32 thoughts on “Our Daily Thread 11-19-19

  1. Morning all, though it is evening here and getting late at 9:39.
    Time to be up and at em, Mr. Chas.
    Praying for those babies and Mumsee and Mike.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. In kinder we prayed for Gavin’s dad, who just got out of surgery. We also prayed for three other dads. One was going to the village with all of the materials to build their village home. The two other dads were helicopter pilots lifting the materials in on four flights. The weather was bad yesterday so they all spent the night at the airstrip. But they were successful today.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Concerning yesterday’s discussion about Chick-fil-a.
    The other side. That is the pro-abortionist and gender neutral, among other anti-Christian doctrine-practice and, programs, has, for a long time boycotted Christian and principled organizations. About ten years ago now, they tried a boycott of Chick-fil-a because they supported right to life organizations. I lived in Hendersonville, NC at the time. The support FOR Chick-fil-a was such that they had police directing traffic for the store.
    Chick-fil-a has become a symbol for many, as US against Them. As I said before, Chuck passes McDonalds to get there. Not that he has anything against McDonalds. He is just a Chick-fil-a supporter.
    That is not unusual. People tend to support things that represent their viewpoint. They boycotted – we support. When they stop boycotting, they also lose some support.

    He doesn’t need my money for anything. Good thing because I wouldn’t give a nickel to George Soros. He would use it for something bad.
    I am a Christian. I want everything I do, and everything I spend to support that agenda.
    I am a cultural, political conservative. I want every nickel to support that agenda
    .

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Two thoughts from yesterday-

    Re: blanket impeachment- It’s called an election, and there is one next year. We could replace all 435 Representatives and 1/3 of the Senators, as well as the President and Vice President. But a main part of the problem in Washington is the lobbyists. Get them out and I believe we’d have a government that truly represents the people.

    Re: Chick-fil-A — I go there when I can, which is rarely. The nearest one is 90 miles away. But I think they compromised in order to appease the popular opinion. At least the groups they announced to support are neutral in their politics. That said, I’ll still go there when we’re in town.

    Like

  5. Chick fil a came up in conversation last night as daughter and son in law went to one. They don’t have one on Okinawa so wanted to take advantage of the opportunity. They said it would be very welcome over there.

    They are staying at the Ronald McDonald house by the hospital so they can visit throughout the day. That is a tremendous help for people in their situation. They hesitated to use it as they do have family in the area but the hospital personnel and RM personnel reminded them how being so close would certainly help and it is done out of love and care. They will stay a couple of weeks.

    Little man is spending days with us, though he also spent last night here. He is a lively sleeper, waking up many times, but just to talk with himself and play and grab his water. He is sleeping still this morning so I am trying to be quiet. The other folk here are off to work and day care. Except pregnant daughter who is still sleeping and waiting. Nothing appears imminent but that can change rapidly.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. One of our daughters has taken advantage of the Ronald McDonald House as has another family we know. It is a tremendous blessing to families. My daughter now brings meals or in other ways has passed on the help she was blessed with and so has the other family we know.

    We have no Chick-Fil-A anywhere close to us, but often go when traveling or staying elsewhere. They are very clean; the workers are always polite and helpful and the food and atmosphere is always good. That they donate to organizations we like is a plus. My big objection to the change is that they gave into bullying. I am stubborn and don’t have a bunch of other people depending on my business, so I may have a different POV about that. Nevertheless, it won’t make me stay away from the business. It isn’t like they are suddenly supporting evil.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Morning! Such a lovely sight in the header photo! Well it just urges me to play Christmas music!! 🎄 I am beginning to pull out the Christmas garlands and placing my little trees about the house….
    I am disappointed in the decision of the big guys at Chick-Fil-A. And I believe they will feel some impact. I will continue to go to the restaurant in town (there are so so many in the Springs!) The local franchise owners will continue to donate monies to the community, to the Salvation Army and other ministries.

    Like

  8. Chas, I would find it too tiring to research every nickle. It’s also straight-out impossible.

    I do occasionally avoid one particular company, and I do choose companies I like. But I don’t do boycotts. When all the phone companies were competing for business and one could move from one to another based on which one would send you a check if you switched, I avoided AT&T, and I did so because they were in your face in support of the homosexual agenda. I figured I had plenty of other options for phone companies. Now, if my local electrical service had been similarly in your face, would I have cancelled my electrical service? Of course not, but in telephone service I had a choice.

    I don’t give to United Way because they support Planned Parenthood. I don’t buy Girl Scout cookies because they are expensive and their reason for being expensive is that they are a way to support Girl Scouts–and I don’t support Girl Scouts. On the other hand, if I were to find out that Kellogg’s is a corporate sponsor of the Girl Scouts, I wouldn’t stop buying their cereal.

    Unless a company makes a big deal of who they support or don’t support, I really don’t care. I don’t even care which companies Chick-fil-A donates to, as long as it isn’t such companies as Planned Parenthood. (But neither do I research whether McDonald’s or Burger King supports Planned Parenthood. If Christians don’t need to research whether their meat has been offered to idols, neither do we need to do this modern-day equivalent.) I eat at Chick-fil-A occasionally (they are expensive and not much variety on the menu) because their food is good and secondarily because they have family-friendly policies.

    I’m pretty sure Chick-fil-A isn’t the one that initially publicized who they support–if they did, it was a mistake to do so. It’s irrelevant. And perhaps the reason they stopped supporting particular companies was that it became too big a distraction from the company itself–the product. That strategy may not work, it may indeed lose them some business, and likely they will be seen as caving in to bullies. And perhaps they were actually doing so. But it’s silly if people eat at Chick-fil-A or don’t eat there based on who their corporate donations go to and not for the food and how they run their business, and I don’t blame them if they said this is too big a distraction from the business.

    And really, is it going to hurt Salvation Army to lose one corporate sponsor? Probably not. At least this year, their donations will probably go UP as a result.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. One of my brothers ate a meal at our house a few months ago, and we mentioned having bought something from Ikea. He said oh, he won’t shop at Ikea, and I asked why. It turns out that (according to him) Ikea had a commercial showing two men on a couch, apparently with the implication they were lovers. I googled and couldn’t find anything about such an ad or the commercial itself, so I don’t know if there really was such a commercial or if it offended good taste. For all I know, even if there was such a commercial, it might simply have showed two men sitting on a couch with the implication that both of them lived in that home, and let you draw your own conclusions as to why they lived together–I haven’t seen it and don’t even know whether it exists. I’m confident the commercial didn’t show two men having sex, simulating sex, or engaging in heavy-duty affection. And I’m not going to stop shopping somewhere because of a rumor about a commercial.

    I’m opposed to saying that two men can marry each other–they can’t. But from a purely legal perspective, they can. So, for instance, if I owned a restaurant in which couples celebrating their wedding anniversary could get a free slice of pie, I would give that slice of pie to same-sex couples who tell me that today is their wedding anniversary. I wouldn’t make them a customized wedding cake or film their wedding, but yes, I would give them the slice of pie (without telling them congratulations, BTW).

    Christianity is not a special-interest group to court by offering nice company policies or offend by offering bad ones. We live in a world in which we will be often offended. But I really think we have to get back to letting the gospel itself be the “offense” and not how we boycott and all of that stuff. Being known for who we boycott is not a good “strategy” for advancing the Gospel. In the days ahead, one of our most important life skills is probably going to be learning to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves in how we love our neighbor. For instance, we can believe that homosexuality is wrong . . . and still donate to the GoFundMe account for our homosexual neighbors who lost their home to a fire. We can be pro-Trump or anti-Trump and still love our neighbor who takes a different position.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Businesses go with the prevailing popular tide, mostly, as their goal is to make money. And today that prevailing tide is in open support of LGBT causes. It’s hard to see a commercial for much of anything now without same sex couples featured, often prominently. Do we boycott all of those companies? As Cheryl points out, it can quickly become exhausting.

    Companies are, for the most part, cause-neutral when it comes to social movements, but they will typically rush to support causes that become adopted by mainstream America. It’s simply good businesses and is a bandwagon effect.

    I’m not crazy about chicken sandwiches which probably is one of the reasons Chick-fil-A isn’t a quick go-to place for me. And I think they’ve made a misstep with this latest announcement; ironically, it’s one that won’t ultimately make either “side” very happy, frankly. So now they’ve managed to alienate everyone, pretty much.

    But if their chicken sandwiches are good, people will continue to patronize them and that’s fine. They probably won’t be financially hurt much in all of this, although they have perhaps lost their more staunch supporters. The people who opposed them before because of what they perceived was a social agenda will never be “won over,” as it were; they’ll suspect the abrupt change of heart is all for show and for the bottom line (and they’d probably be correct). But business is business.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. DJ – I was going to say something similar about commercials. If someone won’t buy anything that is advertised using a same-sex couple, pretty soon they won’t be able to buy anything at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. From Cheryl: “Being known for who we boycott is not a good “strategy” for advancing the Gospel. In the days ahead, one of our most important life skills is probably going to be learning to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves in how we love our neighbor.”

    Yes, there it is — and if there’s an upside to this changing tide in our nation (and God is always providing an ‘upside’ amid our struggles), it’s that it could finally bring the church back to being the church. I’m afraid the whole politicized “religious right” era has left behind some serious damage and confusion, both for Christians themselves and also for our secular neighbors who view us more as a strange (and outdated) political movement.

    It’s disheartening to see the culture slip as it has, but there have been far worse cultures throughout history, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. It may be that commercials on the two (liberal) coasts are more open about using same-sex couples and situations (it’s hard to interpret these otherwise). As Kizzie said, most now have gone that route — from what I’ve seen, at any rate.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. ________________________

    https://www.dallasnews.com/business/philanthropy/2019/11/18/chick-fil-a-will-end-donations-to-organizations-with-anti-lgbt-values/

    Chick-fil-A will end donations to Christian organizations with anti-LGBT values in 2020

    The fast food chain’s philanthropic shift is an acknowledgment that donations to some faith-based organizations that held anti-LGBT values were harmful to the brand.

    Chick-fil-A plans to end cash donations to the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in 2020 after years of criticism from LGBT and human rights groups.

    In its new philanthropic giving plan announced Monday, the fast food chain’s foundation has dramatically narrowed the number of charities it will support and excluded controversial Christian organizations it has come under fire for backing.

    The Salvation Army said in a statement Monday it was “saddened to learn that a corporate partner has felt it necessary to divert funding to other hunger, education and homelessness organizations — areas in which The Salvation Army, as the largest social services provider in the world, is already fully committed.”

    The Fellowship of Christian Athletes was not immediately available for comment. …
    ___________________________

    Like

  15. My impression, though, is that any church or church-affiliated group that supports biblical marriage via its doctrine/preaching, etc. — to shift the perspective and turn the argument around a bit for clarity — is considered to be anti-LGBT.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Sort of “If you’re not for us (100% as an advocate) you’re pretty much against us.”

    The issue really falls more under a freedom of thought and speech one for churches and church-affiliated charities.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. I’d have been surprised if they discriminated in their service to those in need, but I doubt that gets to the heart of what the LGBT concerns are — I think they go to the heart of what an organization believes within its own ranks and that alone would make them “anti” LGBT in many peoples’ minds.

    Like

  18. ____________________

    https://www.theaquilareport.com/the-cultural-left-bares-its-teeth-an-open-threat-to-churches-and-christians-who-hold-to-biblical-conviction/

    … Indeed, during the oral arguments for the Obergefell Decision—which legalized same-sex marriage across the country—the then Solicitor General of the United States, Donald Verrilli, said that religious liberty “will be an issue” for Christian colleges or universities who will refuse to alter their sexual ethics and religious convictions. …

    … Buttigieg stated, “Religious liberty is an important principle in this country, and we honor that. It’s also the case that any freedom that we honor in this country has limits when it comes to harming other people. We say that the right to free speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. And the right to religious freedom ends where religion is being used as an excuse to harm other people.”

    Harm means any kind of policy or action that could be perceived as discrimination against LGBTQ people. This would include a Christian college requiring its faculty to hold to certain doctrinal convictions as well as requiring faculty and students to live by a certain biblical, moral code. …
    ________________________

    So the real clash and divide, when you get down to it, I think will be that of “convictions” and trying to bring those in line with the prevailing thought regarding same-sex marriage.

    Like

  19. And from Breakpoint:

    http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/11/breakpoint-chick-fil-a-announces-new-giving-priorities/
    ____________________

    … Even more sad, however, is that without ever mentioning their names, the Chick-Fil-A Foundation’s decision will only reinforce the slander that the organizations they are no longer giving to are, in fact, anti-LGBT. It will only reinforce that all the good these organizations do is immediately made invalid, if they are Christian groups with historic and biblical Christian convictions. By refusing to offer any clarity on the reasoning behind their decision, Chick-Fil-A allowed the headlines to be re-written in a way that furthers the goals of the LGBT bullies, that ultimately there is only one acceptable position on these controversial issues: full-support and full affirmation. …
    _____________________

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Salvation Army has long said it does not discriminate. That will never satisfy those who say they are since their criteria is totally different. Most others will not bother to think very deeply about it until they are called bigots for not agreeing with all the extreme LG etc.-ers believe.

    Liked by 3 people

  21. DJ, I haven’t read the official Chick-fil-A statement, but the Breakpoint commentary seems to give the worst possible spin on what they do report of it.

    If all they are saying is what their priorities are for the new year in their giving, that doesn’t in any way say “The companies we have been giving to most recently don’t measure up.” Nor does it say they won’t give to those companies again some other year. Unless there is more to this story than has so far been reported, it looks like “Much ado about nothing.” As an individual, this year I might give to Habitat for Humanity and Compassion, and another year to Bible League and Ronald McDonald House. Shifting my giving around doesn’t mean I’m slandering other companies, just that I’m shifting my giving.

    Like

  22. I’d say the move was was pretty transparently connected to the controversy they’ve faced. So no, not much ado about nothing, it’s fairly clear, I think, what they intended to do with this decision. And the coverage of it, to that extent, is valid and gets it right, i think (whether the coverage is always fair is another story).

    Like

  23. I haven’t really followed it, and I haven’t heard those organizations linked to being “anti-LGBT” or whatever it is, so the statement doesn’t sound to me like it’s saying that. I know little about the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, but my take on them would be “Why that particular organization?” (On the surface, that sounds too “niche” to bother giving to them.) The Salvation Army is more respected than otherwise, as I understand, so on the surface it doesn’t make sense to “drop” them, if that is what is being done.

    Honestly, no company has a moral obligation to give to any charities, or these particular charities, and Chick-fil-A has showed integrity through the years. Unless they are lying (saying they aren’t giving to a charity when records show they are, for instance), I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. No one has said what other companies they will be supporting. If they were to support, say, Habitat for Humanity and some organization providing medical care for poor children, I’d say OK, they’re still supporting worthy causes, and it’s their money to support whomever they will. It’s always possible there’s more to the story than we know. I have Christian organizations I have quietly dropped from my giving, but wouldn’t broadcast to all the world that I have dropped them, because of choices they have made or because my own views have changed on something, or because research has showed I’m not as much in accord as I thought. In such instances it would be foolish to keep giving just because my giving makes people mad, but it might also be wrong to broadcast the whole story publicly. (I’m not saying this is what happened, just that we don’t actually know what happened, and it sure sounds like the statement was trying not to highlight “we have dropped these organizations.”)

    I agree that on some level it looks like “caving in.” But the statement as reported doesn’t say that, they haven’t spoken for themselves beyond the statement (as far as I have heard), and I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt until I hear more. And it won’t affect how often I eat there either way.

    Like

  24. They had every right to make the change, they’ve encountered all kinds of resistance due to those connections (though I understand they also are connected to Focus on the Family and that now is the next criticism coming their way). Unfair, but they’ve taken the criticism for years and often comes up when it’s trying to come into a new, more liberal city. So their decision is definitely understandable. It’s just that making those changes probably won’t be enough to satisfy their critics.

    Here’s a piece from the WSJ’s Editorial Board that provides some of the background about the donations and how it’s affected their business:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/chick-fil-a-concedes-11574208072

    _____________________

    The left’s culture warriors always need new monsters to slay. Among their most improbable targets in recent years is the famously friendly restaurant chain Chick-fil-A, which this week appears to have surrendered.

    In 2012 CEO Dan Cathy, a committed evangelical Christian, sinned against the progressive ethos by expressing support for the traditional view of marriage. That prompted a political campaign against Chick-fil-A. Earlier this year at least three U.S. airports denied the company concessions contracts. Last month, shortly after the company announced it would open the first Chick-fil-A in Britain, local activists pressured the site’s landlord into backing out.

    In each case, the fast-food chain’s critics accused it of promoting “anti-LGBT” causes and failing to be sufficiently “inclusive.” The restaurant has always seemed inclusive to us, but what its adversaries mean is that Chick-fil-A has donated to organizations allegedly “hostile to LGBT rights.” …

    … COO Tim Tassopoulos on Monday told the commercial real estate website Bisnow that the company will no longer give money to the offending organizations. “There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A,” Mr. Tassopoulos says, “and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.”

    It’s hard to blame Chick-fil-A. The company exists to serve chicken sandwiches and waffle fries, not to wage political battles over sexual morality, and its corporate decision-makers are free to give whatever they want to whomever they please. Still, it’s disappointing to see the left’s cultural imperialists succeed in strong-arming a company that has committed no offense—and to see Chick-fil-A implicitly conceding that the charitable organizations to which it has donated are guilty of the sins their unreasoning critics attribute to them. …

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.