Friday, July 27, 2012

Chick-Fil-A's Cornerstone

This whole Chick-Fil-A controversy is getting crazy, and I'll dive into all of that soon, but there's something in particular I'd like to respond to. Huffington Post's LGBT Wing (or whatever they call it) called Chick-Fil-A's biblical values into question, spouting off the usual Leviticus and Deuteronomy verses. It angers me whenever liberals try to bash my Bible and my God, but it tickles me to see their self-righteous ignorance. Pull a few verses out of the old testament and cry "The bible only mentions homosexuality six times out of THOUSANDS of verses" and suddenly they get it and know it better than Christians. Word to Huffington Post: God is the ultimate parent and six times is five too many. Then the whole "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" line, which means she doesn't understand Jesus the Son's relationship with God the Father. Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:14) and all scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Enough said. To top off her ignorance she goes on the usual anti-Christian rant and ignorantly suggests Christians don't condemn other sins, which isn't true.

What Juliet Jeske, the writer of this hilarious article, fails to understand is God Himself. From the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden to the very present, God's number one goal is us. The entire Bible is God preparing a way for us to walk with Him. Contrary to liberal atheist and Christian liberal beliefs, Christianity isn't all about "love" and "social justice". It's about forgiveness, mercy, grace, and the heart of God. It's about ridding us of all that is unholy and bringing us back to Himself because he loves us and he wants us. Christianity is about God fighting for our souls. God has trusted us with the Good News to share with others and that's where Chick-Fil-A comes in.

I've worked at two Chick-Fil-As, the first one was a double drive-thru in Myrtle Beach. On one of my first days there, a guy from corporate came in and helped us stock stuff and he took a few orders. He then decided to tell us about our purpose there. Have you ever wondered why employees say "My Pleasure" whenever you thank them for something? It's not just to look better than McDonald's. The way he explained it to us, and I'm paraphrasing, is "You're Welcome" sounds like you've done them a favor. "My Pleasure" expresses that it's an honor to serve. Chick-Fil-A doesn't just employee people and show them how to work a deep fryer, they teach their employees to have a servant's heart, to go above and beyond and out of the way. Chick-Fil-A teaches their employees to smile when they don't feel like it and to show compassion and empathy when a customer doesn't deserve it. Even in the drive-thru they don't say "How can I help you?" "For even the son of man didn't come to be served, but to serve..." (Mark 10:45). Service is the cornerstone of Chick-Fil-A and it's a thread that weaves through the Bible.

I find it hilarious that Ms. Jeske accuses Dan Cathy of doing exactly what she's doing in this article: picking and choosing. She's picking the verses that seem to support her argument while choosing to ignore what those verses mean in the first place and how they apply to us. She's picking Dan Cathy's words and choosing to mislead her readers and act as if his personal opinion is company policy. She lectures about the dangers of homophobia while failing to recognize her own hatred, contempt, and bigotry. Violence is often incited by ignorance. She should know that. Someone should at least explain to her the difference between the Nation of Israel and the gentiles or the difference between the old and new covenant. That would clear up some of her intentional confusion. At the very least, I would like someone to explain to Ms. Jeske that 1 Corinthians 3:2 isn't literally about milk and meat/solid food, but it's a metaphor about spiritual maturity. I found that out pretty quick. All I had to do was read.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Tolerance in the Name of Chicken

The mayors of Boston and Chicago are seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A from their cities because of what the company's president said about traditional marriage when interviewed by The Baptist Press in North Carolina. The headlines are hilarious, if I must say:
  • Homophobic Chick-Fil-A Prez Dan Cathy: "Guilty as Charged" - Vibe.com
  • Chick-Fil-A: A-OK with being anti-gay, says prez - NY Daily News
  • Chick-fil-A 'guilty as charged' in anti-gay stance - GLAAD
  • Is Chick-fil-A anti-gay marriage? 'Guilty as charged,' leader says - LA Times
  • Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A President, On Anti-Gay Stance: 'Guilty As Charged' - Huffington Post
Homophobic. Anti-Gay. They're very quick to judge. If we're being honest, Dan Cathy never mentioned gay marriage in the interview.
"He was not saying 'guilty as charged anti-gay,'" Blume added. "[Cathy] never even brought up that subject. Everything he stated was on the positive side … He never stated anything negative."

Blume asked Cathy about opposition to the company's support of the traditional family, and Cathy responded, "Well, guilty as charged."

In the interview Cathy went on to say, "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that." (Read More)

Why the twist and spin to make Dan Cathy sound like a hateful human being? We may never understand the gay left's desire to feel oppressed, but there it is. Disagreement and difference of opinion equate to hate in the minds of many. We live in a world where sticking to your values is close-minded, and shutting people down for being different is open-minded. Tolerance used to mean accepting people just as they are, but the meaning has changed to accepting people who fall into your line of thinking. Rahm Emanuel, Chicago's mayor, said Chick-Fil-A doesn't represent Chicago's values. Another word for political corruption is Chicago; and if someone asks you why gun control doesn't work, your answer should be "Chicago." So I'm not sure what he's talking about. And if he plans to deny ever church, mosque, or family who supports traditional marriage access to his city, then his words would make some sense. Either way, it is completely unconstitutional to deny business permits to a company because of their religious beliefs. Same goes for Boston's lovely mayor. People have a right to not spend their money somewhere, but boycotting a business because of something they didn't say say is hilarious. And to throw around words like "homophobic" and "anti-gay" until they sting is hateful.

Natalie Maines, lead singer of the country trio Dixie Chicks, had me laughing because she seems to think Chick-Fil-A is going to go bankrupt because of this. Her disdain for Chick-Fil-A is laughable seeing as how something very similar happened to her just a few years ago. Her record sales dropped, concert venues wouldn't take her, and radio stations wouldn't play her music all because she said she was ashamed George W. Bush was from Texas. And she has the nerve to wish the same thing on Chick-Fil-A? Unfortunately for her and many other Hollywood liberals, they underestimate the power of the Evangelical Christian community and that delicious Chicken Sandwich. Chick-Fil-A may have lost the support of the once apolitical Jim Henson Company, but they're going to be just fine. If anything this will boost their sales. I've talked to people on twitter who have been to Chick-Fil-A more in the last week than in the last few months. There are people going to Chick-Fil-A for the first time. It's not traditional marriage they're supporting; it's freedom.

Mike Huckabee decided to take it upon himself and deem Wednesday August 1st "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day." Over 200,000 have signed up and the list is growing. I don't support Ben and Jerry's politics but I love Half-Baked. I thought Oreo's "homo cookie" was stupid, but nothing taste better with milk. Target supports gay marriage, but I won't buy purses from anywhere else. I respect a company's right to believe however they choose, but I really respect Christians who stand strong when facing liberal hatred. I don't consider myself tolerant. I would have...before the meaning changed.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Don't Mess With Madeleine

The Huffington Post released a list of "Top 20 under 20" to follow on Twitter. Teenage Maverick, Madeleine McAulay made that list...for a little while. They removed her from the list and they have yet to give her an explanation. It could be because she's conservative or Christian or that she's not shy about her views on gay marriage. Maybe she didn't fit among the Nickelodeon stars, athletes, fashion commentators, One Direction singer, and Chloe Grace Moretz (whom I love). Who knows. Since Huffington Post is chicken, I'll tell you why you should follow her.

Miss McAulay is sixteen-years-old and too young to vote, but she's far more well versed in politics and current events than most adults. She's an ambitious young woman who is working hard to get more teens involved in matters that affect them, educating people on how what's happening now will affect them later on in life. She's been interviewed by our local Fox Affiliate, Fox and Friends, and Charlotte Magazine. To top it all off, she'll be speaking at Rock the Red 2012 here in Charlotte. She has her own YouTube channel, blog, and she just started a podcast. In addition to her own blog, she's written pieces for Breitbart.com. She's someone to follow because she's a good example. She's who our teenagers should be, striving for purpose and working to make this world a better place. She's had a YouTube video banned because she's unashamed and she's working on a book because she has way too much to say. She's fearless and my own little hero, and if The Huffington Post wants to let people's bigotry and intolerance keep them from seeing what a gem Madeleine is, then that's their loss. Do yourself a favor and follow Madeleine:

Twitter
YouTube
Blog
Podcast
Facebook

Southern Priorities

Really, Mayor Foxx?

This is Anthony Foxx, mayor of Charlotte, which will be home to the DNC. Like a lot of people, he's concerned about Mitt Romney's tax returns, and for what? Let me tell you a little bit about Charlotte. This city puts on a beautiful brave face, but the economy sucks right now. The national unemployment rate is 8.2%. North Carolina's unemployment rate is 9.4%, and Charlotte's unemployment rate is 9.5%. Once upon a time, people came to Charlotte to find work, but that's an old fairy tale. A lot of people are not hiring and people can't find work, and this dope is worried about Mitt Romney's tax returns? Really?

Run, Mitt Romney, Run!


I'm not going to pretend to know what was in Obama's head when he said what he said about entrepreneurs and small business owners, but he changed the game and Romney is running with the ball. It's hard to twist his words when there's audio and video and his purpose for speaking is clear. He's trying to convince the country that his "plan" for making rich people pay more taxes is a good thing. The idea that these rich people are some of our job creators is FINALLY starting to resonate with voters, and then we have Obama's word vomit. Up until now, Obama has never referred to business owners specifically in this manner, so it's no coincidence. Obama has said many times he doesn't want to punish success, but his actions speak differently. We see it in his proposal for the Buffett Rule, his attacks on Mitt Romney's wealth, and now the Bush Tax Cuts. The Great Uniter is dividing America, pitting the rich against the poor; increasing government dependency and bashing American individualism. Obama IS making the case that we need government because that's been his whole deal since he took office. Obamacare wouldn't be the hot mess that it is if he didn't believe people need government. And not just our need for government, but his words say he believes we owe government for our success. If that doesn't bother you, then there's something wrong with you.

Friday, July 13, 2012

The Trouble with College...IDs

Eric Holder, the upstanding man that he is, went before the NAACP a few days ago and had this to say about the Voter ID law in Texas:




25% of African-Americans, he says, do not have a valid government issued ID. Why the NAACP doesn't see that figure as a problem is beyond me, but I digress. What struck me is when he mentioned handgun licenses vs. college IDs. I don't know if he's playing the NAACP for fools or if they're just that dumb. Anyone lacking basic common sense would call a college ID being invalid at the polls wrong, but it's not. It made perfect sense to me when I heard it, but there are a lot people (particularly on twitter) who are up in arms about this, saying the law disenfranchises college students. So let's try and understand this.

In this day and age, most college students will get their first government issued ID with their picture on it when they turn fifteen or sixteen. It's called a Learner's Permit. Sometime after that they'll get their driver's license. In lieu of a driver's license many will get an ID card. If you honestly think most college students don't have a driver's license or some kind of valid ID card that doesn't have their name, picture, and (most importantly) their birth date, then you are extremely out of touch.

A college ID alone will not get you into the club or into a Rated-R movie. It will not get you cigarettes or a drink at the bar. First semester of my freshman year, a girl who lived down the hall from me didn't turn eighteen until January. Half of the students in the School of Business were on student visas from India, Egypt, and China and they had college IDs just like me, and I was born on a southern military base. A college ID says nothing about you other than what school you go to. It doesn't say if you're of legal age, if you're a citizen, and it doesn't verify your residency. My friend and I had the same college ID, but I was registered to vote in Greensboro, North Carolina and he was registered to vote in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania. Most importantly, a college ID is not government issued. My school was a public university, but it's not an arm of the government or a government agency. I had friends at Wingate, Elon, Davidson, and Liberty and those are private universities that issue the same college IDs to their students. There are certain requirements that need to be met in order to register to vote, and a college ID does not back those up. One of those requirements is being a citizen and the only way to verify you are a citizen is through the government.

A handgun license in the state of Texas, on the other hand, is issued by...wait for it...THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. Need I say more? 

Response to Clinton

Clinton Jiggetts wrote a comment on one of my posts a few days ago and I promised a response. I thought about sending an e-mail or posting in the comments, but this seems to be the best way. People may ask me the same questions or say the same things, so read carefully.

"My issue with the whole gay marriage issue is it should not matter to individuals. Marriage was taken out of church the day I could go down to City Hall and get married instead of in a church. The fact that a atheist or agnostic can get married is evidence as well."
I try to have a God worldview of things. I don't always, but I try my hardest. Saying that, I don't care how atheists or agnostics or any human being views marriage. I care how God views marriage and God views marriage as between one man and one woman. Society's ever-changing view of marriage doesn't change how God sees it. Going down to city hall doesn't change how God views marriage. Whether you're in your church, in city hall, at the beach, or in your backyard it is still a covenant between a man and woman and the Lord. As a Christian, it should matter to you because it matters to God. That's it. Period.
My issue is how the Bible is cherry picked in regards to what is relevant and what is not. When I read Leviticus alone there are many things that good God fearing Christians do that is deemed a sin. Furthermore, some Christians argue Paul made the Jewish laws of the old testament null and avoid, except homosexuality of course.
What Christians do and how Christians read doesn't change what the Bible says. I don't hear Christians arguing that about Paul. The Bible says Jesus fulfilled the law by dying on the cross. What Leviticus calls sin is still sin because it's repeated in the Gospels, Romans and Corinthians, but the "self-cleansing" is no longer necessary. I go into that here.
"I think its a shame that a convicted murderer will be embraced in a church faster then a homosexual. I'm a bigger believer in leading by example and show Jesus' love."
It is a shame because Jesus calls us to love them regardless, but here's the thing to remember: For the wages of sin is death. If a convicted murderer accepts Christ and the homosexual doesn't, that's a problem. The church has become fearful of the word of man and not the Word of God, and that's why you have dead church's like Carrie's.
"Though I know telling someone something is wrong is not nesseacrily evil and you are trying to save their goal but with so much itnerputation and so much translation in the history of the Bible(I could write for another week on what King James, and Constatine did alone) I believe its best to share and spread love, pray to God seperate your religous beliefs from the will of the people..."
If by "spread love" you mean sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then I agree. If we're talking about love and not Jesus then there's no love in our words. We're not called to accept Christ, read the Bible, pray to him and go about our business. Who are we to keep this Good News to ourselves? To share the love of Christ is the definition of love. God sent Jesus to bring man to himself and Jesus walked this earth to teach us how to do that. We show Jesus' love by proclaiming His name. That's it. Period.

"What if instead of Judeo-Christian values being the foundation of our country it had been Jewish laws...what if you wanted ribs but was told its a sin because its pig, or wanted to eat shellfish, or as a woman was told it is unclean for you to share a bed with your husband during your time of the month because it was deemed unclean in the bible, or its unclean to cook diff foods in the same pan, or woman must be covered from neck to ankle be submissive to your husband, and bear children until your husband alone decides to stop, or you have no freedom of speech to write this blog, or its ok to keep slaves, or an adulterous woman alone (not the man) should be stoned..."

"I can go on and on there are lots of rules/laws/sins in the Bible we choose to ignore but why is this issue so much greater? When I read the New Testament I'm most fond of the four gospels as they demonstrate the son of God going against the grain of everything...he saves the adulterer, eats with the tax collector, touches the lepers, is resrrected and presents himself to woman first (at a time woman word was only as good as her husband because they had no independent thoughts or ideas legally)...he should time and time again that loving your brother as you love yourself is pinnacle to eternal life, not condemning and trying to change by force the 'sins' of others."
Jesus didn't just spend time with them. He taught them about his Father in Heaven and he saved them from their sin. By accepting homosexuals in the church and not preaching the sin of homosexuality, we're not loving them as Jesus would love them. The same goes for murderers, liars, etc. Churches need to be more welcoming, but NOT stray from the word of God to keep their membership numbers up or keep people happy. This issue is no more important to God than any other issue, but it is the issue that's become front and center in our culture. As Christians, we can't ignore it.

In general, Christians cherry-picking is an issue but it has no bearing on what God's Word says. God said more than once, in one way or another, that we must speak his words whether people want to hear it or not.

Check out Clinton's Blog HERE!!!
Then we never would have traveled to the "New World" in the first place because that's pretty much what we had in England.