There's been a lot of contraversy about Chick-fil-A recently, and it's made a lot of headlines. Some of the factual information was taken from the Go Sanangelo blog.
July 16th, 2012: Dan Cathy (head of all Chick-fil-A's everywhere) commented to Baptist Press, that they as a company are "guilty as charged" with their support of, traditional, biblical, heterosexual marriage.
August 1st, 2012: (Unofficial) Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, as organized by Mike Huckabee.
August 3rd, 2012: Gay/Lesbian Kiss-In. A gay/lesbian couple is just supposed to go to a Chick-fil-A and take a picture of them kissing.
-As far as Cathy's comment goes this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The whole first part of the interview is about how Christianly-oriented Chick-fil-A is. There are many who love, and many who hate Chick-fil-A and Cathy for this. There are many different reasons on both sides.
-Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was a smashing success. No one expected the amazing turn-out that we had. Our building was packed the whole day. It literally changed the definition of busy. We ran out of chicken by 9:00 or so that night and we made 50% more than a normal day. It was actually our busiest day, topping even our grand opening.
-The Aug, 3rd Kiss-In wasn't too bad for our restaurant-- after all we're basically the buckle of the Bible-belt. There was only one gay couple, even though many more RSPV'd on Facebook. I suppose that some Chick-fil-A's in places like California and New York were hit pretty badly.
At first I didn't realize that Cathy had been asked about his views on marriage, so I didn't think that it was a very good business move. I thought he had just published one day "I stand for traditional marriage!". But now that I know it was an interview in which he had to make a choice I support his decision and the way he made it. I must say that I also support it partially because in the grand scheme of things, he is my boss and I'm at least partially obligated to support what he says. Uniformity of the company and all.
Barnabas Piper wrote a thought-provoking article for a World Magazine site. He brings up the issue that it will be harder for Christians and others to minister to and convert gays and lesbians and those who support and condone if we further divide ourselves. Others countered this by bringing up that we as Christians are called to fight against certain things.
This again whole issue begs the question in my mind of what exactly does it mean to refuse to being supportive or apathetic to the sin, but to be able to minister to these people. It's obviously wrong and against what the Bible says to be gay or lesbian. But how can we love the sinner while still hating the sin? Well I'm still trying to figure this out. I think that it would be to be open to talking and forming relationships with gays/lesbians, but if asked for our opinions on what the right kind of marriage is, to solidly stand for Biblical marriage (while still trying not too offend the person).
Welcome to The Pen Of The Muses! The posts below are often about theological, philosophical, political, lit., or writing topics because that's what's really important to me and what I'm most excited about sharing. But I am human. Man lives not by deep theological concepts alone. Not everything I post will be weighty.
-D.C. Salmon
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
KONY 2012: The Debate and Christian response.
Over 85 million people have watched the KONY 2012 video, put together by Jason Russell, so over 85 million people have heard about the atrocities of Joseph Kony, a Ugandan warlord who is responsible for thousands of crimes against mostly children. (Nota Bene: He has only committed dozens of different crimes, but there he is responsible for those crimes being done thousands of times.) He and his Lord's Resistance Army have terrorized African countries like Uganda.
The video itself is one of the most high-quality videos that encourages people to join a cause. Russell uses his personal life, popular beliefs and symbols (like the peace sign), emotional appeals, popular music, appeals to being part of a greater cause and many other Rhetorical devices to convince the watchers of his opinion. He incorporates references to technology and social media to tell his story (e.g. using a Facebook timeline to show his relationship with Jacob, showing that people are joining the cause with rising numbers of people joining the group on Facebook) to show that this new generation uses social media and technology to join together. He doesn't overwhelm the audience with facts and proofs, proofs and facts till they're bored to tears, and not doing that is also a Rhetorical device. The video is 30 minutes long (All right- 29:58 if you want to be exact), so he doesn't have to cram everything together; he has enough time to keep everything nicely spread out. He makes his plan very real, not vague, and he does an especially good job of showing concretely what the viewers of the video can do to help this cause.
There is some debate about Kony, brought to light by Russell's video. Some areas of debate include whether Kony is dead or alive, whether the US has actually deployed soldiers to Uganda, and whether Kony's army has already done its worst. Some people claim that the whole thing is a complete scam. There have been some very strong reactions incited by this video.
But there is one thing that is not in debate; that the crimes of Joseph Kony are despicable, twisted and wrong.
The Bible tells us that God has given a conscience to all men to tell the difference between right and wrong. This is a perfect example of how all people will admit that some a actions are wrong.
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
The video itself is one of the most high-quality videos that encourages people to join a cause. Russell uses his personal life, popular beliefs and symbols (like the peace sign), emotional appeals, popular music, appeals to being part of a greater cause and many other Rhetorical devices to convince the watchers of his opinion. He incorporates references to technology and social media to tell his story (e.g. using a Facebook timeline to show his relationship with Jacob, showing that people are joining the cause with rising numbers of people joining the group on Facebook) to show that this new generation uses social media and technology to join together. He doesn't overwhelm the audience with facts and proofs, proofs and facts till they're bored to tears, and not doing that is also a Rhetorical device. The video is 30 minutes long (All right- 29:58 if you want to be exact), so he doesn't have to cram everything together; he has enough time to keep everything nicely spread out. He makes his plan very real, not vague, and he does an especially good job of showing concretely what the viewers of the video can do to help this cause.
About five years ago the group talking about the Invisible Children came and gave their presentation at my church. It definitely invoked my pity, but for some reason I think that the mention of The Lord's army was only passing, and I don't remember if they mentioned Kony by name. This video actually did more to motivate me then their entire presentation because it shows concretely how I personally can help and it makes me feel like part of a greater cause.
But there is one thing that is not in debate; that the crimes of Joseph Kony are despicable, twisted and wrong.
The Bible tells us that God has given a conscience to all men to tell the difference between right and wrong. This is a perfect example of how all people will admit that some a actions are wrong.
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Healthcare Rights
Today was the third day of arguments by the Supreme Court over the much-disputed National Healthcare law. Most laws that are debated on the Floor have an hour time-limit per day, but this law has 6 hours a day for three days; March 26th, 27th and 28th. One of the most disputed parts of this proposition is that it would force Americans to buy a product they might not want (The National Healthcare coverage). The politicians supporting the law respond by saying that everyone needs to go to the hospital at some point. This is very true. Most people have been in the hospital at one time or another.
But that's not the point. The government shouldn't be allowed to use its authority to force that kind of choice on any American person, even if the government think it's for their own good. Americans have the right to choose if they want healthcare coverage, and which healthcare coverage they want.
But that's not the point. The government shouldn't be allowed to use its authority to force that kind of choice on any American person, even if the government think it's for their own good. Americans have the right to choose if they want healthcare coverage, and which healthcare coverage they want.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The Unborn Paradox (And Comments)
I did not write this. This article was written by Ross Douthat, and published in the New York Times last January. It was to amazing not to share.
The Unborn Paradox
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: January 2, 2011
The American entertainment industry has never been comfortable with the act of abortion. Film or television characters might consider the procedure, but even on the most libertine programs (a “Mad Men,” a “Sex and the City”), they’re more likely to have a change of heart than actually go through with it. Reality TV thrives on shocking scenes and subjects — extreme pregnancies and surgeries, suburban polygamists and the gay housewives of New York — but abortion remains a little too controversial, and a little bit too real.
This omission is often cited as a victory for the pro-life movement, and in some cases that’s plainly true. (Recent unplanned-pregnancy movies like “Juno” and “Knocked Up” made abortion seem not only unnecessary but repellent.) But it can also be a form of cultural denial: a way of reassuring the public that abortion in America is — in Bill Clinton’s famous phrase — safe and legal, but also rare.
Rare it isn’t: not when one in five pregnancies ends at the abortion clinic. So it was a victory for realism, at least, when MTV decided to supplement its hit reality shows “16 and Pregnant” and “Teen Mom” with last week’s special, “No Easy Decision,” which followed Markai Durham, a teen mother who got pregnant a second time and chose abortion.
MTV being MTV, the special’s attitude was resolutely pro-choice. But it was a heartbreaking spectacle, whatever your perspective. Durham and her boyfriend are the kind of young people our culture sets adrift — working-class and undereducated, with weak support networks, few authority figures, and no script for sexual maturity beyond the easily neglected admonition to always use a condom. Their televised agony was a case study in how abortion can simultaneously seem like a moral wrong and the only possible solution — because it promised to keep them out of poverty, and to let them give their first daughter opportunities they never had.
The show was particularly wrenching, though, when juxtaposed with two recent dispatches from the world of midlife, upper-middle-class infertility. Last month there was Vanessa Grigoriadis’s provocative New York Magazine story “Waking Up From the Pill,” which suggested that a lifetime on chemical birth control has encouraged women “to forget about the biological realities of being female ... inadvertently, indirectly, infertility has become the Pill’s primary side effect.” Then on Sunday, The Times Magazine provided a more intimate look at the same issue, in which a midlife parent, the journalist Melanie Thernstrom, chronicled what it took to bring her children into the world: six failed in vitro cycles, an egg donor and two surrogate mothers, and an untold fortune in expenses.
In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.
Some of this shift reflects the growing acceptance of single parenting. But some of it reflects the impact of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead.
And lives are what they are. On the MTV special, the people around Durham swaddle abortion in euphemism. The being inside her is just “pregnancy tissue.” After the abortion, she recalls being warned not to humanize it: “If you think of it like [a person], you’re going to make yourself depressed.” Instead, “think of it as what it is: nothing but a little ball of cells.”
It’s left to Durham herself to cut through the evasion. Sitting with her boyfriend afterward, she begins to cry when he calls the embryo a “thing.” Gesturing to their infant daughter, she says, “A ‘thing’ can turn out like that. That’s what I remember ... ‘Nothing but a bunch of cells’ can be her.”
When we want to know this, we know this. Last week’s New Yorker carried a poem by Kevin Young about expectant parents, early in pregnancy, probing the mother’s womb for a heartbeat:
The doctor trying again to find you, fragile,
fern, snowflake. Nothing.
After, my wife will say, in fear,
impatient, she went beyond her body,
this tiny room, into the ether—
... And there
it is: faint, an echo, faster and further
away than mother’s, all beat box
and fuzzy feedback. ...
This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.
The web-page: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03douthat.html
By D.C. Salmon: This is an amazing article. It's very appropriate for modern America because he doesn't actually call upon a higher standard (One that most relativistic Americans wouldn't accept.) He just bases his arguments on something that nobody can really deny-namely that there really are so many women who desperately want children. He begins generally; starting with something that would be familiar to many Americans, and continues on until he gets to a general thesis, ending with a lasting, resounding statement. The New York Times made a very good choice by publishing his article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)