Radical imam OK but not Chick-fil-A

"Words have consequences..."

Isn't that what they bleated when they boycottted the Dixie Chicks for merely having an opinion?


The complaint about the Dixie Chicks was them complaining about our President while on foreign soil. One can agree or disagree with that (trying to think of ones opinion if both someone they support or don't support was in office). The beauty of America is we can vote with our checkbook. We can choose to spend our money where we like. And if a company like Kraft fires your best friend for a truly f'd up reason like they did mine and you choose not to eat their food anymore it is all good.
 
Jesus was angry because they were turning his Father's house into a house of trade. The money changing and trade were not what made him angry, per se. That they were doing it in the temple is what pissed him off so much.

Jesus was crucified because he upset the jewish leaders, not the secular ones. The jewish leaders were the ones who set him up and insisted that he be crucified. Pontius Pilate went to some lengths to have him freed. It was the religious leaders that wanted him dead.

You need to go back and read the Bible again, sounds like. Jesus was not crucified because the Jews up and one day decided he upset them. He wrecked the money tables and Judas snitched him out to Pilate, and Jesus was arrested and crucified.

Yes, Jesus was angry over Caesar's law and reacted to it. Your contention was, he believed we should just accept whatever from Caesar... Render unto Caesar... but you have misinterpreted that scripture and what he was saying. You see, the question arose from one of the disciples... Hey, should we support these heathens with our tax money? Jesus knew, if they defied tax laws, that would have pretty much ended Christianity, as this would have been all the reason needed to execute them all. His response was, render unto Caesar what is his, but also, still stand up for your principles.
 
Not trying to start another argument with you Dixie but I have to say that is the strangest explanation of those events I have ever heard/read.
 
Not trying to start another argument with you Dixie but I have to say that is the strangest explanation of those events I have ever heard/read.

Well I am not a Biblical scholar, and I am not arguing Christian doctrine here, just summarizing what is basic knowledge of the scripture. I don't get where you find it "strange" that Jesus instructed his followers to obey the law and pay their taxes, but that doesn't mean sacrifice principles.

The notion that Jesus said we should "render unto Caesar" and that means we should just accept whatever the government does without question, is wrong. That was not what he said or what he meant.
 
That's not what I was referring to. I am very busy getting ready for evening worship. When I get the chance I'll message what I was referring.
 
You need to go back and read the Bible again, sounds like. Jesus was not crucified because the Jews up and one day decided he upset them. He wrecked the money tables and Judas snitched him out to Pilate, and Jesus was arrested and crucified.

Yes, Jesus was angry over Caesar's law and reacted to it. Your contention was, he believed we should just accept whatever from Caesar... Render unto Caesar... but you have misinterpreted that scripture and what he was saying. You see, the question arose from one of the disciples... Hey, should we support these heathens with our tax money? Jesus knew, if they defied tax laws, that would have pretty much ended Christianity, as this would have been all the reason needed to execute them all. His response was, render unto Caesar what is his, but also, still stand up for your principles.

I will go back and read it. I do so regularly.

Pontius Pilate did not want Jesus. He had no choice but to prosecute him. In fact, he is the one who placed the sign above his head that said "King of the Jews", and the jewish leaders protested. They wanted it to read "He said he was King of the Jews", but Pilate refused to change it.

Also, Jesus was arrested by the Sanhedrin, not by the Romans. They only delivered him to the romans when they could find no justififcation for execution. And Pontius Pilate said he could find no guilt in him. The crime the Jews pressed was that jesus claimed he was King of the Jews, which would have made him guilty of a capital offense under roman law. The records we have in the Gospels show he was repeatedly asked if he was King of teh Jews, but he avoided answering directly and chose to remain silent much of the time.

It was the Sanhedrin who paid judas the 30 pieces of silver. The only problem was that they could not find him guilty of a capital offense, so they finally turned to Roman Law and made up some bullshit to get him executed.
 
I will go back and read it. I do so regularly.

Pontius Pilate did not want Jesus. He had no choice but to prosecute him. In fact, he is the one who placed the sign above his head that said "King of the Jews", and the jewish leaders protested. They wanted it to read "He said he was King of the Jews", but Pilate refused to change it.

Also, Jesus was arrested by the Sanhedrin, not by the Romans. They only delivered him to the romans when they could find no justififcation for execution. And Pontius Pilate said he could find no guilt in him. The crime the Jews pressed was that jesus claimed he was King of the Jews, which would have made him guilty of a capital offense under roman law. The records we have in the Gospels show he was repeatedly asked if he was King of teh Jews, but he avoided answering directly and chose to remain silent much of the time.

It was the Sanhedrin who paid judas the 30 pieces of silver. The only problem was that they could not find him guilty of a capital offense, so they finally turned to Roman Law and made up some bullshit to get him executed.

Again, the idea that Jesus said we should "render unto Caesar" and that means we should just accept whatever the government does without question, is wrong. He's not saying we should respect secular government or support immoral things the government may do. If that is how you interpret "render unto Caesar" it is a false interpretation. What he says is quite profound, it is that the more important thing is what you render unto God. You see, his followers thought, if they paid Caesar's taxes it might anger God, because it would mean they were 'worshiping' another; Caesar. This was Jesus' way of explaining, it didn't matter that they paid a tax to Caesar, that had nothing to do with their convictions or devotion to God. Another point he was making, in essence, was that nothing important was Caesar's. While all that mattered, was God's. It was almost a sarcastic retort to the question.

Of course, this is all subject to interpretation by Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals, etc. I have no idea what 'interpretations' you have been taught, or what you have heard from others. I don't doubt that you have a clear understanding, but it's always best to keep an open mind, and understand that we are talking about religious philosophy here, and it varies among people.
 
Again, the idea that Jesus said we should "render unto Caesar" and that means we should just accept whatever the government does without question, is wrong. He's not saying we should respect secular government or support immoral things the government may do. If that is how you interpret "render unto Caesar" it is a false interpretation. What he says is quite profound, it is that the more important thing is what you render unto God. You see, his followers thought, if they paid Caesar's taxes it might anger God, because it would mean they were 'worshiping' another; Caesar. This was Jesus' way of explaining, it didn't matter that they paid a tax to Caesar, that had nothing to do with their convictions or devotion to God. Another point he was making, in essence, was that nothing important was Caesar's. While all that mattered, was God's. It was almost a sarcastic retort to the question.

Of course, this is all subject to interpretation by Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals, etc. I have no idea what 'interpretations' you have been taught, or what you have heard from others. I don't doubt that you have a clear understanding, but it's always best to keep an open mind, and understand that we are talking about religious philosophy here, and it varies among people.

I have always interpreted it as standing on your principles, but allowing the gov't to do what it does. Gay marriage will have no effect on my marriage or my faith. Just like the infidelity of others does not effect my marriage or my faith. My faith requires I put no God before my God. That another religion does so, and is supported by the US gov't, does not change my life or my faith one iota.
 
We should do unto Chik-fil-A as Rome did unto Carthage. There is no place in this world for bigots. We should nationalize Chik-fil-A, open it on Sunday, and give gay employees full rights.
 
Who's denying the Chik Fil A president his religious freedom? He can believe and say whatever he wants.

And then the mayor of Boston threatens to prohibit them from conducting business in Boston, while he sells city property on the cheap for the muslims to build their mosque. He likely views the muslims as sufficiently hating America like himself wile the owners of chick filet do not.

This has ceased being a story about Chcik filets views and it is now about 4 democratic politicians threatening to violate Chick filets constitutional rights
 
Again, the idea that Jesus said we should "render unto Caesar" and that means we should just accept whatever the government does without question, is wrong. He's not saying we should respect secular government or support immoral things the government may do. .

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment
 
Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment

And this was written at a time when the most powerful government in the region [Rome] was most definitely not friendly towards Christians and were eventually going to become even more unfriendly. Couple that with:

Acts 5:29 - But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

You get my philosophy that I am going to obey the law of the the land in which I live unless such law compels me to violate a law of God. That doesn't mean that I am not going to wish, hope and work for changes in laws using thempolitical system, but it means that, as I read the Bible, I am to obey the civil authorities in this fashion.
 
The left is rife with hypocrisy, it's almost like some kind of sick game with them!

They ask a Christian man who doesn't open on Sundays, how he feels about homosexuality, and then act shocked that he doesn't support it.

They will organize a boycott to not buy Chicken sandwiches from a man who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but when are they going to stop buying gasoline because the OPEC president believes homosexuals should be executed?

That does seem to be the level of lunacy they've reached.
 
The president of Chik Filet said what he said because of his religious beliefs. They operate a family owned business How is it that freedom of religion protects the Imam but not the president of a restaurant chain?
It does. People can boycot Chik-fil-a all they want. That is not a first ammendment issue. People can boycot the Mosque where the Imam is employed and that's not a first ammendment issue too. Also, anyone can criticise the hell out of either one in the most hypocritical manner and it's a non-sequitor from a first ammendment standpoint.

But when the Mayors of Boston and Chicago threaten to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening a business in their cities based on the CEO's political/religious comments that is a first ammendment issue.
 
Who's denying the Chik Fil A president his religious freedom? He can believe and say whatever he wants. And I can decide to never spend another penny to enrich his bigoted ass. That's me exercising my freedom.

Of course, I don't eat chicken, anyway.....so I'll just be sure to tell my carnivorous friends about it....
Rom Emmanual and Tom Mineno certainly threatened his religious freedom. I'm all for taking my business elsewhere based on his asinine comments but when political leaders threaten his free association rights for expressing his free speech rights, then those politicians have crossed the first ammendment line and are in the wrong of it.
 
Last edited:
Rom Emmanual and Tom Mineno certainly threatened his religious freedom. I'm all for taking my business elsewhere based on Chik-Fil-A based on his asinine comments but when political leaders threaten his free association rights for expressing his free speech rights, then those politicians have crossed the first ammendment line and are in the wrong of it.

I'm aware of that and I agree. My post that you quoted regards the right of an individual to boycott something and nothing more.
 
Back
Top