Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Chick-Fil-A brouhaha
I've tried to keep my peace over the Chick-Fil-A imbroglio, but the triumphalism and/or bitterness displayed on both sides has finally got to me. I've had more than enough of this crap. Both sides need to sit down, shut up, take a deep breath, and grow up.
To gay activists: So you want to be free to indulge/celebrate/express your sexuality. Good. Go for it - in private. I don't care what you do, or who you do it with, in the privacy of your own homes. You have as much right to free choice as I do - in fact, according to the Christian faith, free will is one of God's primary gifts to us. If you choose to exercise your free will differently to how I exercise mine, that's your privilege. However, I do get fed up when you insist on making a public display of your sexuality, whether verbally, coitally, or whatever. Get a bloody room!
To anti-gay Christians: You have the right to believe what you please, and practice your beliefs - but you do not have the right to condemn others who do not share your faith when they believe what they please, and practice it. Come to that, you don't have the right to condemn even those who do share your faith! Have you forgotten Matthew 5:48 and Matthew 7:1-5? If you've got those instructions right, then - and only then - you can talk to me about how others are failing. Until then, shut up!
Don't tell me what you believe. Show me. Prove to me by example - by your actions, not by your words - that you believe. Live a sexually moral life yourself, including no lustful thoughts, words or actions (including masturbation, pornography, etc.). Keep that up for a meaningful period - I'm talking years, not days, weeks or months. Only when you've walked the walk do you have the right to talk the talk. As St. Francis of Assisi put it: "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." That says it all.
My apologies if I've offended anyone by being blunt . . . but I think it needed to be said. For myself, I'm a Christian. I don't accept the gay lifestyle as Godly. On the other hand, I'm forced to confess that I'm a sinner too - at least as great a sinner, and possibly a worse one, than many, even most gay people. I need God's mercy and forgiveness myself; and if I want him to forgive me, I must forgive others. (Remember the 'Our Father' [Matthew 6:9-13]? "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." It's that basic - and that important.) I can't judge or condemn gay people for their lifestyle. I must forgive them - and I need their forgiveness for my sins, too. If I believe there's a better lifestyle for them, I need to show it to them by example, so that they can see Christ in me, and be converted by his lived reality. Bashing them over the head with the Bible isn't exactly helpful.
We're all equally in need of God's mercy. May we all seek it humbly, and help each other to find it in the end.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Thank you, Brother. Very, very well said.
Bravo! Would that more clergy taught this.
That is the truth. I have never really understood how a Christian, who is supposed to show Christ like love to others as an example to the world, can reconcile the in your face attitude that drives people away from Christ. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
On the flip side, the intolerance shown by those who cry that others need to show tolerance boggles my mind.
Peter? What exactly is the difference between people who want to open-carry legal boomthings and two guys who want to be able to walk down the street holding hands without constant harassment?
The answer is: not much. In both cases people are openly living their lives as they are.
A "lefty" has no more "right" to get hysterical over an openly carried holstered Glock than a "righty" has to go "eww, get a room" when he/she sees obvious signs of homosexuality (minus actual nudity or sex of course, that's a problem regardless of orientation just as much as openly waving said Glock around is...for different reasons of course ).
Humans who are in good mental health have a tendency towards wanting to show the world what they are. It's normal and applies across the political spectrums (yes, plural). It explains everything from bumper stickers to various T-shirts to what-have-you.
Believe me, this same argument hits home squarely between the eyes when you explain it to a lefty who "doesn't want to see evil guns".
@Jim March: Agreed, with this proviso - public displays of sexuality are seldom welcome or appropriate. I agree that the same standards should apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals in that regard - and I'm hardly the best person to set those standards, because I was raised in a fairly (morally) conservative environment and I haven't changed much.
On the other hand . . . I've never seen a Straight Pride Parade, where heterosexuals (un)dress as flamboyantly (flam-girl-antly?) as possible, and carry on in public as if they're two shakes of a dog's tail away from consummation. Neither do I see 'straights' arranging a 'kiss-in' at Chick-Fil-A to publicize their sexual orientation and protest the (any) company's attitude towards it. Both examples illustrate what I find most objectionable about the 'gay pride' movement - its insistence on 'in-your-face' celebration of its sexuality. I have no problem with their right to choose the latter - just get a freakin' room, please, rather than inflict it on my eyes!
:-(
A lot of the protesters supporting Chick-fil-A were there because government agents were using the force of law to attack the company over the 'speech' (and religious beliefs) of its owner. That the speech and religion involved gay marriage (not homosexuality per se) was secondary, at most.
I also believe a large contingent of Chick-fil-A supporters were indignant that government officials had applied an unconstitutional political litmus test for a business to operate within their jurisdiction. Such political tests are explicitly against the law, but that doesn't seem matter to some in power. Their action against Chick-fil-A is an extremely dangerous precedent.
Well said.
I went to Chick fil A and stood in line over 1.5 hours. We talked about the 1st amendment.
To me that is the whole of the issue.
We, not just christians, are being told to hide our beliefs and conservative values and allow the free and open display of any who are willing to belittle those pushed in the corner.
Peter, I don't believe you are much older than I so I think you can remember when churches (those bodies of believers)helped the poor. They were the benefactors to help those "on hard times." AND they did not take to freeloaders, but insisted they learn to help themselves.
And the People said "Amen."
Truth without love is harsh, usually like a blunt instrument. I've been on the end of that from my Christian brothers. But the converse fits as well: Love without truth is dangerous... Like a river that overflows it's banks. Be perfect / holy as God is holy and judge not must be the most quoted verses in the Bible now. But how about 1 Corinthians 6:9, or Romans 1:28-32? These are equally valid. We must love and care for all God's creatures, but we must be true to the whole counsel of God. Warnings must be given. God made us male and female for a reason. When we turn our back on His perfect plan, there will be consequences from God Himself. I fear Christianity has become a toothless, complacent social club. We are to love, serve, warn and counsel from the Word of God. Christians are to be different than societal norms. 1 John 2:15-17. Just as salt is different from blandness and light is different from darkness.
There's a balance: love thy neighbor, speak the truth.
"I've never seen a Straight Pride Parade, where heterosexuals (un)dress as flamboyantly (flam-girl-antly?) as possible, and carry on in public as if they're two shakes of a dog's tail away from consummation. "
No. Instead, the straights just do that stuff everywhere. From Superbowl Ads of scantily-clad ladies selling website domains, to teenagers making out at school, to completely unnecessary scenes (meaning: "can be cut out and not make any difference to the plot") of sex and making out in movies.
Whereas the gays can't do that because they'll lose their jobs, or get their stuff vandalized, or get the shit beaten out of them. The "pride" parades are a way of finally getting to express themselves however they wish - like the "normal" people do every single day with only raised eyebrows at worst.
Practice in private? Why would you require them to be "private" about their lives and relationships when everyone else is allowed to be in the open?
This isn't about them being "gay", it is about not allowing them the same rights and opportunities to choose who they are allowed to marry. It is trying to put a religious restriction on a group who doesn't follow that religion.
The simple solution to all of this is for religious groups to worry about their own religious groups and leave everyone else alone. If Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that their God doesn't allow same sex marriages, then don't get married to someone of the same sex.
Pretty simple, huh?
But people are fighting over the LEGAL aspect of marriage, and whether the GOVERNMENT should recognize marriage. After all, it isn't the church that grants the ultimate permission to marry, it is the government.
Nobody is forcing a religion to accept something that they don't want to accept.
After decades of being bludgeoned by the media on GLBT issues, I'm just about ready to stand up and support Chik-Fil-A.
I remember the boycott of Florida Orange Juice because of the anti-gay stand of Anita Bryant. It worked very well, she was dropped in short order. But decades later people are starting to say "I'm sick of this shit" and are pushing back against the GLBT promoters.
Look, this issue affects a very small percentage of the population and now that things have gotten really bad for a lot of the rest of us, maybe it's time people started supporting issues that affect a lot larger percentage of the population. In other words, to the GLBT crowd, it's no longer all about you.
I must agree here. My reason for supporting the owners of Chick-fil-a is simple - adherants of a particular religion,whose businesses are being threatened by Gov. officials and their followers on trumped up chargesof "hate" and "hurting the oppressed", that they should be shunned by all "right thinking " people. They arn't "good enough" to do business in " our" cities. What's next? forcing them to paint yellow in their windows to warn off potenial customers of doing busines with "malcontents"? What date shall we let them set for the modern " Kristalnacht"? I fight this garbage because I know where it leads, Peter. And so do you. To he camps. And the ovens. NEVER AGAIN. Sweet God help us, NEVER. AGAIN.
You have just eloquently stated my exact position sir. Bravo, and Linked.
It's not about gay rights or marriage. I'm for both. I want everyone who wants to to get married. It about free speech and religious freedom. They want to silence this man, to destroy his business. They don't want him to be able to be closed on Sunday, they don't want him to be a success, because they despise what he believes.
His beliefs today, mine tomorrow, yours the day after. I stand against that sort of oppression, the same way I stand against the hate and disapproval that so often pushes young gay people to suicide. You want me to be in favor of freedom to live your life the way you choose? It has to be for everyone, even, especially, those I don't agree with.
All the man did was state that he believed that marriage on the biblical model is worth preserving. Given that it's the building block of civilization, it is worth preserving. Those who think that calling homosexual "marriage" marriage makes it so are deluded.
While there are those who simply condemn homosexuals, I don't know any who do so in my Evangelical circles. We do warn that God views anything outside his model for marriage as perversion and those who commit such things will not enter the Kingdom. If they don't enter the Kingdom, there is only one other place, and that end is ghastly beyond words. I've also seen those same people decry heterosexual adultery just as loudly, but that's ignored because the left is more interested in advancing the destruction of civilization, and homosexuals are much handier in that regard. The left couldn't care less what happens to such people, but the Evangelical that warns about the consequences are the haters. Go figure.
I think you missed the point. It is not about gay versus non-gay. It is to whether an owner of a business can express his (non political correct) opinion and not be crucified for it. i.e. 1st Amendment, not pro or anti gay
Post a Comment