[identity profile] kelincihutan.livejournal.com
In a move that probably took a lot of people by surprise, the DNC put God back into their platform along with language affirming Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel today. C-SPAN video of the proceedings is here.

Disclosure: I am a Christian, and I am pro-Israel so this is a platform change of which I approve. That said, I am quite surprised at how, well, undemocratically this change was carried out.

In the video, Mayor Villaraigosa had to call for the vote three times before seeming to decide that he was going to approve the platform change whether there'd been a two-thirds aye vote or not. Obviously this platform change was a matter of major contention among the delegates. I am very surprised that a more formal vote was not carried out, given how divided the Convention seemed to be on the matter. And while I realize that these things take time, isn't this sort of boring, in-house housekeeping the actual reason these conventions happen in the first place? I know we like to pretty them up with balloons (unless we're Democrats) and confetti and music and whatever, but that stuff happens all the time. Hashing out the platform, on the other hand, doesn't come around just whenever.

I suppose, given the way they rammed through Obamacare without concern for what the country wanted, I shouldn't be too surprised, but I didn't figure they'd go all petty-dictator on one another. I would, honestly, have been disappointed in the party (more than I already am, anyway) had these changes not been made. But the way they were made feels dishonest and forced. Where do Democrats really stand on these issues and why didn't they take a more careful vote?

Edit: I have unscreened the comment by "Stan Chaz." Mods, he's your call. ;)
[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
First off, I just wanted to lay it out on the table that I'm in favor of marriage equality. I understand that there are some people who may not be, and that's fine. I'm all for civil debate and discussion about the issue.

Lately there's been a lot of news about Chik-Fil-A and comments made by the company's CEO Dan Cathy during an interview with the Baptist Press. Here's what he said that's causing such a firestorm:

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
Not one sentence in the entire article bears any ill will or hatred toward the LGBT community, and yet Dan Cathy and Chik-Fil-A have become targets of a witch-hunt and a lot of righteous indignation from the media, celebrities, government leaders, and the LGBT community in general.

Chik-Fil-A: The Right to Be Stupid and Offensive (Huffington Post)
Chik-Fil-A Gay Flap A "Wakeup Call" For Companies (NPR)
Gray opposes Chik-Fil-A expansion; calls it 'hate chicken' (Washington Post)

Mayors of three major U.S. cities - Boston (Mayor Thomas Menino), Chicago (Mayor Rahm Immanuel - also a former Obama administration official) and Washington, D.C. (Vincent C. Gray)have all spoken in opposition to the chain with Menino and Immanuel going so far as to threaten to ban Chik-Fil-A from their cities (Menino has since backed off, no doubt because he realizes it would be an infringement on Cathy's first amendment rights and those of his company due to the SCOTUS Citizens United decision). But there are some sane minds in the fight. Mike "Nanny" Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC who recently proposed a ban on 16 oz. sodas to combat obesity, went on record that he disagrees with people like Menino who would attempt to ban a business from setting up shop. Even the ACLU is backing Chik-Fil-A, stating that attempts by city officials to ban businesses for religious beliefs is a clear-cut case of discrimination.

As for the boycott? It doesn't seem to be working. Twitter users are reporting lines out the door and drive thru lines wrapping around the building at their local Chik-Fil-A establishments. Many even posted pictures to prove the boom in business.

My whole opinion on this issue is that a chicken sandwich isn't a political statement -- it's food. If someone is eating at Chik-Fil-A, 10 to 1 says it was because they were hungry and just wanted something to eat, not because they're looking to stick it to anyone by purchasing some waffle fries. But since we're putting it all on the table here, how about those protesting against Chik-Fil-A have a little consistency?



(Mods: Any way we can get a tag for "free speech" and "marriage", please? Thank you!)
[identity profile] lazypadawan.livejournal.com
Brit Hume ended up in hot water because he said on a Fox News show that maybe Buddhism wasn't working out for Tiger Woods and maybe he ought to look into the kind of redemption and forgiveness the Christian faith offers to put his life back together. The media-entertainment-industrial complex were horrified. You see, in the la-la land of the secularist, you can't talk about that sort of thing publicly. T.V. ads can go on about "erectile dysfunction," women on talk shows can yap about their va-jay-jays, and we won't even discuss what happens on "Jersey Shore" or the "Real Housewives" franchise. You can show blood and guts on prime time television. You can portray creepy priests and abusive Christian parents in dramas. But mentioning anything positive about Christianity? Why that's worse than expelling bodily gas at high decibels during a state dinner! You just NEVER do that sort of thing in polite company! The horror!!

[livejournal.com profile] johncwright had a long and very well-written piece on the whole thing, including on the difference between Buddhism and Christianity. I won't address that because to be honest, the MSM couldn't care less about the honor of Buddhists worldwide. No, they were offended at someone publicly promoting Christianity as something of value. By the same token, several sportswriters have mocked college football star Tim Tebow's openness about his faith.

Why is that? My theory is many of those visible or prominent in the media-entertainment-industrial complex are deeply uncomfortable with a religion that requires you to be humble and put something above yourself. Hiding it away as something private means you don't have to acknowledge it or think about it. It becomes irrelevant to your life. Without it there, you're free to order your universe according to the way you want it without any consequence. It bothers these people to see a prominent, successful media figure like a Brit Hume act differently because it bursts a trope that smart, powerful people reject that sort of thing. They're not only worried that *gasp* Tiger might take up Hume's advice, but that millions of folks at home might too. And where does that leave the hardcore secularist?

Profile

therightfangirl: (Default)
The Right Fangirl

June 2020

S M T W T F S
 123456
789 10 111213
141516 17181920
21222324252627
282930    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 08:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios