Chik Fil A "Political"?

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]Never said you did. But he mentioned it, and I responded to it without any particular context in mind.
[/quote]

I definitely wasn't thinking "christundivided :: inquisitor".

I was thinking "the use of coercion as a means of making people behave morally :: inquisitor". In fact, I had "Iran" instead of "inquisitor" but changed it.

 

[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.

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.

Who did? <"advocated the use of coercion">

 

[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.

Who did? <"advocated the use of coercion">

It was a general statement, not directed at any poster. But the category of people I had in mind was anyone who advocates outlawing immoral behavior simply because it's immoral, and not because it violates someone else's rights. There wouldn't be anyone here like that, would there? 

 

[Agent P]

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.

It was in the context of an interview Cathy gave to (Southern) Baptist Press.  In the course of that, he mentioned how his company favored the "traditional view" of marriage.  By his very strict definition, he also managed to rule out divorce/remarriage, and didn't even MENTION gay marriage.  It was the gay activists that read that meaning in (however
correctly they did so) between the lines and then ran with it calling for a boycott.

It wasn't even intended as a political statement.  It was an interview by a private individual to a religious press organization.