- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I read this sort of random opinion piece in CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/opinions/chick-fil-a-lgbtq-backlash-cancel-culture-hope/index.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/opinions/chick-fil-a-lgbtq-backlash-cancel-culture-hope/index.html It’s about Chick-Fil-A’s recent announcement that they will cease donations to anti-LGBTQ groups and criticism from LGBTQ folks who think it’s not enough and essentially the Chick-Fil-A is still evil (paraphrased). Parts of it reminded me of how some members, former members, and non-members criticize the small efforts of the church in being more transparent or making other seemingly small changes. I am guilty of this myself to some extent. From the article (substitute religious organization for fast-food corporation):
Quote:While a fast-food corporation with billions of dollars and a homophobic history doesn’t exactly need or deserve LGBTQ folks’ sympathy, it’s possible we could be doing more harm than good by reacting this way after this tiny pawn was moved to our advantage.
Just food for thought.
(I should note that I’m not an especially huge fan of Chick-Fil-A, but not for this reason. For one thing, there isn’t one close by me. But I also don’t see what the big deal is about most of their food. The food’s fine, the service is above average, prices are just OK – nothing I’m all that excited about. Honestly I wouldn’t generally go out of my way to go to one if I thought there was a better place.)
Yes, that is a good point. When groups or organizations make the smallest of concessions towards peace and compromise – that should be celebrated. We can help them to make more steps in positive directions or punish them into retrenchment. Good is good, no matter who does it – or even why they do it. Not every good will be rewarded by God (“they have their reward”), but good never should be punished. Continued pressure to do more good can be a good thing, but thanking people for doing good never is bad.
It is important to me to remember that.
I think a really good example of this in the church is youth interviews. Sam Young et al got a win, youth interviews changed and there were other youth safety initiatives as well (two teachers/leaders, etc.). Mission interviews also changed in that the questions were standardized and “the big M” isn’t one of the standard questions. But that wasn’t enough. I agree, there’s still room for improvement – but let’s take the win and thank them for the win. From the article: Quote:I know firsthand that protests work to get attention when nothing else does, and then you shove your hand in the slightly open door that’s been locked for years, and you shake the slimy hand on the other side. Because then they listen when you talk. Because then you can build influence and you can, with time, help turn one small win into many more victories and create meaningful, and long-lasting change.
I don’t think some campaigners will ever let this drop. I’ve never eaten at one of these places, but I know some of these campaigners like extreme vegan activists will never stop until something is destroyed. I’m well aware the church’s attitude to gays stinks, but does that mean all church members should be held responsible for it? Driving out moderates as extreme gay rights activists do, makes the situation worse.
I also don’t see why everything has to be so controversial. Chick-Fil-A actually seems to listen to some of the concerns, which cannot be said of many other companies. It’s fine to disagree with their actions and not go there anymore, but when it turns into “this company (or person) is evil and you are evil for supporting them” it rubs me the wrong way. It feels like some people live off controversy these days. Personally, I don’t really agree with their political positions, but I really like their chicken sandwiches.
Honestly, with regard to this particular company and the issue that leads people to boycott them, I understand. Their donation helped fund an organization that is helping African countries craft and pass legislation making homosexual AND non-hetero-normative actions (like “cross-dressing” and realignment surgery) capital crimes. The group is helping pass legislation that literally is killing LGBTQ+ people. I can’t blame people for boycotting support of that focus. I will applaud any movement by a company away from funding it, but reducing funding is different than stopping funding. I personally hope they stop that funding completely.
I just think that is important to say. I rarely criticize people for advocating deeply held beliefs. I tend to reserve my criticism for particular criticism methods.
Old Timer wrote:
Honestly, with regard to this particular company and the issue that leads people to boycott them, I understand. Their donation helped fund an organization that is helping African countries craft and pass legislation making homosexual AND non-hetero-normative actions (like “cross-dressing” and realignment surgery) capital crimes. The group is helping pass legislation that literally is killing LGBTQ+ people.
I understand that was what they were doing – but they also stopped doing that (and stopped donating to several other organizations with no anti-LGBTQ ties as well). It’s not like they reduced donations or stopped donating to some but continue to do so to others (as far as we can tell anyway). That’s important and exactly the context of my thoughts. They listened/heard, and door is open for more change. I think Chick-Fil-A is in the position of some other major corporations (Wal Mart for example) where no matter what they do there are haters. With regard to these corporations and the church I think there are essentially five groups of people: Those who don’t care one way or the other or just ignore; those who think they can do no wrong; those who think any little change is just grand and all that is needed; those who want change and acknowledge it while also acknowledging there’s need for more; and those where nothing short of shutting down the whole thing is good enough (in other words they can do no right). I think this editorial piece is mostly directed at the last two groups. Again, I think the youth interview issue in the church is a great example of this.
I am glad to hear they stopped all funding. I hope that is true in the future. I also think the interview issue is a good example.
This reminds me of a fascinating article in the Atlantic that makes similar points. http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9268&p=129798&hilit=protest#p129798 At what point can you make peace, declare a truce, craft a treaty?
I know a family that protests with Sam Young. They lost their son to suicide and in his suicide note he blames some bullys from church/school, his parents, bishop, and YM president for making him do things he didn’t want to (like go to activities where he was being bullied). I know they tried to advocate from within the church to be more proactive to prevent bullying. They had specific suggestions for best practices.
Unfortunately, Our church is too big, too centrally controlled, and too averse to grass roots movements. They (this family) did not feel like they were being heard. I believe that they are trying to advocate for their son – to create a difference from his life and death. I wonder if things would have turned out differently if they had been allowed to implement anti-bullying initiatives in their ward and/or stake.
I think this might also illustrate several different groups within Sam Young’s protest movement, loosely joined by the desire to protect children. Even if one group gets something on it’s agenda list – other groups might not. It can be a difficult task to convince those disparate groups to make peace and content themselves that SOMETHING was done. Ceasar Chavez went on a hunger strike until his own people would stop using violence and vandalism in the name of his cause.
I see similar issues going on in the protests in Hong Kong and Chile. The things that initially sparked the protests have been retracted but that is not enough to restore the peace. It gets harder when there aren’t any recognized leaders to negotiate with. How do you make peace with a mob?
Back to the Chic-filet story. Are there leaders in the protest movement against Chic-Filet that could call for a truce?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.