When Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks criticized President Bush during a concert in London in 2003, the response was fast, furious and nasty. Maines announced from stage that she was "ashamed" that Bush was from her native Texas. She and her bandmates, Emily Robison and Martie Maguire, were quickly blacklisted from country music stations, their CDs were publicly destroyed and their lives threatened. Despite subsequent successes, their careers have never really recovered.
I thought about this recently as I watched with great interest the unfolding of the Chick-fil-A controversy. Both incidents have to do, on some level, with "free speech" -- its power, its purpose and its limits. The Dixie Chicks case was interesting because as an American, Natalie Maines could express her views just like any other citizen. But not on foreign soil. Historically, an American's freedom to speak critically of America ends at the borders. Still, I marveled at the orchestrated efforts to silence her. There were those who attempted aggressively to deny her the right as an American citizen to criticize Bush and the war in Iraq. The message from her largely Christian and conservative fan base was clear: Shut up and sing, or face the consequences.
Many of these same people stood in line for hours last week to get a chicken sandwich in support of Dan Cathy's "free speech." Cathy, the COO of Chick-fil-A, had come clean about his and his company's opposition to same-sex marriage. "Guilty as charged" he said. Speaking as a Christian for a Christian company, Cathy asserted, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
Millions of people agreed with him. The statement became an instant flash point in the "culture wars," and when former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee declared "Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day," the line in the sand of American social values was never clearer.
Of the many issues that emerge from this, I think three things are crucial. First, the irony of the support for Dan Cathy is embarrassingly obvious. Given that many of the same people likely tossed their Dixie Chicks CDs in opposition to Natalie Maines's comment about Bush, it is ironic that they ate lunch in support of Dan Cathy's comments. Free speech is free speech. Right? What, then, is the qualitative difference between Maines and Cathy? Well, whether or not you happen to agree with the positions they take. Certainly. The long lines at Chik-fil-A showed us that most Americans believe in "free speech" in a particular way; they believe in "free speech" that aligns with their social, religious and political values. In other words, they support "free speech" with which they agree. All other "free speech" is held as suspect, dangerous and, as Cathy himself intimated, subject to God's judgment.
Second, I think a bit of thoughtful substitution is in order. Substitute "black," "Jews" or "women" for "same-sex marriage," and I don't think we would have had the long lines outside those restaurants last week. At least, I hope not. If Cathy wants to assert his freedom to actively work against one particular group and financially back organizations that share his views, we need to take that freedom to its logical conclusion. What if the issue was "interracial marriage" or "inter-religious marriage"? He would be well within his right as a Christian and an American citizen to express his opposition to those unions. But would all those people have lined up to show support if Cathy had responded "guilty as charged" to the claim that he didn't believe blacks should marry whites or Jews should marry Christians? That, too, is "free speech." We must ask ourselves why it is socially acceptable to show visible disdain for a certain segment of the population and the unions they form. Remember, it was just as socially acceptable to show that level of disregard for blacks, Jews and women's rights not that long ago. And many did so in the name of their Christianity.
Which brings me to my third point. Perhaps the most disheartening thing for me is the way many of Cathy's supporters have justified their support. "It's not about hate," they say, "it's about religious freedom." From a Christian standpoint, to say something is "not about hate" is a very low standard and entirely misses the mark. Anyone can say his or her actions are not born of hate. Indeed, I've heard members of the KKK say that very thing. They don't "hate" blacks, they just wish they'd keep to themselves or simply disappear. Some people would claim they don't hate Mexicans, they just wish we had stronger immigration laws and a long fence at the border. They don't hate Muslims; they just don't want a mosque in their neighborhood. They don't hate Sikhs; they just wished they didn't look like Muslims. They don't hate women; they just wish they'd stop yammering so much about their "rights." This is why Jesus' commandment to his followers -- to "love one another" -- was stated in the positive. Jesus didn't say, "don't hate one another"; his commandment was to "love." Love is the standard.
So, to all those who stood in line last week to get a sandwich for "free speech" and "religious freedom," you tell me it wasn't about hate, but was it about love? The honest answer to that question will tell us everything we need to know.
I support Dan Cathy's "free speech" and religious freedom. But he must respect my freedom to say that his comments were about hate and ignorance and were not about love. Love must be the standard, or when it comes to issues like the Chick-fil-A controversy, there are no standards.
Clearly, the issue is not merely "free speech" and I suspect you are being disingenous pretending that it is or ever was.
The issue is "approved speech". Right here on Huffpo, speech that is not approved often does not see the light of your monitor screen. What the first amendment grants is your right to speak unapproved speeches; but you have no right to compel other's beliefs or behavior thereby, or compel a company (Huffpo) to publish them.
The left tried really hard to silence Dan Cathy and put him out of business. The right said, "Not so fast, bubba!" figuratively speaking of course.
A few decades ago, Levi Strauss decided to send a message to the Boy Scouts of America and revoked its annual contribution to the BSA. That is entirely its right. Of course, it was my right to no longer buy Levi's.
It would be better, I think, for a company to not get involved in politics but it happens.
I was at the Chick-fil-A appreciation day and was proud to be there; by the way I was totally uninterested in Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks comments in 2003. The issue was not racial, did not concern interracial marriage or woman’s rights. I question your motives of trying to bring those issues into play. If you know your religious facts then I will assume you know Jesus was a Jew and will return at His second coming as a Jew.
To answer your question, the appreciation day was not about hate at all. It was about Christians being weary of the teachings of Jesus being labeled as intolerant and hate speech.
The truth is; Jesus died for us while we were all still sinners. Because He loved us so, and that is the kind of love the Bible speaks of. A love that offers us salvation but does not condone or even accept sin. There is no greater love than to lay your life down for another.
The "Day of Appreciation" was called because some government entities were illegally threatening to ban business enterprises due to the religious inclination of the businessmen.
Maybe you need to cram a little before writing your paper.
Why do you hate me?
Why do you hate Chick-Fil-A?
If you want to speak of "love" and "hate", speak about the actual hate that has been voiced rather than attempting to twist words and thought to "find" hate in those who have not said anything hateful.
Perhaps not: but it damn sure wouldn't have been because those same people wouldn't have really and truly WANTED to show their support: and, even though they learn slowly and it takes multiple lessons, even the religious "right" have learned there are certain areas in which their expression of their true beliefs will no longer be tolerated.
why be dishonest? why not just admit that plenty of people who read the bible come to different conclusions? would you also claim that there is only one denomination of christianity?
like anyone else who, "follow all or as many as they can" you pick and chose what you want to believe and what you want to follow. you are every bit as likely to base your doctrine on previously held and extra-biblical beliefs as anyone else.
how do i know?
"In war time, Americans are supposed to stand together and support the people who are dying for our right to sit here in the comfort of our living rooms"
... which bible verse is that?
Why haven't we heard anything from Palin, Huckabee, Fox News and the rest of you about the government trying to block the construction and use of a house of worship?
Perhaps because it is a mosque--and the government is right wing and in Tennessee?
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-18/justice/justice_tennesee-mosque-lawsuit_1_controversial-mosque-ramadan-federal-lawsuit
But now that you're all aware I look forward to the outpouring of support I sure will ensue.
Why continue to try to find a way for society to accept our sexual orientation when it's God opinion the only one that matters? Why gamble to find happiness with someone else ( same sex or not) here on earth when God is the only one that can give you FULL happiness for ever? As you can see both questions revolve on our own desires instead of putting them aside and finding out what's God will is.
And not surprisingly, every time, it will coincide with your own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yV7IA0PNqE
Now if you can Pastord, that is a miracle im waiting to witness.
As a result of those wives and the idolatry that they led him into, Isreal was divided after Solomon's death as punishment.