Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amanda Hasson on 8th mo. 14, 2012 at 11:23am

I thank you for this post! I believe that if the Government discriminates against a religious perspective, then it's no better than having a "state instituted religion", it's still limiting another's beliefs... one way or another...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Austin on 8th mo. 14, 2012 at 8:19pm

After seeing the lines outside of Chik-Fil-A restaurants a couple weeks ago, I can assure you all that I am no longer nervous.  I am angry and disappointed, and resolute.

I'm wondering if the Friends who oppose the Chik-Fil-A boycott also would've thought it wrong, say, for civil rights "activists" to sit in at North Carolina lunch counters in the early 1960s as a peaceful way of ending segregation, because that might have "damaged" Woolworth's lunch counter business. Just a question.

This is not just about Mr. Cathy's anti-gay speech.  He obviously has the right to express his views and to claim he's speaking for whatever God he believes in.  But Mr. Cathy has also given substantial financial support to the Family Research Council, an organization that has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Among other actions, the FRC aggressively lobbied against passage of a Congressional resolution condemning Uganda's notorious "kill the gays" law, which would have condemned homosexuals in that country to death and prescribed imprisonment for anyone trying to protect them.

Speech takes many forms.  In America, money equals speech.  And Mr. Cathy's speech funds hatred.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herb Lape on 8th mo. 15, 2012 at 3:58am

I don't remember reading any post here that was opposed to a boycott. Adria's initial post was focused on politicians threatening to use the political process to deny Cathy the right to do business in their community based on his exercise of free speech and expression of religious and  political views. This does make some of us very nervous that basic freedoms are under attack.

A second thing that makes me nervous and sad is the labeling of  Cathy as "anti gay" and groups like the Family Research Council a "hate groups."

Just because you testify to a traditional vision of sex, marriage and family as an ideal doesn't mean that you hate gay people. We are opposed to militarism and could be labeled "anti-militarists" but this doesn't mean that we "hate" military people nor treat them badly. I know and love many people in my life whom I personally think are making bad choices in certain aspects of their life. I don't know but would hope that Cathy as a good Christian is loving towards all people, including gays.

John Stewart did a piece on the Daily Show featuring a youtube video posted by an anti Cathy type blasting a sweet young woman working the drive through window for working at an anti gay establishment of hate and bigotry. Stewart, who is a strong gay marriage supporter, pointed out the intolerance, bigotry and just plain bad manners coming from someone who claimed to being fighting such things. Ah, judge not lest ye be judged.... oh how we clearly see the speck in our opponents eye and miss the beam in our own.

Like Stewart, as Friends we should oppose facile labeling and intolerance even when it happens from "our team."

 Dave Austin said:

After seeing the lines outside of Chik-Fil-A restaurants a couple weeks ago, I can assure you all that I am no longer nervous.  I am angry and disappointed, and resolute.

I'm wondering if the Friends who oppose the Chik-Fil-A boycott also would've thought it wrong, say, for civil rights "activists" to sit in at North Carolina lunch counters in the early 1960s as a peaceful way of ending segregation, because that might have "damaged" Woolworth's lunch counter business. Just a question.

This is not just about Mr. Cathy's anti-gay speech.  He obviously has the right to express his views and to claim he's speaking for whatever God he believes in.  But Mr. Cathy has also given substantial financial support to the Family Research Council, an organization that has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Among other actions, the FRC aggressively lobbied against passage of a Congressional resolution condemning Uganda's notorious "kill the gays" law, which would have condemned homosexuals in that country to death and prescribed imprisonment for anyone trying to protect them.

Speech takes many forms.  In America, money equals speech.  And Mr. Cathy's speech funds hatred.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herb Lape on 8th mo. 16, 2012 at 3:14pm

Wow, this news about the shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council yesterday by " a volunteer at the D.C. Center, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community center in Washington"   shows the danger of labeling groups like Family Research Council "hate groups" Some unhinged person will swallow it whole and do the John Brown thing. Happens too often with anti abortion zealots.

This NYTimes article says that the crime is being investigated as a possible "hate" crime. What ever happened to simple crimes. It seems kind of sad and weird when every group tries to play the "victim" game. What ever happened to justice as opposed to proving victimhood. It becomes pretty meaningless when all sides have a claim to victimhood based on blind hatred and intolerance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/shooting-at-family-research-co...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Nelson Seaman on 8th mo. 16, 2012 at 4:02pm

I am very saddend by the shooting yesteday at the Family Research Council main office in Washington, D.C, by a gay activist supporter entering the facility with Chic-fil A packaging on his person, and who shot and almost killed a security guard.   The shooter apparently was a volunteer at a local LGBT facility in the area.  Duirng the boycott of a Chic-fil-A franchise in Laguna Beach, Ca., hate speach graffiti was painted in large print on the side of the resturant.   The Family Research Council is also opposed to abortion.    

 

What frightens me is the civil abandonment of peace and the use of violence by gay activist in these incidents.    Where I disagree with Dave Austin is in the use of blanket hate speech accusations against any religious group opposed to homosexuality which are based opon the tenents of their individual faith traditions.    This type of "hate" rhetoric goes back to the old Gay Liberation Front tactics of the 1970's, which actually entailed the image of "Che" Cueverra on some of its posters.   This was the gay activist group, at least in the United States, who also theorized heterosexual relatonships as capitalist tools of the rich, hence the use of "oppression" language found in use in the political debate of the following decades.    There are certainly extremists at both ends of the political spectrum, but we should all be resolute about preserving the freedoms to express opposing views without instigating violence

The shooting in the Family Research Coucil office should be denounced by all gay activist organizations, loudly and clearly.         

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marcie Tillett on 8th mo. 17, 2012 at 6:17pm

Sorry I'm late to this discussion, but Amen!, Friend Adria! You are right on the money with your observation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by keely showalter on 8th mo. 18, 2012 at 8:35am

I am with Herb and David. As Friends we can have an open dialogue. We understand that even with inspired speech none of us has been given the FULL measure of light and therefore have little claim to absolute truth. There is room to strive together. I disagree with Cathy's remarks but thank God we live in a country where they can be expressed...theoreticaly without destroying ones livelyhood. But his comments do bother me because they feel so final and without any room for discussion or disagreement. He seems ready for some kind of Godly hateful revenge and not challenging that seems wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Nelson Seaman on 8th mo. 20, 2012 at 1:35am

I am not certain if what Dan Cathy was alleged to have said, as reported in the Huffington Post, was reported accurately.    Read on:

" The jounalist who intially interviewed the Chic-fil-A executive in early July was K. Allan Blume, editior of the Biblical Recorder, the journal of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.  That interview was subsequently picked up by the Baptist Press, which gave the story greater esposure and  provided the spark for the controversy in the mainstream media.   Blume now says that during his interview with Cathy, the resturanteur "said nothing offensive, nothing putting anyone down, and "that the whole thing was distorted....and invented, manufactured story".   Never once during the interview, notes the editor, were the words "gay marriage", "lesbian", or  "homosexual" spoken.

"Also according to Blume, the businessman's "guilty as charged" comment was in response to a question about Chic-fil-A's committment to and support of family values- not a confirmation of, and "anti-gay stance, as conveyed in the Huffington Post story". 

This came from a onenewsnow.com commentary, under the blog identified as citizenwells. wordpress. com., dated August 16, 2012.   

I get that sinking feeling in my stomach whenever I begin to think that the press has misrepresented other people's interviews for which the author writes about, which in this case was the Huffington Post online special section, "HuffPost-Gay View".    K. Allan Blume, who inteviewed Dan Cathy, apparently disputes the Huffington Post version of his interview.   

The only reliable comments we may have are from mayors of the cities who used the Huffinton Post as their source. 

 

In Peace and Friendship- David

 

  

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by keely showalter on 8th mo. 20, 2012 at 8:38am

ow That puts a new spin on things!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Irene Lape on 8th mo. 20, 2012 at 10:04am

Thanks David for this research. It confirms experience and intuition. It should be noted that both sides of the political culture divide play this game. It's so much easier playing to Tribal identity and fear than patiently discerning what's best for us as individuals and as a people.

The early church in Acts 15 provided a model of discernment in deciding to suspend much of the Mosaic code based on Biblical story(not law), new revelation(Peter's dream of God suspending the kosher law) and demonstrated fruits(all those gentiles receiving the holy spirit but not being observant to the holiness codes.

In our history we provided a similar patient discernment process on the slavery issue. Unfortunately, in my experience, we have adopted the ideological/dogmatic purity and tribal labeling/distortion of the world on sexual issues including gay issues like marriage. We witness from the "earthquake, wind and fire" of human desire, instead of the "still small voice of calm."

David Nelson Seaman said:

I am not certain if what Dan Cathy was alleged to have said, as reported in the Huffington Post, was reported accurately.    Read on:

" The jounalist who intially interviewed the Chic-fil-A executive in early July was K. Allan Blume, editior of the Biblical Recorder, the journal of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.  That interview was subsequently picked up by the Baptist Press, which gave the story greater esposure and  provided the spark for the controversy in the mainstream media.   Blume now says that during his interview with Cathy, the resturanteur "said nothing offensive, nothing putting anyone down, and "that the whole thing was distorted....and invented, manufactured story".   Never once during the interview, notes the editor, were the words "gay marriage", "lesbian", or  "homosexual" spoken.

"Also according to Blume, the businessman's "guilty as charged" comment was in response to a question about Chic-fil-A's committment to and support of family values- not a confirmation of, and "anti-gay stance, as conveyed in the Huffington Post story". 

This came from a onenewsnow.com commentary, under the blog identified as citizenwells. wordpress. com., dated August 16, 2012.   

I get that sinking feeling in my stomach whenever I begin to think that the press has misrepresented other people's interviews for which the author writes about, which in this case was the Huffington Post online special section, "HuffPost-Gay View".    K. Allan Blume, who inteviewed Dan Cathy, apparently disputes the Huffington Post version of his interview.   

The only reliable comments we may have are from mayors of the cities who used the Huffinton Post as their source. 

 

In Peace and Friendship- David

 

  

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Irene Lape on 8th mo. 20, 2012 at 10:08am

whoops, I wrote this from Rene's computer(we're visiting grand kids in CT).... Herb

Irene Lape said:

Thanks David for this research. It confirms experience and intuition. It should be noted that both sides of the political culture divide play this game. It's so much easier playing to Tribal identity and fear than patiently discerning what's best for us as individuals and as a people.

The early church in Acts 15 provided a model of discernment in deciding to suspend much of the Mosaic code based on Biblical story(not law), new revelation(Peter's dream of God suspending the kosher law) and demonstrated fruits(all those gentiles receiving the holy spirit but not being observant to the holiness codes.

In our history we provided a similar patient discernment process on the slavery issue. Unfortunately, in my experience, we have adopted the ideological/dogmatic purity and tribal labeling/distortion of the world on sexual issues including gay issues like marriage. We witness from the "earthquake, wind and fire" of human desire, instead of the "still small voice of calm."

David Nelson Seaman said:

I am not certain if what Dan Cathy was alleged to have said, as reported in the Huffington Post, was reported accurately.    Read on:

" The jounalist who intially interviewed the Chic-fil-A executive in early July was K. Allan Blume, editior of the Biblical Recorder, the journal of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.  That interview was subsequently picked up by the Baptist Press, which gave the story greater esposure and  provided the spark for the controversy in the mainstream media.   Blume now says that during his interview with Cathy, the resturanteur "said nothing offensive, nothing putting anyone down, and "that the whole thing was distorted....and invented, manufactured story".   Never once during the interview, notes the editor, were the words "gay marriage", "lesbian", or  "homosexual" spoken.

"Also according to Blume, the businessman's "guilty as charged" comment was in response to a question about Chic-fil-A's committment to and support of family values- not a confirmation of, and "anti-gay stance, as conveyed in the Huffington Post story". 

This came from a onenewsnow.com commentary, under the blog identified as citizenwells. wordpress. com., dated August 16, 2012.   

I get that sinking feeling in my stomach whenever I begin to think that the press has misrepresented other people's interviews for which the author writes about, which in this case was the Huffington Post online special section, "HuffPost-Gay View".    K. Allan Blume, who inteviewed Dan Cathy, apparently disputes the Huffington Post version of his interview.   

The only reliable comments we may have are from mayors of the cities who used the Huffinton Post as their source. 

 

In Peace and Friendship- David

 

  

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard Brod on 8th mo. 25, 2012 at 6:20pm

I wonder if we would be applauding a mayor who spoke out against a corporate owner if that owner had contributed to the KKK, money he had earned in part from his African American patrons who he gladly served in his restaurants.

For centuries people have used the excuse of "biblical principles" to persecute women and African Americans. History has shown that to be wrong, and the current attempt to invoke the Bible to justify persecution of gay Americans is also wrong.

Personally, I find it hypocritical and offensive for Chick-Fil-A to silently welcome gay Americans into their establishments to buy their food, only to take some of that money to perpetuate persecution of those same patrons.

Three cheers for any politician who stands up for those being treated unfairly and cruelly. That's what all of our elected officials should be doing to the fullest extent of the law.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page