Henson issues statement about Chick-Fila-A

[CensoredAlso]

I love the logic of "Oh, you can make the villains Christian, but you refuse to make them Muslim?" Translated, "How come you say we're hateful? Make fun of people we hate instead!"

Not always. Sometimes it's more like "why aren't you having some perspective?" Hollywood does have double standards about who they are terrified of offending and who they just don't care about.

 

[jvcarroll]

A Colorful Interlude​

My Gonzo-esque best friend just returned from one of his performance art pieces at a nightclub where he ate a Chick-Fil-A sandwich out of another guy's mouth. Luckily it wasn't pre-chewed. Unfortunately it was still disgusting. At least the guy was moderately attractive.

 

[Drtooth]

Not always. Sometimes it's more like "why aren't you having some perspective?" Hollywood does have double standards about who they are terrified of offending and who they just don't care about.

The problem is that a LOT of writers are very angry and want to vent against those they find oppressive. Most of it is mouth piece. Now, I don't think the common Christian is the target, just the far far far right militant one that wants to take over the country and oppress even their own loyal followers. Also those who they blame for Bush's re-election.

Still, I see Muslims as villains in NCIS all the time. I guess it's true that no one really watches that show.

All and all, why are there so few stories of common Christians pointing out hypocrisy and religious elitism among those that DO want to harm others to make a supremacy? THAT'S the story we need. Taking back Christianity from the oppressive culture that ONLY they have a right to exist, all the while mangling the word of God to get votes and push their agendas.

Come to think of it, reality needs that too.

 

[RedPiggy]

All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my *** kicked. “Guilty as charged.”

It's kind of like how it's all the rape victim's fault or how Native Americans were "evil Injuns" for daring to not let a bunch of white illegals steal all their crap.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

What really upsets me most about this controversy is that I've been told Chik-Fil-A is actually pretty good (we don't have them in Canada) and now I'll never be able to try their chicken sandwiches without feeling horribly guilty.

I live in Canada, where we watch these sorts of pitched cultural battles unfold south of our border in the U.S. with a combination of bemusement and horror. Gay marriage has been legal here for quite sometime. We had a big (and I think healthy) debate about it, the courts ruled it was legal and then everybody sort of collectively shrugged and went back to whatever it was they were doing before all the fuss began.

In Canada gay couples are entitled to a legal (civil) marriage recognized by the state, but a church cannot be compelled to marry a gay couple if it is against its doctrine (some churches marry gay couples, some don't). It's a nice compromise that balanced the rights of gay couples against the need to protect churches and religion in general from government interference. Gay couples receive the equal treatment under the law that's enshrined in our constitution while simultaneously a church's religious freedom (also enshrined as an absolute right in our constitution) is respected.

The most vocal activists on both sides of the issue here are probably not completely happy with this arrangement, which is probably the surest sign that we've reach a decent compromise. I'm sure some people see this approach as a cop-out and unacceptable, but even our religious, extremely conservative Prime Minister who practically worships at the alter of right-wing Republican ideals has emphatically stated that the gay marriage issue is closed here and will never be reopened.

Then again, I also live in a land of strict gun control and government-provided free healthcare, which I'm told is what some Conservative Evangelicals roughly imagine **** on earth to be like.

Seriously though, I think that religious freedom is just as important as individual rights. Often in a debate like this people forget that having a certain right does not give you permission to trample the rights of someone else. I'm personally pro-gay marriage, but I also think Christians have the right to make a legitimate theological argument when they claim marriage as a traditional Hetrosexual institution, just as they can make theological arguments against premartial sex or abortion. At the same time, they need to remember that Western Democracies are not ruled from the pulpit (we tried variations on that for several centuries...it didn't go very well) so those arguments need to be confined to the realm of theology and religion and are moot points in a civil rights discussion.

 

[jvcarroll]

What really upsets me most about this controversy is that I've been told Chik-Fil-A is actually pretty good (we don't have them in Canada) and now I'll never be able to try their chicken sandwiches without feeling horribly guilty.

I live in Canada, where we watch these sorts of pitched cultural battles unfold south of our border in the U.S. with a combination of bemusement and horror. Gay marriage has been legal here for quite sometime. We had a big (and I think healthy) debate about it, the courts ruled it was legal and then everybody sort of collectively shrugged and went back to whatever it was they were doing before all the fuss began.

In Canada gay couples are entitled to a legal (civil) marriage recognized by the state, but a church cannot be compelled to marry a gay couple if it is against its doctrine (some churches marry gay couples, some don't). It's a nice compromise that balanced the rights of gay couples against the need to protect churches and religion in general from government interference. Gay couples receive the equal treatment under the law that's enshrined in our constitution while simultaneously a church's religious freedom (also enshrined as an absolute right in our constitution) is respected.

The most vocal activists on both sides of the issue here are probably not completely happy with this arrangement, which is probably the surest sign that we've reach a decent compromise. I'm sure some people see this approach as a cop-out and unacceptable, but even our religious, extremely conservative Prime Minister who practically worships at the alter of right-wing Republican ideals has emphatically stated that the gay marriage issue is closed here and will never be reopened.

Then again, I also live in a land of strict gun control and government-provided free healthcare, which I'm told is what some Conservative Evangelicals roughly imagine **** on earth to be like.

Seriously though, I think that religious freedom is just as important as individual rights. Often in a debate like this people forget that having a certain right does not give you permission to trample the rights of someone else. I'm personally pro-gay marriage, but I also think Christians have the right to make a legitimate theological argument when they claim marriage as a traditional Hetrosexual institution, just as they can make theological arguments against premartial sex or abortion. At the same time, they need to remember that Western Democracies are not ruled from the pulpit (we tried variations on that for several centuries...it didn't go very well) so those arguments need to be confined to the realm of theology and religion and are moot points in a civil rights discussion.

I live in the heart of San Francisco, widely considered the most liberal city in America, and what you've described is exactly what everyone I know has been working toward. Churches aren't compelled to marry anyone for any reason if they don't want to.

There is this irrational fear that the legal acceptance of gay equality will somehow encroach on religious freedoms. The only reasonable concern I've heard concerns adoption. I was adopted through Catholic charities and some of these organizations receive federal dollars. I don't know why, but they do. Could they discriminate against gay couples and still receive government money? I don't know the answer to that. I'd say give the Catholics what they want if that happened to be the only thing standing in the way of gay marriage! Unfortunately, the debate seems to go much deeper here.

 

[D'Snowth]

Canada is a LOT better off as a country, as a nation, as a society than the U.S. is, not just as far as gays are concerned, but there's also a lot less racial tension in Canada as well, and that's another area where it seems like we can never grow out of either, it's like even to this day in America, many whites still feel like they're the superior master race, and many blacks still act like they're being degraded and oppressed, and really, having Obama in office hasn't helped race relations at all.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

There is this irrational fear that the legal acceptance of gay equality will somehow encroach on religious freedoms. The only reasonable concern I've heard concerns adoption. I was adopted through Catholic charities and some of these organizations receive federal dollars. I don't know why, but they do. Could they discriminate against gay couples and still receive government money? I don't know the answer to that. I'd say give the Catholics what they want if that happened to be the only thing standing in the way of gay marriage! Unfortunately, the debate seems to go much deeper here.

There is currently a big issue in Ontario (the Province where I live) over Catholic Schools trying to ban "Gay-straight alliance" clubs. The Catholic Schools here are part of the public education system (due to some Constitutional issues that go back to the 19th century that I don't pretend to understand). No one told them to change their beliefs, they just had to allow the clubs, which are designed to promote tolerance, which ironically, is a important Catholic value.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church and the Catholic School Boards pushed back hard against this but have been told by the ministry of education that irregardless of their beliefs, they had to permit the clubs as part of a provincial anti-bullying campaign. I think the issue has been settled...the clubs are accepted, but they had to be called something else, which seems silly.

The principle at work was that if an organization takes secular money from the government, they have to play by secular rules. This why I think religious schools and agencies should generally speaking not be government funded, it's much better for everyone involved if they are left to function independently within their belief system.

Our Premier (kind of like a Governor) is a devout Catholic and the Church seems to regularly threaten him with ex-communication when he supports policies they deem to be contrary to Catholic teaching for the sake of separation of church and state. It would be hilariously silly if it wasn't so sad that they try to bully the man using his faith.

 

[Buck-Beaver]

Canada is a LOT better off as a country, as a nation, as a society than the U.S. is, not just as far as gays are concerned, but there's also a lot less racial tension in Canada as well, and that's another area where it seems like we can never grow out of either, it's like even to this day in America, many whites still feel like they're the superior master race, and many blacks still act like they're being degraded and oppressed, and really, having Obama in office hasn't helped race relations at all.

To be fair, we have issues here too. On some issues, like crime prevention, we're actually becoming much less progressive than the United States. We are definitely a more socialist country and generally uncomfortable letting people hunt with assault weapons.

I don't really believe that many White Americans believe they are a "superior master race". Race relations is a really complex issue and it's frequently exploited by both the left and right for political gain.

 

[D'Snowth]

On some issues, like crime prevention, we're actually becoming much less progressive than the United States.

Seriously? Because I mean, like, in my hometown alone, you could wear bulletproof vests and call them a fashion statement.