Breaking Down the Attack on Chick-Fil-A

6

July 30, 2012 by J. Truett Glen

Image

I wasn’t going to write anything concerning this issue and I honestly didn’t even have time to write anything of much substance, but I’ve had a few people ask me my opinion on the whole Chick-Fil-A situation and the best way I feel I can do that is by giving them my understanding of the thought process behind those who are condemning Chick-Fil-A. So here is my assessment:

LOVE = GOOD

RACISM = BAD

Restricting the rights of miniroty groups is RACISM

Homosexuals are simply another miority group

Being anti Gay Marriage is the same as RACISM

Homosexuals simply want to LOVE

Being anti Gay Marriage is anti-LOVE

All reasonable peoples believe that LOVE is GOOD and RACISM is BAD

All peoples desire to progress past RACISM

Groups that support racist/anti-Gay Marriage beliefs should be punished/dismantled

Owner of Chick-Fil-A is anti-Gay Marriage

Chick-Fil-A is popular with many citizens

Chick-Fil-A has a strong presence in culture

Chick-FIl-A will be used by owner to further anti-Gay Marriage agenda

CONCLUSION OF PRO GAY MARRIAGE/HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE ADVOCATES:

Chick-Fil-A is BAD and must be punished/dismantled unless they (especially their owner) agree with the cultural consensus of those who agree with the homosexual lifestyle and gay marriage, which is GOOD

The ideology and actions listed above is representative of what is meant by culture wars. It has everything to do with the consensus that is found among the relative opinions of those who desire to live within community. In order to sound like you have a stronger argument than someone else it is tempting you use terms such as “rights,” “civil,” and “natural” when discussing the socio-political options. The different sides of an issue seek to find consensus on the issues by suggesting that their opinion is a more accurate assessment of the expression of the ideal than that of the other side/sides. Thus, the idea of “love” is used as the highest ideal and all sides involved suggest that they have the market on understanding what love is.

My short little response here is full of other potential discussions that need to be addressed, but if you want to check out a well written article on the subject read Ross Douthat’s piece I have listed below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-defining-religious-liberty-down.html?ref=rossdouthat

 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Breaking Down the Attack on Chick-Fil-A

  1. Jamie says:

    So is the link saying that it’s okay to deny people equal rights, or stone them, or whatever, because RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (!)? I don’t necessarily want to ban Chick-fil-A, but I don’t see why it’s wrong or bad that people don’t want to eat there or do want to make out all gay-ily there, or, again, whatever. One Million Moms is protesting JCPenney because Ellen DeGeneres is their spokesperson. Did Mike Huckabee defend JCPenney’s freedom of speech? Did he declare a JCPenney Appreciation Day? No! Because none of this is about freedom. It’s about people disagreeing about what’s right and wrong and to frame it any other way is disingenuous.

  2. Truett Glen says:

    The article is most certainly not saying that it is “ok” to do the things you were suggesting. The article was sarcastically pointing out exactly what I pointed out, that there should be a sense of transparency that reveals the fact that we are all in a culture war. Every word that comes out of your mouth to convince someone else that they are wrong is a means to express a worldview. Every law that is placed on the books reflects a momentary consensus on an issue that might change sooner or later. Douthat was simply suggesting that those who find themselves on the liberal side of this argument should be a bit more transparant as to their real goals. I may not agree with the way he expressed them, but his points have substance.

    • Jamie says:

      He seemed to be suggesting that the liberal side of this argument is trying to deny the conservative side of this argument religious freedom.

      Which is totally true– in the sense that we also deny religions the freedom to let their followers have ten wives or handle snakes (unless you’re in West Virginia, woooo!) or have slaves. I know he’s not suggesting those things are okay. I’m sure he’d be against them being legal. And that’s my point! He’s no more for “religious freedom” than I might be.

      And that’s where I think he, and I guess the conservative side, needs to be a bit more transparent too.

  3. Jamie says:

    And, by the way, I’m not sure the liberal side as a whole is trying to deny the conservative side religious freedom. I feel like most liberals aren’t arguing that conservatives not be allowed to think gay marriage is bad, only that gays be allowed to do it anyway, or be allowed to call the conservatives who think it is bad funny names. Heck, even those mayors didn’t explicitly say Chick-Fil-A can’t have restaurants in their respective cities, only that they didn’t want them there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Archives

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,101 other followers

J. Truett Glen Facebook Page

%d bloggers like this: