As many of you likely know, the restaurant chain Chick-fil-A recently garnered some national media attention when its president, Dan Cathy, made a number of statements supporting the traditional view of marriage. His comments were met predictably with both praise and condemnation from various sources. The situation quickly gained prominence, resulting in a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" and a subsequent day championed by the opposition (I don't think this second date ever received a proper title), both of which occurred last week.
Neither of the days in question bother me for any reason. In a capitalist nation, when a business makes a move which a person agrees with (or not), it is the right of that person to support that business with money and any other means they so choose (or not). Both the proponents and the adversaries of Chick-fil-A were justified in participating in their various activities.
Not as I Do
What I do take issue with, however, is the way in which some members of the pro-gay marriage community responded to the statements by Cathy. Certainly, the majority of the populace in both camps remained reasonable and respectful throughout this episode. But there is a very vocal sect of the socially liberal crowd whose behavior confounds me to no end.
In certain circles, Cathy was painted as an ignorant, conservative bigot, opposed to all kinds of liberties. This sort of defamation should not be entertained by any reasoning society. Nevertheless, liberal commentators in the media, academia, and even in the government could be heard leveling accusations of varying intensity at Cathy, whose only "crime" was stating his personal beliefs. Now, I readily admit that some conservatives acted out of line as well during this saga, but I believe that the liberal pundits are guilty of much worse and much more prolific transgressions of this nature.
The liberals who decried Cathy's statements claim to be working toward a system wherein each person's values are respected and given consideration, but their recent statements betray a different attitude altogether. When faced with someone who actually states his beliefs and holds to a creed with some moral authority, it is all these men and women can do to keep from demanding that he be thrown in the stockade. Their everyday language hearkens to mutual respect and tolerance, but their actions show me only their deep capacity for disrespect and intolerance. What they truly intend to say is that all views should be respected as long as those views agree with their own. This is bigotry couched in a very shallow platform of universal acceptance.
All the World's a Stage
Many people know that the term "hypocrite" comes from the Greek word hypokritḗs which meant simply an actor. A hypocrite is simply a person whose actions do not agree with who he "truly" is (i.e. who he says he is). The social liberals who have condemned Chick-fil-A are excellent examples of this term, which has a deservedly negative connotation.
I do my best not to tolerate hypocrisy- not in myself, not in those around me. I feel that Christians ought to be especially careful of this contradiction of character, because a hypocrite undermines his words by his actions, and the message of Christianity is so easily spoiled by the actions of Christians. That being said, hypocrisy should be no more acceptable in any other group of people. Just because a person supports the right of a minority to state its beliefs does not mean that he supports this right for all people, even if he says he does. His actions must bear this concept out for it to have any real basis.
You do not have to look far to come up with examples of such duplicity in this recent chain of events. One of the most striking which I have found is in the video below, which I found reading through an article on the website of the Los Angeles Times. (retrieved 6 Aug. 2012)
This video was removed by the man who originally posted it, but some intrepid young YouTube users managed to put it back up. Certainly this man thinks he's doing the world a great service by making fun of some college students and spewing out hatred for Chick-fil-A. But I highly doubt many people agree with him.
Keep Your Head
I think we would all be better off if everyone in this situation would just keep cool, but clearly that's not how things are going to work out. I will say this once more: I know that the majority of people in both camps are reasonable and respectful individuals. But Christianity is attacked so often for its alleged hypocrisy that I felt it worthwhile to point out that other philosophies have their fair share of duplicity. And it should not be tolerated anywhere.
I am also going to say this to make it clear. Supporting the traditional view of the family is not hatred toward homosexuals. If a person's religious creed supports one ideal or another, and that person chooses to support that ideal as well, there is generally no malicious intent behind it. And furthermore, to be clear, the Bible definitively supports a traditional model of marriage (one man, one woman, for life). This will be a subject for a later blog post.
I have belabored the subject long enough. I will let Peter's words suffice for my closing this week. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." (1 Peter 15b-16, italics mine)
No comments:
Post a Comment