Chick-Fil-A Anti-Gay?

I feel compelled to apologize for such a cliche headline that I'm sure has been used by mediocre journalists across the nation, but at the same time don't feel inclined to do so. At any rate, I figured I'd throw my two cents' worth in.

I like Chick-Fil-A - their food is frickin' awesome! Especially their spicy chicken deluxe with pepper jack cheese. They make great food, and I don't even care about their deeply religious roots. They are entitled to them. It is their right.

I'm already missing them. Chick-Fil-A's Dan Cathy: "Guilty as charged." Don't you just love the bit about Adam and Steve? Nice touch.

Yes, despite my own stances on religion, I didn't mind the fact that I was eating from a restaurant that's never made any secret of its deeply Christian roots. Those spicy chicken sandwiches never made me burst into flames, and I'm not sure I'd mind if they did. Spicy food is good!

But, here's the problem - the money I've been giving them to enjoy those sandwiches has been used against my gay friends. Not cool by me. My stance on the issue of gays and same-sex marriage is that it's really no different from the civil rights stuff from about fifty years ago, and similarly, kids thirty years from now will be thinking that the anti-gay people are a bunch of assholes as they learn about them in school.

Gays as a whole do nothing to harm society. They are, on the whole, decent people - the same as anyone else. They have hearts, they have brains. They experience the same emotions as the rest of us, just that they're more attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex. Not a big deal. And going by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we have no business denying them the same rights. The only arguments against gays are based in religion, and the Constitution makes it pretty clear that the church doesn't have business legislating for the state.

The problem with so many of the more vocal modern Christians is that they preach every part of the Bible, except for the teachings of Jesus. You know, that long-haired hippie that talked about peace and compassion? The one whom Christianity is named for? Yeah, that guy... who, coincidentally, didn't say a damned thing about gays. Or any number of other issues that false prophets are attaching his name to.

People seem to have a convenient memory when it comes to religion. The same part of the Bible that forbids homosexuality also forbids tattoos, eating pork or playing with the flesh of a dead pig (so much for tossing around the ol' pigskin, huh?), eating shellfish, and condones slavery and blood sacrifice. Perhaps these "God-fearing" Christians have good reason to fear their god - they preach hate in his name. I'd consider that a pretty serious insult.

At any rate, Chick-Fil-A and its supporters now are complaining about the "hateful" attempts to suppress their free speech. Here's the thing about free speech: it goes both ways. You have the right to be an idiot, and I have the right to call you an idiot. If a business is financing ideals that we don't agree with, then we have a right to withhold our money from said business, and advocating for others to do the same. So that being said, I support the boycotts and same-sex kiss-in's.

Almost forgot - here's a meme thing to re-post on facebook or whatever:

To repost the image, you can right-click it, click "view image," and copy and paste the URL to facebook or whatever it is you young'uns use these days. You can also copy it to your own photo albums, but the former is preferred, as it'll help me get more exposure.

Religion and Medicine

Catholic church is furious about being required to provide birth control through church-linked hospitals and healthcare.

Admittedly, this did require some thought on my part. My initial reaction is, "so the Catholic church hates birth control. What else is new?" My feelings about how much involvement the church has taken in politics and in holding back science as a whole are no secret. This did require a little more thought, however. The reason? Quite simply because I do respect the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does protect religious freedom... it does say that government and churches should not tread on each other's turf, despite how often the churches in particular try to do so. I do however believe in leading by example, as "...but they started it!" comes off as a rather childish argument. So initially, it does seem that there is some merit to the church's argument that the government just treaded on church turf.

Let's take a closer look, though. When you start looking at the various hospitals, it seems that a lot of them have some sort of religious affiliation at least by name. Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic (or mention of saints), etc. For one reason or another, healthcare seems dominated by religious organizations. I suppose it makes sense to expand spiritual healing to physical healing, and the churches actually do have some history of this, at least as far back as medieval nuns and monks in Christianity, and druids with the pre-Christian Celts, and the list goes on, I'm sure.

The question however is whether we should be able to deny treatment based on religious beliefs. Should atheists or other non-believers be turned away from such church-connected hospitals? Birth control in itself may seem a small issue. But for the woman who just got raped and needs a Plan B pill, it's something of a bigger deal. It's also a predecessor to a bigger issue. What about those churches who feel that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from their god, and therefore should receive no treatment? It wouldn't be anything new - the same has happened throughout history, whether it be disease such as smallpox, or a tragedy such as an earthquake or hurricane. Should any organization that can call itself a hospital be allowed to deny treatment over religious beliefs on these? I don't think so.

While it is kind of churches to build these hospitals, if they are going to treat them as public hospitals (not to mention accepting government aid and funding as such), then they must accept, at least in their hospitals, the same treatments accepted by other healthcare organizations. No one is dictating that churches change their doctrines, just that their hospitals catch up.