Chik fil A had a banner day yesterday, as customers stood in lines for hours during Chik fil A Appreciation Day. Chik fil A has a different opinion than the AtheoLeft, and that is driving the AtheoLeft to distraction, charging Chik fil A with general EEEvilness due to being out of the AtheoLeftist fold and control. Chik fil A's crime? Supporting the core male-female parent family. That support offends the sensibilities of the AtheoLeft and homosexuals who obviously do NOT support such a hideous concept, and deem it unconsionable and IMMORAL (regardless of their general lack of moral absolutes). The following is a video which surely will enrage AtheoLeftists (note to them - get your doctor's permission before viewing this video):
AtheoLeftists took to Twitter yesterday with their wishes for death and suffering for the EEEvil nonconformists who are not part of their own opinionated group. Some of these were accumulated on Twitchy for your perusal.
Also in the news is the intent to pursue the government interventionists who threatened Chik fil A and then recanted under pressure. They were likened to a mugger who gives back your wallet and watch when a bystander pulls a gun on him: the crime is not obliterated by backpedalling when you discover that you are caught out in the open. This part is great:
"Moreno categorically denied violating state law and accused the GOP of “political grandstanding.
The alderman also rescinded the threat he made last week to keep Chick-fil-A out of his ward."
Political Grandstanding. That's rich! It's as if there is no self-awareness for these folks.
Addendum: The Cluck Heard 'Round the World!
13 comments:
All this could be stopped if people would actually DO what Jesus said to do: forgive and love your enemies.
Both "AtheoLeftists" and Dan Cathy could invite each other into their houses for dinner, and show each other love.
Look! Just look at the crazy shit that happens when people act like Jesus!
Kudos to Stan for removing comment moderation. If time permits, I will try to come back to the argumentation we had going on a few days back.
Unfortunately, I see that the issues discussed here are not longer related to Atheism at all, but rather targeted at political ideologies, while using made-up labels such as AtheoLeftist in a derogatory fashion. I thus wonder if philosophical discussions still have their place around here?
Martin,
Great idea! Send that off to Menino and Cathy and see what happens. I think I know, but I'll restrain my forecast pending the outcome.
PM,
The attacks on Cathy for stating his beliefs are both Atheist and Leftist. There is a large component of Atheism in the Left, and a large component of Leftism in Atheism. In most Atheist sites it is hardly possible to separate the Atheism from the Leftism. When Leftists attack a person purely for his religion it is a safe bet that Atheism is involved.
Your projection of derogation regarding the combined term "AtheoLeft" is without merit.
I can't tell you how I feel when I saw the anti-gay marriage chicken video with the flag drapped coffins. I want to punch someone. A man from my class. I was going to type boy but he was a man. He went over and fought and die for his country. His country that won't let him marry his love. That could be him in one of those coffins under those flags. and the people who stopped him marrying they do this? They want to dig up his dead body and spit in his face agian?
I believe in God. He must be crying over what He sees. I truly believe that. It sounds like a dirty word but we need love. Love is the ground of all the commandments. This bullshit is anti-love.
Nevercommented said,
"and the people who stopped him marrying they do this? They want to dig up his dead body and spit in his face agian?"
You seem to misunderstand what is going on here. These people are standing up for the right to freely express their convictions without the fear of government intimidation. It's in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It's in the history of the US itself. It has nothing to do with hatred, it has to do with the belief in the nuclear family and supporting the family in the face of attack as is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Gays presume hatred when there is any disagreement with their agenda. They not only presume it, they directly accuse it, despite any evidence of actual damage to themselves, much less any actual hate. It thus becomes obvious that the hatred flows forth in the form of invective from their camp when anyone even so much as endorses the family unit. In this case, threats were made by government officials (!) in response to the stated support of the family unit. It's hard to see how it could possibly be more blatant than that.
I never cease to be impressed at just how mean and spiteful the American populist right wing is. They always, always top themselves.
Progressives and liberals witness year after year of crushing inequality and unjust gains in the financial sector and only after decades of this do they begin protesting; Mike Huckabee says something on Facebook and every mouth-breather in the country goes and stuffs their face full of chicken. For real, it's kind of amazing.
I want to be angry, but honestly this is just one of the saddest things I've ever seen. People waiting an hour in a drive through to buy a greasy chicken sandwich, just to prove that they're every bit as hateful as the next guy. I don't even know what to say anymore.
Let's be clear: People are not concerned with CFA's beliefs or statements, so much as they are concerned about their actions. For example, spending $25,000 to lobby Congress not to condemn Uganda's legislation mandating the death penalty for homosexuality.
They are spending money in favour of genocide against homosexuals. That's not hyperbole, that is literally what is going on here.
Chick-Fil-A has a problem right now not just because they don't believe in gay marriage. They have a problem right now because the fund hate groups, make fake facebook profiles, attempt to besmirch Jim Henson company by lying about the safety of their toys. I'm not anti-Christian. I'm just anti-bigotry. I would argue that denying rights is hateful, no matter how you look at it.
And the mayor didn't tell them they couldn't open up a restaurant. He merely mentioned that their primitive, knuckle-dragging views won't win them any friends in his progressive city.
He isn't stopping them from opening a restaurant in Boston. He is encouraging them not to, and letting them know they're not going to be well received.
he said "I URGE you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston." Mr. Menino was not attempting to block their opening, he was simply stating his opinion, that he does not believe Chik-Fil-A belongs in Boston, which is his right, which is the right of anybody, elected official or not.
I don't believe the city has any obligation to issue a business license. Like a contact, they are allowed to set whatever restrictions they choose. The Right bought laws to give city zoning commissions these powers (to stop strip clubs, etc).
So what it all comes down to is not just their beliefs but the fact they are working to disenfranchise the LGBT community.
Examples:
The National Christian Foundation: "supports Harvest Evangelism" which promotes the Ugandan bill "criminalizing homosexuality and allowing for some cases of homosexuality to be punished by death."
FRC: Claims on their own website that "Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right", you can even buy pamphlets to spread this opinion.
The Family Foundation: Initiatives page state they oppose "homosexual behaviour as a protected class ... as no evidence of discrimination exists." Apparently ignoring cases like those involving Brooke Waits, scholarly articles, and governmental research into resolution and protection procedures.
One side is making a call for action against bigotry, the other is a call to action for bigotry.
Stan did you read what "Never commented" said?
He's talking about the ghoulishness of using his friend's corpse to encourage discrimination against his friend.
PM,
The attacks on Cathy for stating his beliefs are both Atheist and Leftist. There is a large component of Atheism in the Left, and a large component of Leftism in Atheism. In most Atheist sites it is hardly possible to separate the Atheism from the Leftism. When Leftists attack a person purely for his religion it is a safe bet that Atheism is involved.
Your projection of derogation regarding the combined term "AtheoLeft" is without merit.
There is definitely a correlation between religiosity and political leaning. The more religious a person is, the more likely it is that this same person is what we label as 'conservative' and/or 'to the right'.
However, the usage of a term such as 'AtheoLeft' serves no purpose in any serious discuss as it necessarily lumps together people who disagree on one issue or the other (religion or politics).
This seems to answer my question: you are not interested in philosophical discussions based on logic. It's unfortunate, I thought this blog was different. Perhaps once your Chick-Fil-A discussions are over we'll see logical argumentation come back?
PM,
The term AtheoLeft is the intersection of two categories: logically it is Atheist & Leftist. There is no disagreement within this intersection.
Perhaps you should refresh your knowledge of Venn diagrams for logical reduction to the common intersection.
AGAIN:
The usage of a term such as 'AtheoLeft' serves no purpose in any serious, I repeat, SERIOUS, discuss as it necessarily lumps together people who disagree on one issue or the other (religion or politics).
Thanks for the snarky reminder on Venn diagram; that was actually the point. It is not LOGICAL to attack the junction of these two groups when the issue being discussed is NOT restricted to this intersection.
And AGAIN, I agree that there is a correlation, but it is not LOGICAL to focus only on this correlation.
Moreover, this intersection of 'Atheist' and 'Leftist' is not even directly related to the CFA issue! The issue is about gay marriage, which can be supported by Atheist and non-Atheist, and can be supported by the Left or the Right. AGAIN, yes there is a strong correlation between these 3 groups, but attacking this intersection serves NO PURPOSE in any LOGICAL discussion.
Therefore, my statement regarding an emotional reaction to the issue, rather than a logical one, stands. The only reason to lump in leftist, atheist and pro-gay-marriage together is to create a 'US' vs 'THEM' climate. This is exactly what you are doing here on your blog Stan. This is not logical. This is emotional. You don't discuss the issue; you discuss the people.
This is NOT how philosophical discussions are held between reasonable and rational adults; but it is how it's done between people with dogmatic positions with the 'US' vs 'THEM' mentality... on any side of an issue.
PM,
You appear to think that I do not know who I am addressing, and you feel the need to instruct me on my own definitions.
I will give you one more chance to comprehend my targeted group here; if you don't like my target, that's really just tough.
I am not addressing Atheists who are not Leftist because they are not likely to be in the troublesome group.
I am not addressing Leftists who are not Atheists because they are not likely to be in the troublesome group.
I am targeting those Atheists who are Leftist, and those Leftists are Atheist. Hence, AtheoLeft.
I am perfectly able to select who I am discussing.
Since you prefer to pickniggle at terminology rather than actually discuss the issue, perhaps you'd fare better at a pickniggle site. While you are there, you might discuss the meaning of the amorphous term, "serious", which has no apparent meaning in the context of your comment. And also while you are there you can register your complaint in regards to my poor attitude with respect to pickniggling.
Have a good day,
Seriously,
Stan
Thanks for the clarification. I am glad we agree. Everything you wrote fits with what I perceived over the past few days.
Let's go comment on your more recent post since that's where the meat really is.
In the meantime, have a good night,
Regards,
PM
Post a Comment