Tuesday December 1, 2015
Jump to content
Tom, Don't know where else to put this comment.
Just got back from trying to get something to eat at Chick-Fil-A. There are 3 of these restaurants in the chicago area, so we had our choice. As I didn't want to go to the north side, we chose to go to the Orland Park location. Those of you unfamiliar with the chicago & it's suburban areas, Orland Park is a very large suburban city on the SW side. It's main drag is LaGrange Rd. a six lane highway upon which a very large amount of traffic travels.
When we went out there to try our chances at lunch, we might as well have saved the trip. Traffic was backed up so bad they had to put traffic cops there in order to try to keep some semblance of order. And when we finally got into the parking area, the waiting lines were hours long. We spoke to one gentleman asking him how long a wait and were informed he had to wait over 1 ½ hours just to place his order.
Now you may wonder why I even say anything about this. It's because, hopefully, this is a continuation of the awakening of the normally apathetic American citizen. Back here in IL we've become used to the demorat actions of the state, county and big city governments, so when something like Chick-Fil-A day is so overwhelmingly successful and rham & moreno get a figurative kick in the rear, it makes me feel good. Whether or not there will be a backing off of the stupid actions by the above politicos remains to be seen. My guess is that they won't because like the chicoms, they don't want to lose face & they're liberals to boot. People who believe in freedom of speech only when it suites them.
Paul, I agree with many of the points you make; and I absolutely believe in freedom of speech. However, that being said, I must also say that I grow weary of everybody feeling compelled to make a political statement about everything.
I eat at Chick-Fil-A every opportunity that I get, and I am virtually addicted to Starbucks. But, maybe we would all be better off if Chick-Fil-A would stick to making great chicken, and if Starbucks would concentrate on their brewing capabilities. Going a step further, I would be thrilled if Sean Penn, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt would stick to acting, instead of finding it necessary to offer their political opinions to all and sundry. I mean Sean Penn has major anger issues and he, along with Brad Pitt have difficulty restricting their attentions to their legal spouse, and Angelina?...At one time she wore a vial of her lovers blood around her neck and she admits that even now when she feels stressed, she cuts herself.
I would just love to see people and corporations stick with their strengths and leave the political statements out of their business.
Kim, your statement is amazingly correct. Unfortunately those you mentioned and so many others who feel compelled or who are coerced by those who control their livelihoods will NOT shut up. Witness the so-called “freedom marches”, the overblown and overbearing sit-ins and marches that normal Americans are subjected to in the media.
So when the opportunity arises to speak out against the travesty and smothering actions of any and all levels of government, many of us chose to stand up and be counted. Many cheers for those who did so yesterday and definitely many, many cheers for those in the Tea Party who have decided to no longer sit quietly on the sidelines.
Good to hear from you.
The Chick-Fil-A backlash is an indication of how tired people are of PC. If we are going to be truly free we have to be free to speak our minds, accepting the fact that we may see some criticism for holding some view, but with a understanding that the only acceptable result in a democracy is having someone else espouse the opposite view. I just put up something on another string about "ad hominen" arguments, where people attack the person holding a viewpoint instead of attacking the viewpoint itself. It applies here too.
Without freedom of speech--as our forebears so clearly saw--freedom is a myth. Laws and customs demanding "correct" thinking don't promote freedom; they stifle it. All too often they are the result of people trying too hard to achieve a result instead of accepting the fact that no matter how right or wrong some viewpoint may be there will always be some people who hold a different one. And why not?
Trying to force people to say things they don't believe is only one step from thought control. Mark my words, there will come a time when someone will seriously propose limitations on free speech, using some great sounding sound bite as an excuse. And there will be people who will fall for it; there always are.
The Chick-Fil-A thing is, of course, powered by the press, which has latched onto it as a way of making news. But we should not blame all journalists. At the moment, and for some time now, the press has found itself in the odd position of supporting actions that run directly against the liberal views that so many journalists hold. In fact, Gannet has become so dictatorial that its employees dare not speak their minds any more. Promotions within the company and its papers are based on actual, written rules that limit free speech and news coverage, rules that would turn you gray if you read them.
By the way, whenever I use the terms "liberal" or "liberalism" I use them in their original sense, which (quoting from Wiki as a reasonably unbiased source) is: A broad political ideology or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as capitalism, constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights and the free exercise of religion.
That makes almost all of us "liberals," of course. The term has been ruined through overuse by politicians.
Anyway, the Chick-Fill-A phenomenon is a sign of our times. People are not going to put up with repression of free speech.
It is too bad that all this is happening Things like this tend to divide us up into two camps, when actually there are three camps: The vast majority of the people, who hold reasonable views, is one camp; the two minority groups--extreme to one side, and extreme to the other--are the other two.
As for actors et al, I have never been fond of people who use a temporary popularity to become political activists. Their opinions are worth no more than those of any other individual, and because of the lifestyles they lead, they are often worth less.
And as to the nuts that Kim mentions. They are just that--nuts.
This whole thing with Chick-Fil-A? The majority of the people who are up in arms about it, adamantly state that for them it is "all about the first amendment and freedom of speech", however, they also feel compelled to mention that they are Christian.
Do Jews, and Baptists, Catholics and Muslims, and Buddhists and Atheists not believe in freedom of speech and first amendment rights?
I wish that people would stop trying to cloak their religious beliefs in political freedom. If you don't believe in gay marriage, then at least have the strength of your convictions to say that; instead of trying to come across as tolerant and loving and accepting, and outraged that Chick-Fil-A is being persecuted by some mean politicos.
I personally could not care less about gay marriage, although to be honest, I don't see what the big fuss is about. Heck, more than 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, why not let gay people see if they can do any better? For that matter, how on earth does a gay couple getting married threaten the sanctity of marriage? Of my marriage? Or yours? Or yours? That's right...it doesn't.
I guess for me, it is all about love...if two people love each other enough to want to get married and spend the rest of their lives loving and caring for each other, how is that wrong?
I am a Christian, I am politically cognizant, I am happily (heterosexually) married, I am fairly well versed in Scripture, and I love to eat at Chick-Fil-A. Are each of these things mutually exclusive? I don't think so.
I agree with you about people sometimes being too fast to cloak themselves in religion, but in this case it is part of a backlash against persecution. I suspect that the people who are bringing religion into it are tired of being unable to speak their minds about the way their religion treats the matter. When people who feel very strongly about something are stifled by governmental decree in a land where freedom of speech is fundamental they get justifiably angry.
As for the bottom line issue--gay marriage--in our culture there is no such thing. It may surprise you to hear me say that, but it's true Marriage is a cultural and religious matter, but it derives from nature, in which it is the coming together of male and female to form a family unit. In our culture, and all religions I know of, gay marriage simply does not exist. Therefore, those who want to proclaim their unions as "marriage" are not trying to legalize it--which it already is--but to force society and religion to APPROVE of it by describing it using a term which they believe it reserved for something else. It is like Congress trying to change the definition of glass and requiring that we call it plastic.
The original purpose of marriage is to provide a loving and protective environment for the two people involved and for the children derived of marriage. Our laws are intended to extend the protection of written law to that.
Gay marriage is an entirely different thing. It does not derive from a historically accepted cultural institution, and from the millions of years of biological norms that preceded it. It is a wish, a demand in fact, that culture change itself to include something within the definition of marriage which the term was never intended to include. What is wrong with that is the fact that in doing so government steps square into freedom of speech. No can do!
Our laws are now being changed to recognize the right of any two people who wish to bring their financial and personal lives together to do that. Good. There is every reason that must be permitted; there is every reason to believe it is a natural right. But to force people to call that union a marriage? No! That is trampling on free speech. Free speech is not just a matter of what we are permitted to say; it is also a matter of what we cannot be forced to say.
That's what is happening here.
That does not men that it is culturally acceptable to use insulting or demeaning terms when speaking of others. Far from it.
Having said all that, I would like to point out that as far back as 1952 I was well aware of the sexual orientation of some of the men in my very first Air Force outfit, and after that of the sexual orientation of many men and women in later outfits. And throughout my life, even as far back as grade school, I have had friends, co-workers, and neighbors who were gay, and I was then, and am now very proud of the fact that it made not one whit of difference to either of us.
Posting comments requires a free account