Diversity’s Intolerance of Chick-Fil-A

I don’t care if you’re liberal, conservative, progressive, straight, gay, atheist, or Christian, without the first amendment, our nation is not free. Without it, we descend into fascism and totalitarianism. Without it, we are not the United States of America. The amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When a private citizen engaged in commerce utters a moral or religious opinion, and government authorities PUNISH him, we no longer live in America. When that opinion conforms with traditional values espoused throughout the history of America, we are doubly in danger. When that opinion represents a Judeo-Christian worldview and is punished BY GOVERNMENT, we are ALL in trouble.

The PEOPLE give government officials their power; the US and State Constitutions limit that power. That power can in no case diminish our liberties, especially our freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Yet that is exactly what is happening before our eyes in the Chick-Fil-A controversy.

It is one thing to boycott; that is our right. It is our right to organize legal protests. It is right to voice our disagreement. It is right to rally voters to fill legislatures with lawmakers sympathetic to our causes. Private citizens and groups can make all the noise they like. They can take their business elsewhere. That is our right. That is our great freedom in this land. That is the diversity that makes America great.

But when GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS use the power of office to PUNISH an opinion that deviates from theirs, when they DESTROY a person’s or a group’s right to make a living, when they COERCE  citizens against their conscience, we are no longer free. A narrow view of pretended-diversity has become a cudgel to bludgeon outliers. Tolerance? Only in the fantasy of Orwellian double-speak.

What’s to stop Mayor Emmanuel (Chicago) from hindering the proclamation of the gospel? What’s to stop government from punishing the message of faith alone in Christ alone? What’s to stop Sharia law? If Chick-Fil-A can be punished for its CEO’s opinion, by what principle can any private citizen or group articulate an unpopular or contrary opinion without fear? Unchecked government power already threatens to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions, and to coerce private Catholic hospitals to perform them — against conscience. What’s next, jail time for pastors who refuse to officiate same-sex marriages?

My point is that citizens enjoy rights that government officials, acting from office, do not. That is the essence of our American system.

In ancient Athens, a city of the Roman Empire, philosophers gathered on Mars Hill to enjoy debate — religious, political, philosophical, and moral. TRUE DIVERSITY existed, and competing views were easily aired. At the end of the day, the thoughtful crew enjoyed cold beverages together and went their way, no harm done.

Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new doctrine is of which you speak? “For you are bringing some strange things to our ears. Therefore we want to know what these things mean.” For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. (Acts 17:17-21, NKJV).

Here’s the result:

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” So Paul departed from among them. (Acts 17:32, 33, NKJV).

That is diversity.

No opinion-staters were harmed during the production of that meeting.

Were Christians of the Roman Empire more free to express an opinion than Christians today in the USA?

There may come a day when the shoe is on the other foot; when conservatives enjoy majorities in Congress. On that day, I pledge to fight for true diversity. I will fight for my gay friends’ right to make a living and for my atheist friends’ right to be free from government’s attempts to cram religion down their throats. I may not agree with what you say or believe, but I will fight for your right to say it and believe it. The pendulum of public opinion swings both ways. Let it. And keep those in government on their leashes.

We have more to fear from unchecked government officials than from criminals.

Actually, what’s the difference?

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Diversity’s Intolerance of Chick-Fil-A

  1. Amen! Please consider sending this in as an editorial to the Chicago newspapers or the Wall Street Journal or New York Times.

      • Yes, it does, you may need to tone down the parts about proclaiming the gospel, but your points are very well communicated. I recommend you send it off in a condensed version and see if you can get it published.

  2. “I will fight for my gay friends’ right to make a living and for my atheist friends’ right to be free from government’s attempts to cram religion down their throats. I may not agree with what you say or believe, but I will fight for your right to say it and believe it.”

    Nice sentiment but it does not work both ways…we defend their rights but when it comes to our rights, the gays and atheists are vehemently spewing hatred against us. If a christian minister politely refuses to marry a gay couple due to religious beliefs he is sued. Atheists cause lots of unneeded legislation and fuss putting a damper on christmas because of a nativity scene, located where others can see it.

    Only chik fil a can make their own policy and statements. It is their business. They are also suing an individual because he made t-shirts saying “Eat More Squash” or whatever veggie it said, which i disagree with.

    • Esbee, it is difficult to find the balance. I am not sure about the lawsuit you mention, and if you have a site to verify that, great. Our nation sues too much anyway…

      {your other comment was removed for being off topic}

  3. There is a really interesting speech that was made by the Prime Minister of England on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. In it he, in essence, said that England needed to return to their roots in the Judeo-Christian value system IN ORDER to safe-guard the freedoms and tolerance for diversity that the country has historically enjoyed. Having lived in other cultural situations, I can verify that as we chase Christian values from the main stage in this country, true tolerance and true discourse will be lost.

    • Wow! That’s so true, and so important. I’d love to read a transcript if you’re able to find the link. The freedoms we enjoy were birthed in the Judeo-Christian worldview.

  4. Bill,

    So glad you are blogging again. Our home town has become a place i can hardly recognize. Many of my friends who grew up in the city, like us , either have left or are planning to leave Chicago and Illinois. I read the Tribune regularly and the stories about the shootings break my heart.
    Rahm is saying this because it caters to his Left-wing base and it may be that he is Gay himself, as it is rumored. Not a fan of Richie Daley, but I don’t see him chiming in like this, if it came up while he was Mayor. It so feels like Evil is being called Good and Good called Evil.

  5. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I feel there is a fine line between tolerance and acceptance, and we as Christians need to be careful that we do not compromise our faith by being tolerant of something the Bible calls an abomination. (Lev. 18:22) Now therein lies our conundrum. Our country has deemed the practice of homosexuality acceptable. Naturally then, laws will be (and have been) enacted to support that practice. The Christian faith condemns homosexuality though, and we cannot be tolerant of it any more than we can be tolerant of any other sin. The government CANNOT be allowed to force tolerance of anything that compromises our faith. Period. It saddens me to admit this, but America has not been “one nation, under God” for a very long time.

    • Very good points, Matt. So true. I think I might make a subtle change in your wording — perhaps a change in concept. The Christian faith deems as sin, not “homosexuality” but homosexual activity. The temptation to sexual sin, whether straight or gay, is not sin. Christ was tempted, yet without sin. To condemn homosexuality (the state of being) is to condemn a person. Scripture doesn’t go there. It’s the activity that is out of bounds and is sinful.

      • Thank you for the wording distinction. It was not my intention to come across as being condemning of the person, but the act of the sin itself. Condemnation of men is for God alone to determine. A man does not become a thief because he is tempted to steal. He becomes a thief when he succumbs to that temptation. Likewise with the homosexual.

Comments are closed.