So Davidson suspends Chick-Fil-A based on the CEO's statements that he believes in traditional marriage.
Dear Davidson ...how hypocritical then for you to require your president to abide by your bylaws...as in "strong Christian faith..."
What is the Presidential Qualification Bylaw?
The Bylaws of the Trustees of Davidson College state, “The trustees shall elect a President of the College who shall serve as the chief executive officer of the college. They shall elect only a person who is a loyal and active church member, whose life provides evidence of strong Christian faith and commitment. Such faith and commitment will be appropriately expressed by affiliation with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and active participation in the life of Davidson College Presbyterian Church.”
Have you any clue what "Strong Christian Faith" is? The last I checked no one at any CFA across America says "What would you like today sir? But before you order give my your sexual preference." Nope. Big mistake. Big mistake.
Davidson College Becomes First Campus To Suspend Chick-fil-A
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/chick-fil-a-davidson-college-suspends_n_1772685.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
Dear Davidson ...how hypocritical then for you to require your president to abide by your bylaws...as in "strong Christian faith..."
What is the Presidential Qualification Bylaw?
The Bylaws of the Trustees of Davidson College state, “The trustees shall elect a President of the College who shall serve as the chief executive officer of the college. They shall elect only a person who is a loyal and active church member, whose life provides evidence of strong Christian faith and commitment. Such faith and commitment will be appropriately expressed by affiliation with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and active participation in the life of Davidson College Presbyterian Church.”
Have you any clue what "Strong Christian Faith" is? The last I checked no one at any CFA across America says "What would you like today sir? But before you order give my your sexual preference." Nope. Big mistake. Big mistake.
5 comments:
Well, fortunately for all, the burden of defining terms and job descriptions at Davidson College is not left to your subjective point of view. Rather, it seems to be fairly clearly stated that "Such faith and commitment will be appropriately expressed by affiliation with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and active participation in the life of Davidson College Presbyterian Church." That's a nice, specific definition of what constitutes "strong Christian faith" according to the bylaws, and I'm sorry, who are you, again, to dictate to the College how to interpret their own bylaws? Sheila, you also seem to be unaware that the Presbyterian Church (USA) ordains homosexuals into their clergy as of May 11, 2011. So, I guess the lesson here for you is that (surprise!) not all religious people are bigots (though they all vainly hope in fantasy), and that you should probably research your material for maybe a second or two before posting it. The "big mistake" seems to be yours.
Jay,
I knew about the Presbyterian church.
Just showing the hypocrisy that exists. You really can't have it both ways. And the only time ALL of us will find out is judgment day.
There's nothing wrong with what I wrote nor for pointing this out. And I didn't do it like the left did to Chick-Fil-a. There isn't any hatred nor vandalising of personal property. They have made a choice and I don't agree.
Appreciate you commenting. This is how others learn what is happening in our world. Regardless of differences.
So, you knew about the PCUSA, so you took Davidson College to task for essentially acting in accordance with its own beliefs? When you say you can't have it both ways, are you talking about you? Because you can't have all of these outspoken, heartfelt shows of support for CFA and not expect the backlash from the 54% of Americans who support marriage equality (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/06/cnn-poll-americans-attitudes-toward-gay-community-changing/). For you to appear to be shocked only makes you sound naive. The notion that homosexuality is a sin, an immoral act that otherwise straight people choose, is an outdated concept, rooted in religious bias, and it is going away. Those on your side who think that a state constitutional amendment settled this issue in your favor shouldn't get too comfortable.
I am happy you expect for all this to be sorted out on some celestial judgement day. Please continue to hope for that, and leave the rest of us alone. The only thing about you that 2 men or 2 women getting married hurts is your sense of morality. Forgive me, but that's not enough of a reason to practice gender discrimination. Nor are complicated arguments about rights of marriage and taxes. The bottom line is that your side thinks it's sinful, but the same scrap of desert text that tells you so also establishes slavery, issues warrants for genocide, infant mutilation, and capital punishment for such crimes as picking up sticks on Saturday. Please, oh please, keep that supernatural, magical nonsense to yourselves while those of us who care about human rights try to move the country forward.
"The left" didn't vandalize personal property. Vandals did that. And, for the record, neither did "the left" shoot a security guard at the Family Research Council. Your attempt at guilt by association is an obvious logical fallacy, one that you seem to really enjoy making, if your arguments in another post come readily to mind.
Guilt by association...It wasn't the right who pooped on cop cars, committed rapes, etc at "occupy" events. Pelosi supported them. Obama supported them.
Obama supported traditional marriage before he opposed it. Yada yada...
Now as for the shooter...I believe he volunteered down at a LG center?? I believe he specifically said that the FRC values was why he was there. And oh yes..he had 15 Chick Fil A sandwiches with him.
Sorry dear..call me names, whatever...but the facts are there. Cathey supports traditional marriage. What he didn't say is gays are not allowed in his restaurants. That's what the left said.
There wasn't any vandalism on Chick Fil A appreciation day with a half million plus customers. What's the first thing we see on the kiss - in? Vandalism.
Need I continue? Oh don't worry. I will.
You just keep doing it, and you just don't seem to notice. Pointing out your own logical fallacies to you is like explaining to a Jehovah's Witness why the Greek translation of John 1 is wrong in his New Testament. He'll never see it, most likely because he's never studied Greek. And, you, it would appear, have never studied logic. Let me try to make this simple.
A hasty generalization is a logical fallacy in which one takes a specific example or individual and applies it to a group. For example: "My neighbor is an atheist, and he's a real grouch. Therefore, all atheists are grouches." See how that works? The one doesn't make the other true. In your case, there are a few more leaps: "A few Occupiers pooped on cars and committed rapes, therefore the occupy movement was about pooping on cars and raping. Pelosi and President Obama supported the occupy movement, therefore they supported pooping on cars and rapes." Logical fallacy. Commonplace on your side. We could break down your error about the FRC shooter, too. It's the same error. You take a single incident or small group of incidents and try to make them indicative of the whole. That's faulty reasoning, not "facts," as you assert. The moral and academic low road for me here would be use the same reasoning you use, only my examples would be racists and abortion doctor killers and domestic terrorists. But, I'm not doing that because I know better. Either you know better, too, and you're just trying to appeal to readers who don't (clearly don't, from the level of comment on your blog posts), or I'm giving you too much credit.
"There wasn't any vandalism on Chick Fil A appreciation day with half a million plus customers. What's the first thing we see on the kiss-in? Vandalism." Well the most obvious objection is that you've compared two unlike things. Why would anyone expect to find criminal acts of objection at an event where the vast majority of attendees are supporters? Why would it at all be surprising or even noteworthy if no crimes at all were committed (although your assertion that "there wasn't any vandalism" seems a bit too confident - most bathroom graffiti isn't reported to police, for example)? So, you compare an event where most of those present are supporters to an event where most of those present are detractors. Also, the vandalism you're talking about (I think - you didn't say) was the single incident in California, the "tastes like hate" incident? If so, then there you go again, pinning a single incident on an entire group.
Please, by all means, continue. You only make yourself look worse.
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome as long as they are civil and on the topic.