Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I really should start giving out a weekly award for the most ridiculously hyperbolic rhetoric I come across. The hysterically overblown rhetoric from the anti-gay crowd alone would fill volumes. The latest example comes from Rick Pearcey, husband of Nancy Pearcey of the Discovery Institute, on their personal blog. After recounting how much he likes McDonald's, he offers this mind-boggling reaction to that company having an executive on the board of a gay business group:
Not today, in light of reports that McDonald's has decided, apparently, to declare war on my family. And to declare war on the civilization of liberty, independence, creativity, and humanity under God that my Dad fought for in World War II.
Good lord, could you be just a little bit more melodramatic? Declare war on your family? Rick, please...step down off the soapbox and take a deep breath....the Hamburgler is not going to break into your house and force your children to sodomize him. Ronald McDonald is not going to convince your son to fondle his sesame seed buns. Take a step back and realize how ridiculous you're sounding.
"They've declared war on liberty and humanity! And my daddy fought and died for liberty and humanity!" Right. Any minute now, Grimace and Mayor McCheese are going to show up at the cemetary and piss on your father's grave. Seriously - get a fucking grip.
Believe it or not, it actually gets worse:
For human beings, this is a matter of liberty under God -- Why help finance groups that turn their backs on the Declaration of Independence, the Founding vision, and the living Creator who holds it all together?
Ah yes, that infamous "liberty under God", which really means "no liberty based on my belief in a barbaric God who thinks gays should be put to death." Because, you see, in order to have "liberty under God" we must destroy the liberty of homosexuals and punish them for being gay, throw them in prison. That's the only way to have True Libertytm. And up is down. And black is white. And war is peace.
And then, of course, comes the obligatory dehumanization:
Maybe we'll stop by Chick-Fil-A instead. It's a little out of the way, but I hear they like families.Real families -- not ones made up by the ACLU last Tuesday.
Real Familiestm are a lot like Real Libertytm. Because families headed by gays can't possibly be Real Families. Oh sure, they do all the same things other families do. They take their kids to school, they teach them how they should behave toward others, they put on the bandaids when the knee gets skinned, they comfort them when they have bad dreams, they celebrate their triumphs. But none of that matters. They're not a Real Familytm because...well, because Rick Pearcey doesn't like them. They're Bad People. No fries for you!
Comments
Not only does McDonald's have the best fries in the world but they also have the best gay fries! I'll see if the wife wants to have some family destroying goodness for dinner tonight just to chide Pearcey's closet stuffing.
Posted by: llDayo | April 9, 2008 9:44 AM
There are innumerable reasons for not going to McDonalds - the most important being that the food* is lousy - but this is not one of them.
Gaahhhh.
*and the coffee is worse.
fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: fusilier | April 9, 2008 9:48 AM
The Pearcy website included a link to an article on a Baptist website that included this howler:
"In March, [the American Family Association] announced the end of a two-year boycott of Ford Motor Company during which Ford's North American sales declined an average of 8 percent per month. That boycott pertained to Ford's promotion of the homosexual agenda."
Yeah, that's why Ford's sales dropped. It had nothing to do with their overreliance on SUVs in a time when gas prices were spiraling.
Posted by: noyatin | April 9, 2008 9:50 AM
Of course he isn't---The Hamburglers a top!
Posted by: anon | April 9, 2008 9:52 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how those working to limit other people's freedom, while not increasing their own one iota, can fool themselves into thinking that their cause is liberty.
Posted by: Russell | April 9, 2008 10:01 AM
I was going to say that you should keep it as "Ridiculous Overreaction of the Week" until you find one example in particular of insanely overblown rhetoric that puts all others to shame (or just name it after STACLU or Gribbit), but GOT-DAMN, this has to be Pearcey's award now and forever.
Posted by: FishyFred | April 9, 2008 10:09 AM
The religious right's attitude towards gays reminds me of the ant's justifications for war in TH White's "The Once and Future King":
- We must attack them in self-defence.
- They are attacking us by defending themselves.
- If we do not attack them today, they will attack us tomorrow.
- In any case we are not attacking them at all. We are offering them incalculable benefits.
Posted by: Taz | April 9, 2008 10:15 AM
8% per month for two years?
A geometric decrease of this kind would drop Ford's sales by over 85%, down to only 14.7% of their previous position two years before. Is this even remotely true?
Of course, I was assuming a geometric decrease. An arithmetic decrease takes the sales down to well below zero - and while the idea of Ford buying back their gas-guzzling SUVs is quite apealing, I'm assuming it's not terribly realistic.
Much like anything spouted by these people.
Posted by: James W | April 9, 2008 10:21 AM
And just think, it's only Wednesday.
Posted by: Jeff | April 9, 2008 10:21 AM
Since Pearcy dehumanizes gays and probably thinks of them more as objects than people, I thought he had reached his conclusion about the gay-loving attitude of McDonalds simply by looking at their slogan: "I'm loving it!"
Seriously, I can't think of anything more irrelevant to my choice of fast-food joint than the lifestyles chosen or supported by the people who work there or the management of the company.
Posted by: Thinker | April 9, 2008 10:25 AM
Well, to be honest I don't eat Chik-Fil-A because the chain has allayed itself with the "pro-family" movement. The owner proudly notes that he closes on Sunday (wonder what his Jewish employees think about that?).
What I love is this notion that "real families" don't include gays and lesbians. Even discounting families headed by gays and lesbians, where exactly does Pearcey think we come from - the pod people? I am part of a great big American family (we're Irish) that, with two, possibly three exceptions, comprises straight people. We're talking parents, grandparents, sister, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. here. And, sad to say, I can point to a significant number of those relatives who demonstrate quite clearly how "real families" can produce far more problems that are corrosive on society than homosexuality.
If Pearcey wants to truly aid families, maybe he should try tackling issues like substance abuse, teenage pregnancy (with something other than "just say no."), and male abandonment of children and other family responsibilities. Of course, those issues can't be solved with a constitutional amendment or a boycott.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | April 9, 2008 10:25 AM
Can I get some extra "secret sauce" on my "Big Mac"?
I'm sorry...there is something wrong with me.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | April 9, 2008 10:37 AM
I actually like Chik-Fil-A better than McDonalds on a purely choice of crap food to eat basis but their management is just nutty. Though there is something to be said for cows pushing for chickens to be brutally killed and eaten as a metaphor for fundamentalists...
Posted by: Patrick | April 9, 2008 10:38 AM
I tried to post a comment but was unsuccessful. It read:
Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2008 10:39 AM
I just posted a comment over there that probably won't get past the personal filter. IIRC I said something like:
Posted by: Mr. Upright | April 9, 2008 10:53 AM
And the fact that McDonald's food is full of fat and grease; leading to increased obeisity in children is NOT a problem?
What about Grimmace; he has child predator written all over him?
In-N-Out Burger has the best fries. (They cut their own fries on the premasis from fresh potatoes.) I could gain back the forty pounds I've lost easily if there was one in Chicagoland.
BTW there was a joke I learned years ago that I can only remember the punchline. It was "Two obeise Pattys, special socks, Leonard cheats, picking bunions on the Sesame Street bus." Anybody remember the joke that went with that?
Posted by: Rev. AJB | April 9, 2008 11:01 AM
Instead he chose to pay a tax to Rome's coffers.
Actually, if you're referring to the "render unto Caesar" incident, Jesus did no such thing. He merely stated that he, as a messenger of God, was not there to answer such worldly-political questions as "Should we pay tribute unto Caesar [or wage war to overthrow him instead]?" And that such political decisions were to be dealt with separately from one's spiritual allegiances.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 9, 2008 11:03 AM
I'm sure any day now McDonalds will start offering a 10% discount to all unmarried people, 20% for unwed parents. There will be free milkshakes for homosexuals and you'll be able to get divorced at the dive-thru. Happy Meals will start earning the name by replacing the toys with condoms. Combo meals will include a butt-plug and when they ask if you want that Super Sized, they won't be talking fries. The restrooms will all have glory holes and it'll be nothing but porn, porn, porn on the televisions.
...actually I might start eating at McDonalds if that were the case.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 9, 2008 11:18 AM
Raging Bee,
You are correct--to be accurate I should write Jesus, in that instance, clearly approved of paying the Roman tax. And from that I infer, without hesitation, that he must have at times, as required, paid. But I disagree with you on one point, if I understand you correctly. That is, in the question of paying the tax or working to overthrow Rome, the message sent is clear: pay the tax. It is not left as a personal political decision.
Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2008 11:22 AM
I've never trusted Chik-Fil-A's sunday closing stunt and I was justified in that when I saw the amount of maintenance and groundskeeping they do on sunday. They aren't being good little christians and not working that day, they're just not serving food.
Posted by: Hypatia | April 9, 2008 11:35 AM
Heddle: Yes, actually, it WAS "left as a personal political decision." Jesus neither approved nor disapproved of Roman rule, and was explicitly refusing to offer a "party line" on such political questions, one way or another. According to that quote, spiritual questions are to be answered through the spirit (specifically, the teachings of you-know-who); and political questions are to be answered through political needs, individual judgement, and agreement among interested groups. The question "Should we pay trobute to Caesar?" was to be answered by people acting as citizens and people, not as Christians.
The whole point of that quote, was that, for a variety of good reasons, the eternal spiritual questions he was on Earth to answer had to be kept separate and distinct from the transitory socio-political questions of his era, and of all other eras. One good reason for this, is that Jesus is available to minister to the spiritual needs of ALL people, not just those on this or that side of this or that conflict; and that those who were divided by worldly conflicts still had to come together as one in spirit. There are more reasons, but I think my point is clear.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 9, 2008 11:59 AM
@CPT Doom: You asked what Chick-Fil-A's Jewish employees feel about Sunday closing - As a RRR (Rabid Religious Right) establishment, I wouldn't think there are many Jewish employees at all. If there are any, they probably know to keep their heads down, their mouths shut, and deal with having to work on THEIR Sabbath, but getting somebody else's off.
I may have to create my own religion, and declare that Thursday is the TRUE Sabbath, and that Thursday Poker Night is a required sacrament, along with good beer, and Cuban cigars......Hmmm-- can we get that integrated into FSM somehow? (I promise to include Holy Pasta Dishes before the Game)...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | April 9, 2008 12:05 PM
PS: Here's a shorter version of what Jesus meant: Jesus, and religious doctrines in general, was neither intended, nor able, to answer all the questions that arise in the minds of people -- only questions about God, spirit, and Man's relationship to God. Asking Jesus to rule on Roman rule would heve been like asking him to rule on CSI questions: off-topic and outside his mandate.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 9, 2008 12:07 PM
Raging Bee,
I disagree. I think the clear lesson is not some sort of NOMA, where politics and spiritual life are orthogonal domains. I think the clear lesson from Jesus' (and, later, Paul's) teaching is that political concerns are of minor importance compared to living, in whatever your circumstances are, as a Christian. I see, in this passage and others, the lesson that Christians are pilgrims--not citizens (n reality) of this land or that land, but of the kingdom of God.
It is this lesson that I take from the "render unto Caeser" and other passages that makes me zealously anti-theonomy.
You are correct, I think, in inferring that Jesus is acknowledging that his teachings do not empower one to arrive at "correct" political viewpoints. But you seem to be stopping there. I think that lesson is merely incidental. The bigger lesson, in my opinion, is that he is teaching: the political sphere is not important--only evangelism (by words and deeds) is important. The rest are just circumstances--and are in fact circumstances, good or bad, that God has providentially established. I think he is ruling on Roman rule. He is ruling: Yep, it's there, it's a fact of life. It's not pretty but it doesn't matter; it's not your concern. Go out and make disciples..
Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2008 12:24 PM
And WTF is "homeschool bowling"? Home schoolers have their own bowling league? Seriously?
And the comments; one commenter says, "Parents, keep an eye on those Happy Meals: The homosexual agenda targets the youngest, most impressionable ones first..."
Priceless. It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
Posted by: cipher | April 9, 2008 12:27 PM
I used to watch Comedy Central when I wanted to laugh...
Posted by: Peebles Squire | April 9, 2008 12:37 PM
Reminds me of my favorit joke from what must have been around 1980 (You might only get it if you remember the fast food chain's slogans from around then):
"Did you hear Ronald McDonald got arrested?"
"No. What happend?"
"Apparently he stuck his Big Mac in Wendy's Hot and Juicy!"
Doesn't sound gay to me.
Posted by: Giles | April 9, 2008 1:05 PM
"In-N-Out Burger"? In-N-Out Burger!!?!
I think it's a safe bet that whatever the agenda of a chain with a name like that is, it's going to be pretty unacceptable to the religious right.
Posted by: El Christador | April 9, 2008 1:37 PM
Heddle: this may just be a semantic quibble, but Jesus was not saying "the political sphere is not important;" he merely said, at most, that it was not important WRT spiritual life. It is, however, of life-and-death importance in the worldly sphere, which is why we still have to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and not just "ignore Caesar."
Besides, "evangelism (by words and deeds)" sometimes involves working for political objectives that improve conditions for people on Earth. Your interpretation of "it's a fact of life. It's not pretty but it doesn't matter; it's not your concern" has very often been used to justify inaction and apathy on the part of Christians.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 9, 2008 1:41 PM
I hear that it was a visit to a McDonalds while on tour with Wham! that turned George Michael gay.
The other one (no-one knows his name, not even Wikipedia) only ever went to Burger King.
Posted by: kale | April 9, 2008 1:44 PM
Gay scientists isolate Christian gene! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50
I tried leaving the above comment there, but it's being held up pending approval by a moderator. Somehow, I don't think my input will be accepted.
Posted by: Dirk Diggler | April 9, 2008 1:49 PM
Why can't I get the vision of young adolescent Rick Pearcey - in two wet suits, with flippers for gripping slippery rest room floors and G.I. patriot dad (with action grip) in delicto with bribes of McDonald's burgers for keeping the whole thing quiet - out of my mind?
I mean, Rick can do it....
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 9, 2008 1:50 PM
And how disingenuous. If you to their blog and try to post a comment, you find that they edit all comments, and deny any comment that is counter to their cheering section.
What freaks.
Posted by: George Frank | April 9, 2008 1:51 PM
Fwiw, the hyperchristian anti-MickeyD campaign (as compared with those run by people favoring healthy food, workers' rights, rainforests, animal rights, small businesses, etc) is led by the "American Family Association", or AFA (aka the Always Fearful Americans), which seems to be objecting primarily to the greasemongers having joined the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 9, 2008 1:54 PM
Well shovelling McD's into your family's pieholes on a regular basis is like declaring war on them, too.
Disclaimer: other fast food is shit for you, too. Except fish and chips.
Posted by: Peter Mc | April 9, 2008 2:00 PM
re: In-N-Out
Um - you do realize that In-N-Out burger, while makes a damn tasty burger, likes to print bible quotes on the wrappers right? The company is privately owned which I'm sure shares its profits with some nice godly church somewhere.
Posted by: yoshi | April 9, 2008 2:14 PM
And Boy George has never been the same since that Shamrock Shake incident...
Posted by: Chuck C | April 9, 2008 2:32 PM
I agree that Christians use that quote to justify political apathy all too often. I am both a Christian and an activist and it's hard for me to identify with a lot of what is said in churches these days, where conversion is the only objective, and not fixing all the political and social negatives in the world. And then you get the fire and brimstone speeches about our culture, and they wonder why Christianity is slowly losing followers.
As for this incident with Pearcey, it's clearly bigotry on his part. A lot of Christians will throw God's wrath at changes in culture that they do not understand. Rock and roll, left wing ideals, racism, accepting homosexuality, etc. Love thy neighbor, eh?
Posted by: adam | April 9, 2008 2:35 PM
I posted this comment, which I'm sure will not survive moderation:
----------
...McDonald's has decided, apparently, to declare war on my family. And to declare war on the civilization of liberty, independence, creativity, and humanity under God that my Dad fought for in World War II.
Spare everyone the melodrama, dude. A declaration of war on your family? Do you think Grimace is going to break into your house and make your kids watch gay porn?
Your family must be pretty damn weak if McDonald's executives belonging to organizations of which you disapprove is causing them serious harm. Get over it and get a life.
Or, at least, boycott them for a decent reason, like that their food sucks and is horribly unhealthy, or that the service at their restaurants is atrocious.
Oh, "comment moderation has been enabled"... I guess that's why there are no dissenting opinions in your posted comments. What are you so afraid of?
----------
Posted by: Anonymous | April 9, 2008 2:43 PM
Raging Bee, adam,
I don't see it as endorsing apathy, but as precluding Christian political activism. There is no instruction in the bible, that I can see, that could be used to support the notion that Christians should form PACs, attempt to influence the government through lobbying, threaten to organize a mass exodus from a particular party if they don't get what they want, etc. The commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" is really all Christians need to act socially responsibly.
Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2008 2:44 PM
Andrew Ridgeley
Posted by: chris | April 9, 2008 2:45 PM
I left a comment there that since both Microsoft and Apple get 100% from HRC's corporate equality report, Pearcey should stop using computers. I think that would benefit everyone.
Posted by: steve | April 9, 2008 3:25 PM
The commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" is really all Christians need to act socially responsibly.
Even if that were the case (and I'm not at all ready to agree to that), the question then becomes "How, specifically, do we translate our love for our neighbors into action, in this or that particular situation?" I'm sure you'll agree that "love" means nothing if it doesn't result in some kind of action (small-scale or large) on behalf of those we claim to love.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 9, 2008 3:28 PM
another comment I left:
If you want to avoid companies which pro-gay group Human Rights Campaign says are the best at giving benefits to gay partners, you'll have to sell your car and cut up your credit card and probably close your bank account, but the real sticky part is you won't be able to listen to Limbaugh: HRC says Clear Channel is one of the absolute best companies for gays.
Posted by: steve | April 9, 2008 3:41 PM
Posted by: Taz | April 9, 2008 3:44 PM
And to declare war on the civilization of liberty, independence, creativity, and humanity under God that my Dad fought for in World War II.
Somewhere George Orwell is laughing hysterically.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 9, 2008 3:49 PM
Raging Bee,
Well, loving your neighbor certainly includes helping your neighbor with money, food, clothing, water, shelter, friendship, etc. I understand that some may want to do that though political means rather than privately. I tend to support the private route. One thing that I always found annoying in conservative churches is that we tend to complain about big government and welfare--while at the same time we have abrogated all responsibility for caring for the needy.
Posted by: heddle | April 9, 2008 4:27 PM
Caring for the needy? What are you, some kind of liberal?
Posted by: steve s | April 9, 2008 4:43 PM
Wow, everybody always says, "The gay agenda destroys the family," and then we always say, "Well, whose family is it destroying?" But here is somebody who actually says, "Gay people have declared war on my family." That's a new one. You gotta give him credit for that.
Posted by: Brandon | April 9, 2008 4:50 PM
Pearcey will be very angry when he discovers his dad helped stop gays being gassed in death camps.
Posted by: silverspoon | April 9, 2008 5:00 PM
And, most importantly, ignorance is strength.
Posted by: David Marjanović | April 9, 2008 5:35 PM
Taz quoted T. H. from The Once And Future King
In the Theocracy that the DI would like to see, another quote from T. H. White in The Book of Merlin seems appropriate
- Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
Posted by: grasshopper | April 9, 2008 5:48 PM
Take a page from the Always Fearful Americans (great riff!) and do these things:
Call (or better yet, buy a meal) at your local McDonald's and tell the manager that you are proud of McDonald's commitment to diversity.
Write or email McDonald's President, congratulating them on their commitment to all Americans:
Andrew J. McKenna, President McDonald's
McDonald's Plaza
Oak Brook, IL 60523
Phone: 1-800-244-6227
or: 630-623-3000
Fax: 630-623-5004
E-Mail: Use the form at McDonald's Website
I'm not a regular McDonald's customer but this might motivate me to buy a couple of burgers.
Posted by: Liz Ditz | April 9, 2008 6:02 PM
Raging Bee -- I love what you wrote. Essentially, Jesus was a Jew trying to bring the Jewish people back to Judaism. Back to keeping the Sabbath. Back to keeping Kosher. Away from politics and cozying up too closely with the Romans.
It was Paul who shat on that and distilled it down to "Accept Jesus as the Christ/Messiah and you will go to heaven."
Posted by: Jewish Progressive | April 9, 2008 6:20 PM
Well, I'm going to have to go buy a meal at McDonalds. I've given up fast food because I care about my health, but this is going to have to be an exception. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (well, in this case I suppose it's because they're my friend already that they're the enemy of my enemy...but oh well, it's a good line).
Posted by: paul | April 9, 2008 6:37 PM
chris said: Andrew Ridgeley (the other half of Wham). Doesn't disturb you that you actually know that? On the other had, I once won 25 lbs of fudge in a radio call-in contest. They were looking for the real name of 60s pop star Jackie DeShannon (What the world needs now...). This was a Chicago radio station and I was the only person to call in. The fudge was good.
Posted by: wrpd | April 9, 2008 6:44 PM
Jewish Progressive:
I don't know about this. There are multiple incidents recorded in the gospels of Jesus breaking the Sabbath and the Pharisees and teachers of law getting on his case about it, so I don't think that flies. I also don't know about keeping kosher; the gospels are mostly silent about Jesus' opinion of dietary laws, I believe (with the exception of his recognition of Passover, but I certainly don't consider that advocating the observation of kosher laws). As for whether or not Jesus advocated getting out of Roman politics is another thing as well; he certainly seemed to be rather unsympathetic with the current temple practices, arguably accusing the Jewish leaders of exploiting the poor (cf. Mark 12, Luke 21). I don't deny the Jewishness of Jesus - indeed, I think it's important to understand that aspect - but I disagree with your characterizations more than a little bit.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 9, 2008 7:08 PM
The entire debate about what Jesus meant by "Render under Caesar" only serves to highlight the futility of theological re-interpretations. After all, Jesus was one man, whose words were only widely publicized decades after his death, interpreted, re-interpreted, translated, re-translated time after time in the subsequent millennia. Did Jesus have a complete, fleshed-out political philosophy? I'm very leery of trying to interpret anything from one sentence, esp. when one person or another puts what are obviously his own thoughts into the mouth of a long-dead prophet.
But that's what the history of Christianity always has been, isn't it? Rich people focus on the parable of the talents, authoritarians focus on "render unto Caesar", anti-gays focus on Leviticus, etc., etc. Let's face it: the Bible not only does not represent a _complete_ theology, capable of adequately handling any possible problem faced by modern man, it does not even represent a _consistent_ theology.
Posted by: RickD | April 9, 2008 7:16 PM
Even if the Bible doesn't spell out a specific theology in crystal clear terms and may not be applicable to every conceivable problem, that doesn't mean it's not useful. That would be like saying that science is a pile of crap because physicists can't even make up their mind about quantum mechanics and special relativity.
Oddly enough, this makes me think of fundamentalists who deny evolution because it brings up too many serious issues with the Genesis account (e.g. "If Adam wasn't created specially, then how do we interpret original sin in light of common descent?). Just because it might be difficult to interpret the Bible doesn't mean that there's no usefulness in doing so (perhaps even for the non-Christian...).
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 9, 2008 7:31 PM
Ironically, the Pearcy's are using Blogger, owned by Google, which supports LGBT relationships with partner benefits.
The Pearcy's need to move to a cave to be "clean and clear" of the evil agenda that encroaches upon them. I suggested that in their comments, but of course, no one THERE will read it...
Posted by: jaycbird | April 9, 2008 7:42 PM
Here is the message that I sent:
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 9, 2008 7:58 PM
another comment I left:
I see that you flew on an airline recently. When you did, and when you do in the future, a little bit of your money will go to GLBT partner benefits. You use Blogger, owned by Google, so you're supporting GLBT benefits. You're using an intel computer running windows or an Apple and either way, you gave some money to GLBT partner benefits. etc etc etc. So if we judge you by your words, you say you don't support gay and lesbian partners, but when it comes to spending your money, you do. And that book you were reading on the plane? Same thing.
Posted by: steve | April 9, 2008 8:34 PM
RickD et al: In this case, originalism actually proves useful. What did the audience learn from the exchange?
Jesus was faced with what the Pharisees present thought was an impossible dilemma: Either He had to take the "holiness" route and say that no Jew should ever pay tax to pagan rulers; or He had to admit that he was not the Messiah (the idealized heir of David who would throw off the Roman yoke).
Jesus came up with a third way. The whole point of examining the coin was that it was a Roman denarius, with the head of Tiberias on one side. Since it bore a human portrait, pious Jews were not allowed to handle it in any case, so as traif it might as well be paid to its true "owner," Tiberias.
Anything beyond this is overinterpretation, in my opinion. Jesus was most certainly not lecturing us today on the proper relationship between government and the governed. Remember, Jesus paid the Temple tax for Himself and Peter through the miraculous catch of a fish that had swallowed the appropriate coin. Just my two denarii worth.
Oh, and as a resident of Galilee, Jesus paid taxes to Herod Antipas, not Rome, so this was not a question that affected Him personally.
Cheers!
Posted by: kehrsam | April 9, 2008 9:13 PM
Here's the message I sent to McDonald's (link to McDonald's online comment form)
I learned today that (a) McDonald's has joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Congress (NGLCC) (b)that Richard Ellis, McDonald's (USA) vice president of communications has joined the NGLCC board of directors, and (c) that the American Family Association is urging its members to remonstrate with local and national McDonald's' for its "support of the homosexual agenda".
I am a heterosexual woman who fully supports homosexual rights. I am writing to express my admiration and support for McDonald's. Thank you for supporting all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.
Since my children have grown and left home, I don't patronize McDonald's much--two or three meals per year. I plan to change that, and eat a meal a week there. And I'll let the manager know why I am patronizing McDonald's.
Posted by: Liz Ditz | April 9, 2008 9:39 PM
I used to laugh whenever the authors of the Hate Agenda(tm, of course) complain that others, whom they have targeted to hate, have an agenda.
Mr. Pearcey has never met a fact he couldn't try to ignore, or a truth he couldn't twist.
Do you really want to give this award for ridiculous overreactions to a professional?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | April 9, 2008 10:23 PM
My only objection is that a newcomer should so quickly get a position on the board, but, who knows, maybe buying a position on a chamber of commerce is standard procedure.
Posted by: BobN | April 10, 2008 12:49 AM
Rick Pearcy is right, McDonalds IS attacking us. They're clogging our arteries, for one thing.
Posted by: CeilingCat | April 10, 2008 3:29 AM
Jewish Progresive: Thanks for the compliment, but I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I'm no Bible scholar, but my understanding is that Jesus repeatedly admonished people, not to overthrow the curreent laws, or to obey them mindlessly, but to interpret and apply them with mercy and common sense. "The Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath." When questioned about his apparent flouting of this or that rule, Jesus did not say "the rules are crap, ignore them," he said that: a) the rules are supposed to make life better, but there are sometimes when they have to be bent to make life better; and b) you get close to God by means of your works, and by improving your spiritual condition, not by sticking to a checklist of rules and hammering your neighbor when he doesn't tick every box.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 10, 2008 9:48 AM
Getting back on topic, McDonald's burgers still suck, but I suppose I could eat their pancake breakfasts more often to show my appreciation.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 10, 2008 9:50 AM
I hope people aren't seriously thinking about eating fast food at McDonald's more often just because one of their executives is a member of a gay business board. That seems just as stupid as this guy taking it as an act of war.
Posted by: Andrea | April 10, 2008 12:48 PM
They were looking for the real name of 60s pop star Jackie DeShannon (What the world needs now...).
WRPD: Don't leave us hanging.
Posted by: CJColucci | April 10, 2008 1:09 PM
i can has gay cheezburger?
Posted by: LOLCat | April 10, 2008 1:18 PM
wrpd sez:"I once won 25 lbs of fudge in a radio call-in contest. They were looking for the real name of 60s pop star Jackie DeShannon (What the world needs now...). This was a Chicago radio station and I was the only person to call in. The fudge was good."
How was it packed?
Posted by: trog69 | April 11, 2008 7:05 AM
To Andea:
I for one am not adding McDonalds food to my weekly menu because of this action, BUT my wife and I DO eat fast food once or twice a week (McD's, Wendy's Arby's, etc.)
The FREQUENCY of my patronizing McD's will go up as a result of their inclusive actions.
And because of corporate philosophy I virtually never patronize Chick-Fil-A.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | April 11, 2008 9:48 AM
Blaidd Drwg -
Well that's different, of course. :)
I try to avoid our town's Chik-Fil-A ... the Christian music gets to me, and has for a long time. My son's little toddler buddies go there occasionally during the winter because they have a decent little person play area, but that's the only time we go. We're constantly receiving free coupons for stuff in the mail, they all go into the trash.
Posted by: Andrea | April 11, 2008 10:47 AM
I wonder if there's some sort of drug they're slipping them lately because the reactions I'm seeing from them are getting more and more absurd. Then again, it might be because they see their anticipated takeover of the nation (and maybe the world) failing miserably and they're getting desperate. My SO and I actually went to McDonald's for the first time ages recently (though I only got fries since I'm vegetarian). I thought I might as well do something to cheese the wingnuts off, and contributing money to their latest target felt good.
Posted by: Buffy | April 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Just when I thought I had no reason to patronize McDonald's ever again, I have a sudden burning need for a big gay Royale with cheese.
Posted by: Cobalt | April 12, 2008 3:43 PM
"Real families-not ones made up by the ACLU last Tuesday."
Since when did the ACLU "make up families?"
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 13, 2008 5:25 AM