Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Sunday, July 29, 2012

This Sunday, a de-conversion story

I happened upon this via Pharyngula, it's a de-conversion story, quite interesting. No muss, no real fuss. What's really cool about it? She's an EX-Pastor:) And I learned that Saint Augustine was African. I don't think I've ever heard that, knowledge!

So go on over and check it out!

I've been so busy with the goings on at DC lately that I haven't had much time to ponder religion and the like.... Except for Chick-A-Fill-A or the proper name Chick-fil-A. I love their food, but due to their funding of anti gay marriage policies, I will not be eating their anymore. I'll miss you waffle fries!

Best,

Brett

8 comments:

Chris Hall said...

I've been reading about this whole Chik-fil-a thing and a thought struck me. Awhile back when Nabisco/Kraft came out in support of gay pride month with their rainbow Oreo, A lot of atheist and secular culture, made much fun of Christians and anti-gay movements for all of the rage and boycotting of Oreo's. Yet here we are, doing the exact same thing, boycotting Chl-fil-a for it's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage.

Now I'm sure Brett and anyone who reads this blog with any frequency, know my stance on bigotry and discrimination, but my questions are

1. Is it right to boycott a product(like Chik-fil-a) based on the companies personal morals and ethics?

2. Does it actually do any good?

3. If it does indeed work and end up hurting the company, is it doing more harm than good by forcing a large employer to have to let go of employees, thus increasing the economic crisis the country is already in?

4. Do you think this in any way would affect the companies discriminatory practices or funding of morally questionable policies.?

Just throwing this out there for discussion if anyone wants to bite.

Brett said...

Chris,

I think you're missing the point. One is boycotting something that hurts no one and is inclusive, this is boycotting because they are actively trying to hurt people by influencing public policies based on a VERY distorted view of what Biblical marriage is.

Sure they can boycott for their bigotry, just as we can boycott against their bigotry. And yes it does hurt them if enough people get in involoved. Does it do any good? Well bringing to light what I consider imoral views so I don't waste my money there, I think, IS a good thing.

#3 is just about as bad as "Won't somebody thing of the children!" Why should I support a company that does not have the best interest of it's customers at least partially in the back of it's mind? I've also stopped goign to Hobby Lobby because they donate money for bibles to be distributed. Money that I gave these companies is being used to fund what are horrible practices against human rights, I will not be a part of that.

Best,

Brett

Chris Hall said...

Hey Brett,

I completely agree with you on the ethical and moral reasons for the boycott. My first statement was based, not on the aforementioned reason, but that the majority of what I was reading(in the Oreo case) wasn't criticizing the reason for the boycott so much as simply the stupidity and effectiveness of the act of boycotting at all. And then we turn around and do the same thing, even if it is for the right reasons.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point about bringing immoral views to light, and of course it is every Americans right to spend most(excluding taxes)of their money where they chose.

I don't think though that the financial impact is as simple as "Won't somebody think of the children!" Granted, I absolutely detest Chik-fil-a's stance on Homosexuality, gay marriage, the funding it gives to further these views and I believe something proactive should be done to counter it. What I'm not sure of are the ramification on (Mostly)innocent employees if hypothetically, the boycott were to get big enough to do some actual damage to the company.

Sure, there's pretty much no way a small,consolidated boycott is going to hurt Kraft foods, but a smaller fast food chain, it could have an impact on. And in the long run the ones it hurts the most are not the one at the top making decisions, but the ones on bottom. The ones who NEED the jobs and the ones who don't necessarily support the views of it's employer. I wonder how many LGBT people Chik-fil-a unknowingly employs and how many would lose their job if the effect were large enough.

I just want to make clear though that I believe these are simply hypothetical questions for discussion, and not meant as a "HOLY SHIT THE SKY IS FALLING, THE DEMISE OF CHIK-FIL-A IS IMMINENT AND WILL DESTROY THIS NATIONS ECONOMY!!" :)

Chris

Brett said...

Actually it is that simple. Look, this guy has decided to speak for the whole company, I don't care if he owns it or not, but in doing so HE put his company on the line. And really no one is calling for their demise, they simply want the COMPANY to stop funding his religious ideology. That's all. He can do it personally if he wants to from his paycheck, but not from the money that I give the company. A small distinction but I think a valid one. I'm sure he'll be a dick about it but you know what, fuck him. He can be an ass, I just don't have to support him being one;)

This company makes it's preferences pretty clear, they aren't open on Sundays you know they are Christian right there. So anyone working for them simply can't be that ignorant to think that this ISN'T a very religious company.

Jobs don't really enter into this as I SERIOUSLY doubt these are jobs most Americans are looking for to support a family. Another fast food joint would simply move in and jobs would be restored. It's also very possible that people would just eat elsewhere and those places would need to hire more people thus giving the Chick-fil-a employes work. So I don't think this even is anything that needs to have much thought wasted on it.

Best,

Brett

Chris Hall said...

Good points Brett. I agree, pay for it out of pocket, not company funds.(though I've worked for many employers over the years who don't differentiate)

I do have to disagree on the whole "Not jobs most Americans are looking for to support their family". Agreed that low paying jobs are not necessarily desirable, but for a lot of people that's all they can get, and they do support a family on it.

I don't know how the job market is in Texas, but where I live, just for example; I worked as a butcher for about six years at different grocery stores. The last store I worked for was a fairly large store, large enough to compete with the local Walmart at least and open up two other stores in northern Michigan.

I got into a conversation with the hiring manager one day about what would happen if the employees ever hit on the lottery they go in for every week and just walked out of the store. He said "Chris...it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Every single lower and non management person in this store is expendable, and we would have them replaced in two days. I have, he said, over 500 applications to choose from and a quarter of those are people with 4 year degrees who can't find work". And this is very much a barely above minimum wage workplace.

I'm would bet money, the situation is the same in other cities in Michigan and other states in the country. Jobs are hard to come by and getting harder all the time. And while yes I agree that Chik-fil-a having to shrink their staff and fire employees because of a boycott is most like just a hypothetical situation. The job situation is very serious and I don't feel the country can afford to lose any jobs.

Anywho, just my two cents and trying to drum up some stimulating conversation. :D

Chris

Chris Hall said...

Hey! Here's some one asking the same questions.

http://skepchick.org/2012/07/ai-chick-fil-gay/

Interesting answers. :)

Brett said...

Hi Chris,

You can no support a family on minimum wage. It's barely enough for 1. You'd need another job or government assistance. Most of the people who work at the fast food places are young kids, who don't stay there for long. That's why they can get new hires so fast, they just hire the next highschool kids how show up.

Chick-fil-a is not a major fast food place. Any jobs lost would be a drop in the bucket. And it wouldn't make any difference in the long run as I said. Other companies would get the sale and THEY would hire the people. It would be more like switching jobs than anything.

And Skepchick is not getting it. The owners and employes can do what they want, it's a free country. BUT when the COMPANY uses money I give them to fund these things that's immoral to me then I simply won't go there. I can't and don't want to control the private lives of the people who work or own a company. But if you sell to the public and want their money you should at the very least be nuetral on these type of things. By doing things like this you alienate a portion of your possible customers, and that's just bad business.

Best,

Brett

Retrieverman said...

This whole company is based upon religious extremism.

I think the efforts of the mayor of Boston to ban them are pretty stupid and foolish (and just as bad as Chick-fil-hate's executives).

But if the Supreme Court says money is free speech, then those who are boycotting Chick-fil-hate are exercising their first amendment rights.

I don't think these Christian Dominionists give a shit about free speech or the first amendment. They so obviously don't.

So for them to make claims that Dan Cathy's first amendment rights are being violated is pretty rich.

I've seen shithead religionists claim that the Cathies are being persecuted.

Cry me a fucking river.

Christians in this country are no more persecuted than investment bankers are (the people who decry socialism all day but really like socialism for themselves whenever they get in trouble).

People are persecuted for their ideas all over the world. They are killed, maimed, and tortured just for thinking.

For anyone in this country to make this claim just because he or she isn't always getting what he or she wants is a disgusting and childish insult to all of those who actually are being persecuted.

I don't want to hear it from Mike Huckabee, the Catholic Bishops, or anyone else.

You aren't being fucking persecuted!