in sin to ‘come out.’
Homosexuality is one of the many sins the bible discourages, and it was made clear to us all that we must hate the sin, but love the sinner. I do not actually know any gay people, however, as human beings, and part of God’s great order, I feel compassion for their dilema. I can never approve of your sinning. Not now, not later, regardless of how socially acceptable it becomes. Christ Jesus discovered the wrath of the people, he did not choose to change to fit the public mood. How can I choose a lessor road.
The state has the ability to recognize and design laws to insure relationships between 2 consenting adults exists. Those laws can insure equal rights are present, and that no rights given to us by the state are with held from whoever takes advantage of them. This civil act however, must never be confused with matrimony, Marriage. That union was described by God, blessed by God, and defined by God. Two men, or two women will never meet with God’s definition, or achieve his blessings. Assume what you will of me, but this is my belief. I do not force it upon you, nor do I expect you have the right to force your beliefs on me. If you need the approval of the followers of Christ in this quest for gay ‘Marriage’, you will never obtain it. That is what holding a belief, a value, a more means. Sticking to the right, inspite of all the temptations inherent on the broad road leading to destruction.
Pingback: I hate to admit this – but I’m outraged by your outrage | The Cute Conservative