?

Log in

No account? Create an account

arhyalon

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
07:17 pm: Sigh…

So, I commented on a Facebook post giving what I thought was a rather insightful analysis of the difference between how the two opposing sides saw the Chick-Fil-A events yesterday. In particular, I talked about how each side was not communicating, because they did not seem to understand the other sides's concerns.

And I got jumped all over by someone who insisted….that no one could possibly believe what I said the opposition believes. And was rude about it.

Sigh.

 

Here's what I said;

"The other really weird thing–as someone who reads the posts of friends on both sides of the issue–is how convinced both sides are that the other side is motivated by hate. The pro-gay marriage side thinks they are standing up for equality and that the other side is motivated by bigotry. Those showing support for Chick-Fil-A, including some non-Christians who were offended by behavior of a couple of mayors, think that they are standing up for the First Amendment, and in the case of the Christians, for their fellow Christians, and they are convinced that those on the other side are motivated by hatred of Christianity–and not by concern for gays.

I am puzzled as to why neither side believes the other when they say what their concern is. My guess as to why this is the case is that the issue the opposition is concerned about is of so little concern to each side that they cannot actually believe a person would be motivated by that issue. If they were a person who was concerned with the opposing issue, they would already be a member of the opposing party.
 
So, the pro-gay marriage guys can't believe that Christians would see the matter as an attack on Freedom of Speech…they think it is an excuse, and the Christians can't believe that the other side actually believes it is an issue of discriminiation. So they both seem to spend a lot of time showing solidarity to their side and posting hateful things about the other side. I have not yet seen any posts, however, that were anti-gay…the Christians don't seem to think this is about gays…they think it is about Liberals. I have seen a lot of anti-Christian posts, however."

 

 

Originally posted to Welcome to Arhyalon. (link)

Comments

[User Picture]
From:David Marcoe
Date:August 2nd, 2012 11:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
We forget the virtues of grace, love and humility. "Pray for those who persecute you."
[User Picture]
From:arhyalon
Date:August 3rd, 2012 12:25 am (UTC)
(Link)
I do, David. I definitely do!
[User Picture]
From:juliet_winters
Date:August 3rd, 2012 12:16 am (UTC)
(Link)
And the Chick-Fil-A staff have greeted the protesters with free ice water and said nice things to them. Just the way they are supposed to.

When asked about how they would handle tomorrow's kiss-in, the corporate spokesman said it would be another opportunity to serve excellent food and give polite service.

Boy, are they Christian. I'm not sure what the media made out of that. This may end up being akin to the statement made by the forgiveness of the Amish to the family of the man who murdered their school children.
[User Picture]
From:arhyalon
Date:August 3rd, 2012 12:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
What saddens me is that every liberal post I have seen is on "Oh, how terrible all this outpouring of hate is"

I think we need to pray for them to be able to see the love and joy.
[User Picture]
From:juliet_winters
Date:August 3rd, 2012 01:44 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, indeed.

I'm afraid that people rather enjoy being horrified too much. Instead of SNL's Church lady, they should do the anti-Chick-fil-A lady. Okay, that wouldn't help at all, would it? But it's the same thing. Getting a charge out of self-righteousness. They just don't see it. And comedians aren't allowed to portray it or other things that go against the creed. I think it was Dana Carvey going out on a limb by saying that it was no longer permissible for comics to make fun of the president.

I'm sure you're right. In these cases, prayer is the best option.
[User Picture]
From:wenchpower
Date:August 3rd, 2012 02:00 am (UTC)
(Link)
People really are being incredibly rude about this. It's sad how casually the word "hate" gets thrown around and how much people are judging the contents of another's heart. Of course, this allows them to comfortably avoid actually engaging with the opposition's ideas, so I can understand the appeal.

Speaking of, please pray for my husband. He's seen one too many "yargle blargle Christians hate gays" posts in his feed from people we know for a fact have never actually heard anything about Christian beliefs on gays beyond Leviticus 18:22, and he's going to try and do a post about what the Catholic Church teaches and why. Instruct the ignorant and all. So please pray that he writes eloquently and with love, and that at least one person is receptive enough to realize that hey, we aren't motivated by hate here.
[User Picture]
From:arhyalon
Date:August 3rd, 2012 02:13 am (UTC)
(Link)
I would be happy to pray for him. I truly believe God can send us the ideas we need...and, if we turn to him, help those who need to hear what he sends up see it.

Love 'yargle blargle'.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 4th, 2012 12:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
" I have not yet seen any posts, however, that were anti-gay…the Christians don't seem to think this is about gays…they think it is about Liberals."

That fits what I've seen in ordinary political sources.

In general I think you're right about different concerns. And as Lewis said in MERE CHRISTIANITY, some apparent differences in morality (or in this case, concern) are actually differences about fact. To be seriously concerned with defending freedom of speech in this CFA incident, entails believing that freedom of speech is being seriously attacked here.

If I believed that numerous liberal mayors would really try to deny business permits to a popular chain over a political issue, I'd be concerned too. But the mayors' statements don't really say that. This story seems to have begun with the Chicago Sun Times and the Boston Globe, with slanted coverage of their respective mayors. (I've posted more detail at my own LJ.)
[User Picture]
From:arhyalon
Date:August 8th, 2012 04:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
Not sure who this was...

Sorry it took me a while to unscreen. I was out of town. Interesting what you say about if you felt there was a serious attack. As I was driving home (11 and a half hours) I was thinking that most Christians I know seem to feel Chritianity is under attack and that a Christian's right to speak our mind is in danger--and that many of those who showed up at Chick-Fil-A did so because of this and not because of any specifics of the particular speech involved.
[User Picture]
From:vitruvian23
Date:August 5th, 2012 12:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think that the mayors and other governmental entities that are proposing to punish/restrict Chik-Fil-A by law or policy are indeed overstepping their bounds in terms of the 1st Amendment, and in terms of the restrictions that should apply to governmental power generally, although not necessarily that their motivations for doing so are anti-Christian (there being plenty of Christian denominations on both sides of the issue). Such an exercise of governmental power is definitely censorship of religiously motivated speech, and we don't need thought police.

However, the private actions of individuals and groups to boycott and protest CFA due to the owners' stance on gay marriage not only are not censorship, they *cannot* sensibly be interpreted as any kind of attack on freedom of speech. Rather, it is an exercise of free speech, that being how free speech works: Everybody gets to have their say. If you say A, and I loudly say Not A, I am not infringing on your freedom of speech in the least.

Free speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to say your piece and then nobody can contradict you, or stop buying your chicken, or what have you. It just means you can express your opinion, and then if others disagree they're equally free to express theirs.
[User Picture]
From:johncwright
Date:August 5th, 2012 02:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
If one side is lying and spreading slanders, however, then while they have a legal right to do so, morally speaking, that is wrong.

In this case, no one threatened to shut down a mosque whose members are debating whether gays should be stoned to death rather than hanged, but someone did threaten to shut down a restaurant chain whose owner did NOT say he would not hire gays did NOT say he would not serve gays did NOT say he disapproves of gays. He said he supported, traditional marriage. He said only what every Christian is honor bound to say. The Left quoted the answer "guilty as charged" but misquoted the question, and tried to foment public opinion against him with their slanders, claims that he donated to hate groups, and so on. The outrage was entirely ginned up, and directed against an opponent who cannot and will not defend himself.

So, the Left has been in this affair is about as dishonest and insincere as it is possible for anyone to be. They have done nothing illegal.

[User Picture]
From:arhyalon
Date:August 8th, 2012 04:07 am (UTC)
(Link)
And saying that a group 'gives money to hate groups' because they donate to a group that does many good things and has some affiliations with some people who don't is a bit harsh.
[User Picture]
From:arhyalon
Date:August 8th, 2012 04:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
Very true. I both support Chick-Fil-A's right to spend money as it pleases and the right of those opposed to oppose.
Powered by LiveJournal.com