Today's post is from a guest blogger, Marjorie McKinstry-Miller, upon request from Jean:
He made his beliefs known. Those beliefs are hateful. I am heterosexual. I am married. I have friends who are gay who cannot marry... thanks to other Americans who hold the same hateful beliefs as the head of Chik-Fil-A.
I am also Christian. But, I do not pick and choose elements of the Bible to support my hatred for those different from me. If we followed every law put forth as truth by the Bible, most of the Americans so offended by the reactions of those of us appalled by Chik-Fil-A... would be offended, shocked and appalled.
As an American running a business in America, he has the right to present his opinions and run a business that funds groups whose sole purpose is to prevent loving couples from marrying.
As an American, I have the right to discuss this issue, to speak out against it, and to choose not to purchase chicken when the profits from that chicken will be spent to further an irrational hate and bias professed by bigots. What's most offensive to me is that these bigots are abusing and using the Bible to excuse their hate.
You cannot have it both ways. If you choose to interpret passages in the Bible as being against homosexuality and against gay marriage, then you have to: ensure Cattle do not mingle with any other livestock; cannot have more than one crop in any one field; cannot wear clothing made of more than one fabric; cannot cut your hair or shave; must be killed if you curse your mother or father; must be murdered if you cheat on your spouse; have to prevent those who are blind, lame or who have flat noses from visiting an altar of God; and kill anyone of a different religion.
So, those of you pounding on the Bible to suggest that your hatred is warranted, the above list should keep you busy for awhile.... making changes in your life, your family, your yard, your fields, your livestock, your physical features and infirmities... and your hatred of those who are different from you.
Meanwhile, back in the 21st Century, I shall pick and choose the parts of the Bible that discuss love, acceptance, forgiveness and... I know this is difficult for quite a few folks to comprehend... not judging.
I disagree with you, Marjorie. Starting with "Those beliefs are hateful." But I spent days thinking about it and not posting, because there are few things in life that I enjoy less than arguing with Marjorie Mckinstry-Miller. It's not fun. But more importantly, I don't think it's helpful to either of us for me to spar with you over our disagreements. But I just wanted to state, for the record, so no one could accuse me of cowardice: Respectfully, I disagree.
ReplyDeleteMarjorie responds: "His beliefs are hateful. He wants to deny fellow Americans a basic right based on a theology that is not actually supported by the text he believes supports it. He uses the Bible to rationalize a prejudice against another human being who has done nothing to harm him. There is no good and no benefit to his beliefs. He has the right to that belief, regardless of how vile it is. The legal right to have the belief makes it no less hateful... just as those who argued that blacks and whites should not marry (basing their belief on the Bible and what they deemed lesser human beings). Most believe we are past that hate, too. We are not as evidenced by the interracial American couple just denied a marriage service in the church they both attended. Hate is the most difficult emotion to lose because it is the least invested in logic."
ReplyDeleteHis beliefs could indeed be hateful, but more likely they are merely obedient, in submission to an authority higher than his own judgment. You said he believes the text supports his position. I would prefer to grant him the benefit of the doubt in cause and effect - that his belief may stem from his understanding of the text, rather than assuming he interprets his opinion through what he can find in the text.
ReplyDeleteThe danger in denying him the benefit of the doubt is twofold. The first danger is that one risks committing the mistake of which Dan Cathy has been accused: first choosing a belief and then select scripture to support that belief. (To avoid that, one can instead to read the scriptures within the context of the original author, illuminated by other scriptures on the related topic, and then to try to extrapolate to today’s applicability, in order to formulate a belief. The risk of this approach becomes personal when one encounters a scriptural command that is opposed to a dearly held preconception: How then to respond?)
The second danger is more subtle, and insidious. To accuse an intellectual opponent of hate, vile beliefs, irrationality, bias, bigotry, or emotion rather than logic, is a tool to strip the beliefs and arguments of dignity, worth, and humanity in order to justify dismissal of the whole opposing argument. If evil opposes me, then the virtue of my position is self-evident and I do not need to hold to any conventional concepts of respectful treatment of the person or issues. I can use the tool of labeling my opposition vile to justify in my mind (and in the minds of my audience) all sorts of inhumane treatments that I can now employ in my discussion, that I would otherwise avoid in civil discourse. Civil discourse is not required with and of those whose motives are reprehensible. Therefore it is of no consequence that I use the tool to pass judgment on a man who is intending to be obedient to God rather than man’s opinions.
Dan Cathy has not set out to disrespect those who disagree with him. The business that he operates does not discriminate nor mistreat those who would be customers of it. We have not seen evidence that he humiliates homosexuals nor (for example) serves heterosexuals first in line. Even in his remarks that caused such outrage on the part of so many, he did not stoop to name calling or maligning those who disagree with him. Yet he stands accused of hateful beliefs by one who admits to picking and choosing scriptures in support of selected beliefs.