Chick-fil-A busted doing damage control

[stevo]

August 1st is Chick-Fil-A support day. I'll be there probably for breakfast and lunch or dinner. Dan Cathy owns an extremely successful private company and has never hid his Christian faith both personally and professionally. He expressed his personal opinion, but their director of HR (I think) affirmed they are an equal opportunity employer as required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. If they weren't, you would be well aware of all the lawsuits being filed.

It's amazing the vitriol that comes from the militant wing of the gay rights movement. I guess the 1st amendment is irrelevant to them if it conflicts with their beliefs.

Well fuckity, I forgot about this until I saw this post, might have to swing by anyways.

Stevo

[sc281]

Aint hurting in Rockwall today.
Wife said it was backed up down the road, 30-40 cars deep! The umbrellas was the line out the door!

This needs a caption
Gays boycott chik fil a

Chik fil a's sales rise dramatically

[Big A]

No, it most certainly was not. Have you ever read a history book?

It was a big part of the belief system back then.

"In God we trust."

"One nation, under God"

[sc281]

It was a big part of the belief system back then.

"In God we trust."

"One nation, under God"

Sorry. Those were put in in the 1950s.

Edit*

1954 Under God added to pledge

http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

1956 In God we Trust adopted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

[BERNIE MOSFET]

It was a big part of the belief system back then.

"In God we trust."

"One nation, under God"

No.

E pluribus unum was replaced in 1956 as part of anti-communism kneejerking.

"Under god" was added in 1954 for the same reasons.

[CJ]

No, it most certainly was not. Have you ever read a history book?

I've always found this conclusion to be highly irregular. Technically, the first settlers here were religious refugees which did found this "country" as a Christian society. However, if you're speaking of the more literal founding - the founding fathers - all of which were practicing Christians it gets a little more complex. Both the Declaration and the Constitution make many Christian references. A lot of people misconstrue the separation of church and state portion to mean that religion has no part at all in the country's founding. In fact, what it really means is a church should have no influence on a government, and most importantly government has no influence on religion (that is the primary purpose of that clause - not the other way around). It's not that government shouldn't be based on a religion, or it's ideals. To say it was not founded as a christian nation is to absolve just about all of the verbiage in both documents which clearly in based on Christian ideals. I suppose it depends on what your definition of "founded on" really means, but consider that no founding father was any other religion but Christian by and large, so it couldn't have been founded on any other religion. And I think people really should familiarize themselves with the separation of church and state clause, and what it's real intention was, because the left misconstrues it's intent so vigorously many don't even understand that it means.

[Nash B.]

I've always found this conclusion to be highly irregular. Technically, the first settlers here were religious refugees which did found this "country" as a Christian society.

The Jamestown settlers, which came before the Pilgrims, came for money.

However, if you're speaking of the more literal founding - the founding fathers - all of which were practicing Christians it gets a little more complex. Both the Declaration and the Constitution make many Christian references. A lot of people misconstrue the separation of church and state portion to mean that religion has no part at all in the countries founding. In fact, what it really means is a church should have no influence on a government, not a government shouldn't be based on a religion, or it's ideals. To say it was not founded as a christian nation is to absolve just about all of the verbiage in both documents which clearly in based on Christian ideals. I suppose it depends on what your definition of "founded on" really means, but consider that no founding father was any other religion but Christian by and large, so it couldn't have been founded on any other religion. And I think people really should familiarize themselves with the separation of church and state clause, and what it's real intention was, because the left misconstrues it's intent so vigorously many don't even understand that it means.

Which principles in the documents are unique to Christianity?

[CJ]

The Jamestown settlers, which came before the Pilgrims, came for money.Which principles in the documents are unique to Christianity?

The first Jamestown failed. That would be the equivalent of saying Russian won the space race because they were the first in space My argument rests on the fact all of the men who wrote/founded this country were in fact Christians. Like I said before, it's all in how you interpret what "founded" means.

A lot of my basis for thought comes from the founding fathers personal memoirs and comments on the purpose and reasons for the documents. Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury baptist association is a good example that's commonly referenced.

[03trubluGT]

Traffic was backed up on Walnut Creek in Mansfield so I was going to stop by the one on W7th in FTW. The one in FTW was worse than the one in Mansfield. There was a line out the door about 20 yards long.

[Nash B.]

Founded by Christians isn't the same as founded on Christian ideals, especially when those ideals aren't unique to Christianity.

[CJ]

Founded by Christians isn't the same as founded on Christian ideals, especially when those ideals aren't unique to Christianity.

That's all a matter of opinion. I personally do not see how a country founded by Christians could be anything other than country founded on Christianity. I'm not saying the documents state it's a Christian nation at all, obviously they do not. It's just important to understand the men who made that document, and why it was worded in the way it was. One of the most interesting things I've ever read is the pre-ratified Declaration and Constitution. Both documents have considerably more potency in regards to religion and intention. And lastly, for what it's worth if you know me personally - I am absolutely not a bible beater, or even someone who goes to church. I probably fit more into the atheist category much to my lament of self improvement. So for what it's worth I don't feel I'm being effected by religion or personal beliefs.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

I've always found this conclusion to be highly irregular. Technically, the first settlers here were religious refugees which did found this "country" as a Christian society. However, if you're speaking of the more literal founding - the founding fathers - all of which were practicing Christians it gets a little more complex. Both the Declaration and the Constitution make many Christian references. A lot of people misconstrue the separation of church and state portion to mean that religion has no part at all in the country's founding. In fact, what it really means is a church should have no influence on a government, and most importantly government has no influence on religion (that is the primary purpose of that clause - not the other way around). It's not that government shouldn't be based on a religion, or it's ideals. To say it was not founded as a christian nation is to absolve just about all of the verbiage in both documents which clearly in based on Christian ideals. I suppose it depends on what your definition of "founded on" really means, but consider that no founding father was any other religion but Christian by and large, so it couldn't have been founded on any other religion. And I think people really should familiarize themselves with the separation of church and state clause, and what it's real intention was, because the left misconstrues it's intent so vigorously many don't even understand that it means.

I think you're close, but have still mischaracterized it slightly. The nation grew out of the protestant reformation, under which several denominations arose.
They all sought freedom to practice their particular brand of Christianity unfettered in the colonies.

There was not solidarity between the various denominations like there is today. It was not a "Christian" nation, but a nation of Protestants at odds with one another about whose interpretation was right. In an interest to protect all against the strength and persecution of one, they separated official power from religion.

[CexMashean]

[CJ]

I think you're close, but have still mischaracterized it slightly. The nation grew out of the protestant reformation, under which several denominations arose.
They all sought freedom to practice their particular brand of Christianity unfettered in the colonies.

There was not solidarity between the various denominations like there is today. It was not a "Christian" nation, but a nation of Protestants at odds with one another about whose interpretation was right. In an interest to protect all against the strength and persecution of one, they separated official power from religion.

That's right, for simplicity reasons I didn't get into the specifics.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

That's right, for simplicity reasons I didn't get into the specifics.

Fair enough. It's a facet on the subject often forgotten or overlooked so I thought I'd mention it.