Chik Fil A "Political"?

[subllibrm]

The part of the whole CFL dust up that escapes me is that the man was accused of being "political". Was his response to the question political or moral? If they asked his opinion on adultery and he responded with his understanding of scripture's position on the subject, would that be political?

The issue of same sex "marriage" was politicized by the gay lobby. It seems kind of silly for them to turn around and accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being "political".

I read one poster on face book claiming that business owners (because they are rich) and Christians (because churches don't pay taxes) shouldn't be allowed to express opinions on political issues. See, how cool is that? Make a moral issue "political" and you can no longer have an opinion on the subject.

 

[rsc2a]

It's political because marriage (rightly or wrongly) is a legally recognized state.

 

[subllibrm]

It's political because marriage (rightly or wrongly) is a legally recognized state.

Then adultery is political as well as it is illegal and/or grounds for divorce in every state.

 

[rsc2a]

It's political because marriage (rightly or wrongly) is a legally recognized state.

Then adultery is political as well as it is illegal and/or grounds for divorce in every state.

(Monogamous) marriage is political ergo adultery is political.

 

[christundivided]

It's political because marriage (rightly or wrongly) is a legally recognized state.

Then religion is political because it is legally recognized state. 

 

[rsc2a]

It's political because marriage (rightly or wrongly) is a legally recognized state.

Then religion is political because it is legally recognized state.

Can to tell me what benefits or penalties there are for belonging to a particular religion in our country?

(In countries where there are particular benefits/penalties, what you said would be true.)

 

[Izdaari]

Mr. Cathy's position was political because he was advocating a public policy position, advocating certain laws and that people should vote a certain way. If he were advocating that individuals should behave a certain way because it's the right thing to do, and not advocating changes in the laws, it would be moral and not political.

 

[subllibrm]

Mr. Cathy's position was political because he was advocating a public policy position, advocating certain laws and that people should vote a certain way. If he were advocating that individuals should behave a certain way because it's the right thing to do, and not advocating changes in the laws, it would be moral and not political.

Fair enough. But had the gay lobby not politicized the issue, the position he took would not be seen as political. If anything, people would have wondered why he was pointing out the obvious.

Point being, this opens the door to making all moral statements verboten. Just declare your opposition to a moral view as in need of legal (political) protection and viola, we are no longer allowed to speak to it as a moral issue.

 

[christundivided]

Mr. Cathy's position was political because he was advocating a public policy position, advocating certain laws and that people should vote a certain way. If he were advocating that individuals should behave a certain way because it's the right thing to do, and not advocating changes in the laws, it would be moral and not political.

You're silly. At every turn you try to have your cake and eat it too.... when it comes to politics and religion.

They can't rationally be separated. Mr Cathy expressed a view that was entirely based on his own personal, religious...... beliefs. Regardless of what you think... some people actually take their beliefs seriously. So seriously that they find their way into their "political beliefs".

Don't tell me that you're the exception to the rule. You're not. You either let your politics influence your religious beliefs or you let your religious beliefs influence your politics.

 

[BandGuy]

The part of the whole CFL dust up that escapes me is that the man was accused of being "political". Was his response to the question political or moral? If they asked his opinion on adultery and he responded with his understanding of scripture's position on the subject, would that be political?

The issue of same sex "marriage" was politicized by the gay lobby. It seems kind of silly for them to turn around and accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being "political".

I read one poster on face book claiming that business owners (because they are rich) and Christians (because churches don't pay taxes) shouldn't be allowed to express opinions on political issues. See, how cool is that? Make a moral issue "political" and you can no longer have an opinion on the subject.

I think any political issue can be moral and vice versa.

 

[Castor Muscular]

What exactly was it that started this whole manufactured controversy?  I thought it started when Cathy mentioned in some interview that he donated to causes that the gay lobby doesn't like.  But I don't really know - that's just one of the versions I heard. 

 

[christundivided]

What exactly was it that started this whole manufactured controversy?  I thought it started when Cathy mentioned in some interview that he donated to causes that the gay lobby doesn't like.  But I don't really know - that's just one of the versions I heard.

He did say something along the lines of his company support traditional marriage. In another interview.... he supposedly said that America would be judged for its acceptance of homosexuality. I haven't personally listened to that interview but I heard them talk about it on ORielly..... so it must be true...

It was his statement concerning the support of traditional marriage that started everything.

 

[T-Bone]

Here you go guys...it was his interview with a Christian news source where he affirmed his biblical family values that got the libtards all up in arms.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=38271

 

[Izdaari]

Mr. Cathy's position was political because he was advocating a public policy position, advocating certain laws and that people should vote a certain way. If he were advocating that individuals should behave a certain way because it's the right thing to do, and not advocating changes in the laws, it would be moral and not political.

You're silly. At every turn you try to have your cake and eat it too.... when it comes to politics and religion.

They can't rationally be separated. Mr Cathy expressed a view that was entirely based on his own personal, religious...... beliefs. Regardless of what you think... some people actually take their beliefs seriously. So seriously that they find their way into their "political beliefs".

Don't tell me that you're the exception to the rule. You're not. You either let your politics influence your religious beliefs or you let your religious beliefs influence your politics.

So Jefferson was wrong and separation of church and state is nonsense too? 

But yes, of course my political and religious beliefs influence each other. And one thing they have in common: neither my classical liberal/libertarian sources nor Jesus advocated the use of coercion as a means of making people behave morally.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]And one thing they have in common: neither my classical liberal/libertarian sources nor Jesus advocated the use of coercion as a means of making people behave morally.[/quote]

Inquisition much?

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]And one thing they have in common: neither my classical liberal/libertarian sources nor Jesus advocated the use of coercion as a means of making people behave morally.

Inquisition much?
[/quote]

LOL! 

What the Inquisition did in the name of Jesus was horrible. They obviously didn't have much of a handle on what He was all about. I suspect it may not go well for them at the Last Judgement.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]And one thing they have in common: neither my classical liberal/libertarian sources nor Jesus advocated the use of coercion as a means of making people behave morally.

Inquisition much?

LOL! 

What the Inquisition did in the name of Jesus was horrible. They obviously didn't have much of a handle on what He was all about. I suspect it may not go well for them at the Last Judgement.[/quote]

And not too different from how some people think we should act today... 

 

[christundivided]

So Jefferson was wrong and separation of church and state is nonsense too? 

I definitely more idealistic than practical. Which much of the writing of the founding father were idealistic. Jefferson even wanted slavery abolished but refused to free his own slaves or believe that the voluntary release of slaves by their owners. Jefferson was a complicated man and often his ideals didn't appear very rational at times.

But yes, of course my political and religious beliefs influence each other. And one thing they have in common: neither my classical liberal/libertarian sources nor Jesus advocated the use of coercion as a means of making people behave morally.

Neither did the president of "that" chicken place. But you must live among people who's lack of morality cause great social harm. That is why the law was made for the ungodly. The sinner. You can't deny the necessity of the law for such.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Izdaari]And one thing they have in common: neither my classical liberal/libertarian sources nor Jesus advocated the use of coercion as a means of making people behave morally.

Inquisition much?

LOL! 

What the Inquisition did in the name of Jesus was horrible. They obviously didn't have much of a handle on what He was all about. I suspect it may not go well for them at the Last Judgement.
[/quote]

I don't know what gets into you and rsca but.... don't you think its a little dishonest to deal with me as if I want to resurrect the "inquisition"? I have never advocated such.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]And one thing they have in common: neither my classical liberal/libertarian sources nor Jesus advocated the use of coercion as a means of making people behave morally.

Inquisition much?

LOL! 

What the Inquisition did in the name of Jesus was horrible. They obviously didn't have much of a handle on what He was all about. I suspect it may not go well for them at the Last Judgement.

I don't know what gets into you and rsca but.... don't you think its a little dishonest to deal with me as if I want to resurrect the "inquisition"? I have never advocated such.
[/quote]

Never said you did. But he mentioned it, and I responded to it without any particular context in mind.