Chick-Fil-A: Biblical Chicken Nuggets of Wisdom?

Standard

Well if you been off-planet and haven’t heard, Atlanta based Chick-Fil-A’s president Dan Cathy has turned his restaurant franchise into a religious organization that just happens to sell chicken and this religious organization has sent out a loud, clear message of intolerance toward the LGBT crowd; this is triggering both an avalanche of support from other homophobes and many colorful protests from those who feel that who marries whom is a personal decision that can be easily reached without the advise and consent of the church or the government (or the corner Chick-Fil-A).

Such a furor arose that Chick-Fil-A’s vice president of public relations had a heart attack this past week and died. Not surprising considering that Dan Cathy ‘napalmed’ the restaurant’s community image while dropping a bomb on the PR department.

There was quite enough intolerance in this country before Dan Cathy, in his company’s name, decided to air his holy underwear — we really didn’t need more.

I understand the concept! The Religious Right feels that we can’t just have people willy-nilly falling in love with each other without the guidance of the church. That would almost be too . . . too American — and of course not at all compatible with far-Right Christian doctrine. To allow people to think and act for themselves is probably considered a sin . . . at least to those religious factions who have stopped reading the Constitution in favor of the Bible.

As I said, I understand the likes of Dan Cathy! These are insecure people with little real faith in God’s “plan”; this makes them (figuratively) reluctant to put their pants on in the morning without finding a supportive bible passage; these are people who try to make up for their lack of faith by acting so self-righteous that they have developed an actual addiction to the act of ‘straightening people out’ (even those who were born anything but “straight”).

Personally, I understand and support religious or other groups showing strong public disapproval of people who are doing harm to others — but to publicly disrespect a man or woman who has a legal, loving relationship with another person, really showcases the unhealthy, tyrannical attitude of many religious sects. If the torture rack was still an option it’s easy to picture attempts to ‘stretch the gay out of people’ in the basements of some churches.

Back to Dan Cathy; it tells a lot about him that it is much more important to him to bring his religion to work and mobilize the rest of the mindless, intolerant heard than it is to allow employees and customers to think for themselves. Independent thought can, after all, be dangerous to highly structured organizations.

I would be negligent if I did not point out that there are many good religious sects left in the world and many of them are Christian based. It’s all a matter of interpretation and realization — realizing the the Bible is a book of lessons, not a book of edicts; realizing that we human creatures have independent will, independent destinies and independent needs and realizing that the herd mentality may work for a while in human society but it slowly kills the human spirit and mind.

References:

CNS News: Hollywood’s War on Chicken

CNN’s Belief Blog: Chick-fil-A wades into a fast-food fight over same-sex marriage rights

Gays in Scouting

Standard

The announcement by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) that they will not change their policy of rejecting openly gay people from membership or participation in scout troops created a mini-furor on radio talk shows. Since the majority of talk shows are anchored by Conservative hosts (to be more accurate I should say Christian-Conservative hosts) the BSA’s announcement was met with wholesale approval by the hosts but received the scorn of many callers.

Though not gay myself, I have been, for personal reasons, an outspoken supporter of gay rights; but the storm being stirred up by radical gay activists against the BSA bothers me. In fact radical activists for any cause bother me — they tend to insist on being given rights but care not at all for anyone else’s rights (not even getting into the debate over what is an actual “right” and what is just a demand).

The BSA is a private organization that can legally refuse membership to anyone it wants for whatever reason it wants (affirmed 12 years ago by the Supreme Court). By taking an anti-gay stance and then reinforcing it with a public statement, the BSA is opening itself up to scorn from those who disagree with their policy. They know that and don’t care!

It is certainly a Constitutional right for gays to, within legal limits, try to force themselves and their beliefs on anti-gay people and organizations but we must bare in mind that those doing the forcing are always the radical activists and in any group of people, the radical activists are generally 10% or less of the whole; an unfortunate after-effect however is that the entire group takes the heat from the controversy stirred up by the 10%.

I would assume that the majority of gays, having been spat on, cursed and bullied since “coming out as gay” are more than tired of rejection and would most likely not want to associate themselves with Christian bigots and other mean-spirited, closed minded individuals. Life is hard enough without subjecting yourself to associations with social retards.

On one of the radio talk shows I listened to during the boy scout controversy (the Chris Krok show), an old man called in and, after a lengthy condemnation of the push to allow gays in scouting, he concluded by saying “I don’t know why they just can’t wait until they’re 17 or 18 years old and then decide if they want to be gay or not!” The host said nothing in response! I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry!

Reference:

Christian Science Monitor: Ousted lesbian Boy Scout leader delivers petition

A Question of Patriotism

Standard

It seems that the Obama Administration has a stranglehold on the entire Democratic party.

Before Obama came into office, Democrats were enemies of anything that Republicans saw as as a good idea — that’s normal and expected and Republicans were, of course, equally opposed to Democratic ideas. That’s politics! Each party has a different view of what’s best for America. Both parties, however, were filled with patriots.

The patriotism of an American political party is something that should never have to be questioned and, in the days before Obama, the proposition that a Senator or Congressperson was unpatriotic was never seriously presented outside of emotionally heated debate. Unfortunately, that proposition needs a second look on this day.

On Monday of this week, according to the Wall Street Journal, a vote to ratify the United Nation’s Law Of The Sea Treaty was narrowly defeated by Senate Republicans. This treaty, completed in 1982, has the effect of denying it’s signatories the right of sovereignty over many aspects their coastal waters and subjects the signatories of this treaty to international arbitration of disputes and the possibility that an international body could impose binding rulings on them. The United States is NOT and hopefully never will be a signatory.

The United States is and, since declaring our independence, has been a sovereign nation. In my opinion: anyone who holds an elected office in the USA, who supports a proposition to weaken or otherwise tamper with that sovereignty, is acting as an enemy of the United States.

We know from his actions and statements that President Barack Obama is not an American patriot. American sovereignty is an impediment to his plans to bring America into the “world community” as an equal. The concept of American exceptionalism; the theory that ‘the United States is different from other countries in that it has a specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy’ or is in any other way exceptional, is foreign to President Obama’s demonstrated view of a perfect world where no country is better than any other.

Social Conservativism: Another Form of Socialism

Standard

Social Conservatives (as opposed to Fiscal Conservatives who don’t make a big deal out of the “Conservative” label) are as much of a danger to freedom as is Socialism.

It appears that, to most Social Conservatives, America’s premier founding document should be the Christian Bible, not the United States Constitution.

From Wikipedia on Social Conservatism (just the opening paragraph):

Social conservatism is a political ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values. Social conservatism is a form of authoritarianism often associated with the position that the national government should have a greater role in the social affairs of its citizens, generally supporting whatever it sees as morally correct choices and discouraging or outright forbidding those it considers morally wrong ones.

Please read that carefully and consider: do you want the government to have a “greater role” making decisions about how YOU live your life based on the personal views of politicians?

Another short discussion of Social Conservatism concludes:

“For somebody who is politically conservative, the idea of entrenching social mores into a constitution should be troubling.”

Everybody is “Thumping” a Bible!

Most disturbing is that Social Conservatism is hiding — it has assumed the deceptive name of “Conservatism” and it is everywhere. The most famous Conservatives, the ones you listen to every day on the radio and watch on TV: Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, and a large cadre of others, are, in reality Social Conservatives who think nothing of fouling the spirit of the First Amendment with their anti-pro-choice rants and their assertions that an an amendment prohibiting any marriage that does not conform to THEIR personal religious beliefs is a noble thing for ALL Americans.

These two topics: pro-choice and gay marriage, should logically be, but apparently are not, outside the purview of any level of government in the United States.

What Was That About The First Amendment?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Granted, there is no law in effect that officially names Christianity as “America’s religion” but you will find very few who flaunt themselves as Conservatives, who do not believe in their hearts and minds that Christianity is indeed America’s religion! They believe that the Christian Bible is, or at least should be, the one and only social guideline for all laws passed in the United States and should supersede the U.S. Constitution wherever conflicts arise.

Am I Anti-Religious?

Definitely not! I understand and appreciate the facts that religion guides millions of people safely through their lives, it gives them strength to face hardships and it saves may lives every day through it’s perspectives and through it’s missionary work.

Also, it can’t be denied or ignored that every politician brings with him or her, into office, a set of moral values that has been formed by his or her religious upbringing, attitudes and, hopefully, through rational and logical independent thought.

Politicians, however, are not common citizens. They do not serve well unless they serve all of their constituents.

It is a politician’s sworn duty, when they swear allegiance to the Constitution, to maintain a distance in the relationship between organized religion, his or her own personal beliefs and the propositions he or she votes into the laws that govern all of us.

A Final Thought: What’s More Dangerous?

It’s clear that I think Social Conservatism is a danger to our freedoms as Americans but I need to clarify that Socialism (the road we have been traveling for the past 3-1/2 years) is far more dangerous.

Socialism will destroy America and if we continue on this road the America we knew since birth will be lost.

As destructive as Social Conservatism can be to our personal freedoms it poses no permanent danger to America as a whole. Legislation can be repealed and modified — but once our country’s economy is destroyed through socialist policies it’s too late to rethink the damage.