Those laugh-a-minute folks at Chick-fil-A are at it again. Seriously, I thought they got a raw deal from the media earlier this year. They are, and of course should be, fully entitled to their views.
But now their president, Dan Cathy, has announced their support for “Biblical families.”
I mean, multiple wives and concubines … fine if all the consenting adults are … consenting. But buying wives, having sex with slaves (or your daughters), threatening to sacrifice kids on an altar, offering to let a mob rape your daughters, and sending your unwanted children out into the desert … this I just don’t think we should countenance.
We already support those “bibical families” in this country.
Multiple Wives and Concubines? Concubines seem to be big business if you are a politician, big business person or hollywood celebrity. Multiple wives is a little tougher since it is illegal, but serial wives are a big business. It is not unusual to meet people that have been married multiple times, looking for a better deal each time.
Buying Wives? Courting, engagements and weddings cost so much that the bride is being bought or sold by someone. Look at all the reality shows that focused on weddings/brides.
Consenting adults? They are all consenting adults until it is time for a divorce, then neither party was consenting to anything, each was taking advantage of the other etc.
Sex with slaves? What would a spouse be considered that is locked into a house everyday with duties to cook, clean, raise children etc. All for a promise of room and board and a future draft pick? Sounds like a slave to me.
Sacrifice kids on an altar? How many links of kids being sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness have you posted this year? It is done all the time to kids that don’t mouth the party line or might have a spark of freedom in their soul.
Unwanted Children into the Desert? we do that too. The desert of modern government run schools, the emotional and intellectual desert of pop culture. Sometimes we treat our kids so bad they indeed head off into the desert themselves to get away.
Don’t include me in your ‘we’. That system seems far better than the one today.
Your last sentence kind of seems a lot like how the world got to where it is today. Puritanical or something?
Somehow, I don’t think Dan Cathy meant “biblical families” in quite as broad a way as you’re interpreting it. In fact, I suspect that he meant it in the extremely narrow way of most Christian fundamentalists: one man, one woman and some number of kids. He’s just speaking in shorthand, and I doubt that anyone (you included) really misunderstood what he meant.
What about “Biblical families” of atheists?
Laird — Of course I’m just laughing in that blog post. I’m sure Cathy meant “one man, one woman, some number of kids.”
But I’m equally sure Cathy himself has no idea of what he’s actually saying. He favors a certain type of marriage, which is of course his prerogative. He calls it “biblical” because he thinks that gives godly support to his viewpoint. But what actually is a “biblical family”?
What I’m laughing at is people who swear they believe “thing x” — whatever it might be — when in fact they don’t have a clue about what “thing x” really is.
Notice how nobody ever talks about supporting the Bibical Tribe?
Kent — Interesting question. I wonder how Cathy would respond if he met two different families: one a happy, healthy, heterosexual couple of atheists; the other an equally happy, healthy homosexual Christian couple.
Unlikely, I grant. But wonder how Cathy would regard them.
Matt, another. One more good point. There’s a lot in the bible that nobody talks about supporting — from genocide to concubinage.
I want some concubines.
I don’t really know what the guy believes, so am not entitled to an opinion. But I still doubt he’d admit the possibility of homosexual Christians. Strict-construction-wise, that’s an oxymoron.
But yeah – concubines never seemed like such a completely bad idea…
Except, perhaps, to the concubines. 🙂
But I dunno. Depending on conditions, it might’ve been a good life. But only if they had a choice in the matter.
YeahbutJoel — Strict-construction-wise, a tattooed Christian is an oxymoron. And don’t tell me they don’t exist …
http://technoccult.net/archives/2009/10/23/why-is-this-anti-gay-leviticus-tattoo-extra-absurd/
Funny how nobody talks about supporting genocide, concubinage etc, but global society sure has done a lot of it over the centuries, with lots more to come.
Bigamy is not outlawed in the Bible either, but most people believe it is. I can see some advantages to multiple partners in a marriage and if homosexual marriage is okay, then bigamy should be okay too.
Wile we’re at it, how about biblical levels of taxation? When the people of israel went to Samuel and asked for a king, he said, you don’t want to do that! A king will take a tenth of your sons for his army, a tenth of your daughters for “handmaidens”, a tenth of your crops, etc., etc. And he was trying to scare them out of this notion. Now? A government limited to a tenth of the economy would be a major improvement!
YeahbutJoel — Strict-construction-wise, a tattooed Christian is an oxymoron.
Not necessarily. Tattoos are forbidden to Jews in the Bible, but the prohibition isn’t renewed by either Jesus or our old friend Paul. Unlike the homosexuality, adultery, fornication and blood-eating taboos, which are. So you can have uncircumcised Christians and tattooed Christians, but no gay ones.
Hm. I wonder if concubinage comes under “fornication?” It didn’t when Abraham was around. Or that amazing horndog David.
When did anyone from this copmpany say they supported multiple marriages, concubines, etc?
And why is anoyone putting words into their mouths or trying to determine their meaning?
This is one of the huge problems we have in this once great country. Someone makes a statement based on personal beliefs and someone else twists and turns it into something awful in order to rile the public or create some kind of controversy.
No one should be judging or trying to figure out what he meant by biblical family. It just sickens me that someone would suggestthis man or this company of supporting such things unless they came out and DIRECTLY spoke those words.
Get off your high horses people and STOP spreading false claims about what YOU think someone meant or what their intentions were.
Claire, while I love your musings, you are WAY far off the mark on this one. So unlike you to succumb to such nonsense.
Jim O.,
“Claire, while I love your musings, you are WAY far off the mark on this one. So unlike you to succumb to such nonsense.”
First of all, my post is marked as humor. I don’t think Mr. Cathy advocates concubines, rape, child sacrifice, etc.
What I really think is that Mr. Cathy himself has no idea what a “biblical family” is. Clearly, he advocates one man, one woman, however many children. He’s claiming the bible agrees.
But look at the stories of Abraham (and his clan) and Lot and David — which is where most of my examples of biblical family came from — and tell me that the bible is 100% in agreement with Mr. Cathy. You can’t. Because it isn’t.
Oh my! A high horse appears. And it appears to have ridden in a$$ first.
Concubines?
Harrumph!
One’s trouble enough.
Never could find no tracks on a woman’s heart.
Karen and PNO — Thanks for the laughs.
It hasn’t been the best day. I woke up groggy, under the strange illusion that I’d slept straight through two nights and a day. The first email I opened was one asking Dave Duffy to censor several of my blog posts from earlier this year. (So far, Dave agrees with me that it shouldn’t be done.) Then I went and put up a blog whose point I shoulda just known some people would miss. (I forget about the irony-challenged.) And which was bound to offend a few others, even if they sorta-kinda did get it. And that’s only part of what’s going on today.
So … yeah, thanks for the laughs.
Claire,
I’m not going to debate what the bible says or doesn’t say or who is right or wrong in how they interpret it. My point is strictly that we should not be suggesting or deciphering words that did not come directly out of someones mouth.
Your words were “I mean, multiple wives and concubines … fine if all the consenting adults are … consenting. But buying wives, having sex with slaves (or your daughters), threatening to sacrifice kids on an altar, offering to let a mob rape your daughters, and sending your unwanted children out into the desert … this I just don’t think we should countenance.”
Someone could say that you are suggesting that those are/were the thoughts or words of Mr. Cathy. If this is your interpretation of what a biblical family is, that’s fine and I wholehearteadly support your right to think so. But to even remotely suggest or imply that someone else said that, is a little over the top. And to title the post as “Harems? Child Abandonment?” just fuels the fire a little more.
Although you say you meant it as a humurous post, I fail to see the humor in it. Those are serious issues that shouldn’t be humorous in any sense.
Jim O. — I agree that people have very different senses of humor and that one person’s joke is another person’s egregious insult. Irony, which I was using, is a particularly risky form of humor, I know.
So we’ll agree to disagree on humor.
However, my point is still the same: Mr. Cathy is calling something “biblical family” when arguably the bibilical idea(s) of family are very, very different than his.
Jim O, Words have meaning. If they are used badly, alternate meanings can be read from them. Mr. Cathy chose his words badly. People have pointed that out. “Better to remain silent and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” I’m guessing that Claire’s humor bruised your poor christian ego?
I think the error might of been in using the term “bibical family.” It is one that is open to a lot of interpetation. Even though I understand Cathy probably meant the western version of traditional marriage (one father, one mother, multiple kids) the new testament (assuming that is the part of the bible being referred to) doesn’t really spend a lot of time on the structure of a “bibical family” so it has to be implied. One interpetation of a “bibical family” could be the standard father-mother-children triad with same religion or same culture thrown in, which was a generic western standard for centuries. That standard wavered and basically went by the strict wayside once people from different religions and diverse cultures started to come together in a place called America.
Woody,
No, Claire’s humor didn’t bruise anything. My faith or lack thereof is not the point, but as you suggested, poorly chosen words are the issue.
I agree with Claire, and you, that Mr. Cathy chose his words badly.
But, we should not be adding to that by suggesting, in any way, that he meant something or supports anything that refers to very serious issues in which women, children & families suffer.
Mr. Cathy never stated that he advocates such things as Ms. Wolfe suggested in her writing.
To take someones words (that were never spoken in the first place) and twist them into something so vile is just wrong, especially since no one but Mr. Cathy can define what HE meant by use of “Biblical family.” It’s poor use of judgement to assume that someone else interprets the bible the same way as you, and because of that, he advocates or supports, rape, abandonment, harems, concubines, etc.
Like Claire suggested, we’ll just have to disagree on what’s humorous and what isn’t.
“Claire Says:
It hasn’t been the best day. ”
At least we’re not talking Fatwa here. Could’a been worse. ;-}
“To take someones words (that were never spoken in the first place) and twist them into something so vile is just wrong, especially since no one but Mr. Cathy can define what HE meant by use of ‘Biblical family.’”
Have you never heard the term irony? How about sarcasm or satire? Good grief!
Mr. Cathy is certainly entitled to his views, and entitled to put his money where his beliefs lie. I have no argument with that.
But he is claiming that the authority of God backs his personal viewpoint on the structure and nature of family. That’s not only an outlandish claim (though a very common one, these days, one we’ve disgracefully come to take for granted). It’s a claim that shows he’s either never read the bible or has simply cherry-picked from it.
Frankly, he deserves to be ridiculed. And though you may believe as you said earlier that serious matters shouldn’t be the subject of humor, in my book, people who claim the authority of either God or the state for their views deserve both closer scrutiny and, if they can’t stand up to scrutiny, far more savage ridicule than anyone who merely utters a foolish opinion and claims no higher authority than himself.
Fatwa. OMG, Karen. Don’t go giving anybody any ideas! (Hey! Look! Over there! Salman — he said it, not me!)
But yeah … in the great scheme of things, no big deal. Just one-o-them days.
Poor ole Cathy! I know what he meant, but that’s not the most exact way to say it. Evangelicals have to call everything they believe in “Biblical,” ‘cuz they dread the notion of what Catholics call the Magisterium.
Yes Claire, I have heard of those words and I fail to see how any of them apply here.
“It’s a claim that shows he’s either never read the bible or has simply cherry-picked from it.” Many people “cherry pick” what they want from the bible. Maybe it’s just human nature. People pick and choose what they want and apply it to their own existence to be happy. Perhaps you did the same thing when you picked what you think the bible means by “biblical family” and applied it to Mr. Cathy?
“Frankly, he deserves to be ridiculed.” Why? Becuase he holds a religous belief and stands by it. Because that belief doesn’t necessarily conform to others?
“in my book, people who claim the authority of either God or the state for their views deserve both closer scrutiny and, if they can’t stand up to scrutiny, they deserve far more savage ridicule than anyone who merely utters a foolish opinion and claims no higher authority than himself.”
In your book – enough said there. Thats your opinion and you are certainly entitled to that. I’ll not argue it. Scurtinizing someone for a claim is one thing, but adding words that were never spoken is another. In MY book, those who add words that were never spoken or that suggest that someone might support or encourage such things deserves to be called out on it.
My point throughout has been that your suggestion, whether meant as satire, humor, irony or whatever will be taken seriously. You are a popular writer and I, for one, enjoy your writings. Today’s was the exception.
I think you said it best, and I wholeheartedly agree that we are going to have to just disagree on this.
C’mon, Claire, “Flashing Blue Light Sale in the Blondes Aisle at Wife-Mart.”
What’s not to like???? 😛
Jim O,
I should probably let this go. And after this comment I will. But … “adding words that were never spoken.”
I never implied that Cathy spoke any of those words that you earlier called “vile.” However I did imply (and you can look it up) that all those vile things were part of family life as depicted in the bible. Furthermore, since those things were not done by villains but by three of God’s personally selected favorites (Abraham, Lot, and David), it appears that God approved of — or at least did not object to — such disgusting doings.
I’m not putting words into Dan Cathy’s mouth. I’m citing things the bible itself says about family life.
“Flashing Blue Light Sale in the Blondes Aisle at Wife-Mart.”
LOL! What’s not to like? As a former brunette, I … No. Wait. That’s not what I mean.
I’m picturing, instead of blue-light sale at Wife-Mart, government regulated and licensed wife vending. Think on that a while and tell me what’s not to like!
Another case of “Offensensitivity”.
I don’t care if the owner of chick-fil-a personally sacrifices orphans.
They have the best chicken sandwiches in the world and I’ll still eat there.
Claire, I respect you a lot, but you need to take into account the context of what he’s saying. When he says biblical families, he’s clearly meaning God’s ideal family – a wife, husband, and kids. The presence of these other things in the Bible does not mean that they are endorsed.
Polytheism is in the Bible, too – I would hardly call worshipping multiple gods “biblical worship.” If you notice, in no instance in the Bible did polygamy EVER turn out well. EVER.
Oh, my. I see the issue here. Claire, you appear to be mistaking mentioning something for endorsing it. Look at what happened to those who engaged in such activities – while it never reached fire-and-brimstone proportions, it always works out extremely badly.
If you look, whenever the Bible discusses marriage in terms of commands, it refers to a man (singular) and his wife (singular), and the two (2) shall become one flesh. Not a whole lot of room there for extra wives.
Heh, maybe the humor label/warning needs to be at the top of blog posts (in flashing blue lights) instead of being basically invisible at the bottom?
Probably wouldn’t help though.
I’m curious to know which blog entries of yours were picked for censoring. Seems like it could be good reading.
Um … mentioning, Drake? No. We’re not talking about mentioning. We’re talking about the familial habits and practices of some of God’s favorite folks, for which, in many cases they were actually rewarded. In one instance, the vile “familial” behavior I referred to is something God himself supposedly demanded (for Abraham to murder Isaac).
So what worked out so badly for Abraham? After sex with a slave, threatening to murder Isaac, and tossing Ishmael out in the desert? He got blessings upon blessings, dying old, rich, and famous.
And Lot? He was rewarded after offering his virgin daughters up to be raped; he was saved when God destroyed everybody else in town because God considered him so virtuous. Virtuous. Exemplary. In God’s eyes. Lot’s wife got zapped for the simple act of looking back, but no such punishment was forthcoming for Lot, who then turned around and committed incest (yes, I know; it was the daughters’ fault; they seduced him, those dirty temptresses; he couldn’t help it).
And David? True, he suffered some hardships (or rather, God inflicted illness and death not on David but on one of David’s kids because of David’s dirty deeds toward Uriah). But David was not punished for having zillions of concubines. Nope, he was chosen by God to be king and got God’s promise that his line would continue forever — choices that were not revoked even through David’s unbibilical-by-the-standards-of-the-Cathy-family relationships.
These are examples of things “working out extremely badly” for the perps? I don’t think so.
Since God was obviously very into swift and irreversible punishments back then, it seems strange that, if he disapproved of things like multiple wives, sex with slaves, sex with daughters, and threats toward children he would have at least have … well, chosen a different set of favorites. Or tossed a few lightning bolts at those three men to warn them to be “biblical” in a nicer way toward their families.
But nope. None of that.
clark — LOL, I think you’re right about the “humor” warnings. Or maybe “offensive to true believers” warnings. Or maybe I should just STFU.
As to the demand to censor posts, that came from Stacy Litz. Or, as I am supposed to call her now (to keep search engines from so easily revealing her deeds) Stacy L. or S. Litz. She emailed Dave Duffy, bypassing me. The posts in question were these:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2012/05/11/lift-up-your-fallen-comrade-or-kick-her-in-the-kidneys/
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2012/05/12/stacy-litz-on-stacy-litz/
http://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/ClaireWolfe/2012/05/14/dealing-with-snitches-informers-informants-narcs-finks-rats-and-similar-menaces-maybe-its-a-book/
Nothing all that juicy. As I’ve said before, I’d be perfectly happy never to mention Stacy’s name again. She has now hired a search-engine optimization firm to help her clean up her online reputation and push posts like mine farther down in search results. More power to her on that, but asking anyone to censor accurate information is another matter.
I do wonder if the three people she betrayed to the cops have the luxury of being able to afford to hire people to help them clean up the messes she made for them.
One of those days, eh C?
😉
Hobbit: “Flashing Blue Light Sale in the Blondes Aisle at Wife-Mart.”
[grin]
A new spin on “People of Wal-Mart”.
And shouldn’t that be a red light?
I wonder if Cathy used the phrase “Biblical Families” so as not to offend his Jewish friends?
I’m certain he was thinking “New Testament.” In the N.T. the one man-one woman family (with kids) is highly recommended. In fact, if you want to be in a leadership position then it’s required. But what do you do with a new convert who already has multiple wives–do you require them to get divorced?
This isn’t a theoretical question–my church had exactly this problem in Zimbabwe. The decision was made, unanimously, that young men and women (unmarried or first marriage) would be strongly encouraged to stick to a single partner. Those who were already in a polygamous family were encouraged to carry out their previous commitments. They could not use the Bible as an excuse for abandoning “extra” wives and children.
Stick to your guns Claire, the humor-impaired will always be with us, but some appreciate the time and effort involved, at least when it’s not our ox being gored. Just a question, have you ever noticed that many folks will tell you that you have to look at the Bible in context and any thing in there that they don’t like, I.E. Jesus serving wine at the wedding, (well, that was new wine, only grape juice), but everything YOU say must be strictly factual, no other interpretation?
Stryder — Thanks for the good cheer.
I prolly should’ve just STFU yesterday.
And yes, I have noticed that. Many a time, I’ve had somebody give me some long, complex explanation of what something in the bible “really means.” I read it — and find nothing in the bible’s actual words to support that interpretation. But if I so much as state, “The bible says so-and-so did x” — and x is something that doesn’t sound nicely churchy … uh oh.
I just finished Wendy MacElroy’s new book. She makes a strong point early on that words do have very specific meanings.
My 2 cents? Its about the implication of using the word. Politicos are always throwing around the words constitution and anti-constitutional, like there’s some power or authority that automatically makes an argument more legit when using those words, even though the constitution seldom mentions any of the things it is accused of.
“Biblical” is the same thing. Its usage implies a connection to or a consent of deity, and as we’ve read above, even though the bible is silent on or contrary to many of the issues it is called forth in.
That’s really sickening – about that little snitch trying to launder her rep – doesn’t seem they’ve learned a thing.
Enough said about that.
Claire – I was glad to see you stood up to criticism yesterday – you may have still been too polite. (IMO)
Words and their associated ideas are important. Orwell covered this well in his essay Politics and the English language. Personally – I’ve come to abbreviate his points and conclusion to “either a fool or a liar” in such cases.
I dunno, Bear – Claire now seems to be talking about vending machines. Given the Japanese penchant for selling most anything possible out of a machine, I suspect it’ll start there, first.
But what happens when your redhead gets stuck? Do you have to try and buy a brunette and hope to knock the redhead into the receiving chute?
And that’d be a LOT of quarters to lug around.
Except for airheaded TV bimbos – those seem to be a dime a dozen.
(now to worry if I’m going to get into trouble for injecting levity into an otherwise serious sandlot discussion about who said what to whom about what … Gawd, it’s like my day job!!!!) 😉
Yes, Hobbit. How dare you treat such a Serious Subject with levity. A Biblically Serious Subject, yet.
Expect lightning bolts soon in your vicinity if the OT is accurate.
It seems that the humor impaired have struck your blog. One irony here is that monogamy was a Roman practice only imperfectly adopted by the Christians.
Claire,
Let me say that I respect you and your writings.
It is wonderful that people can disagree on subjects and still face another day of life.
I’ll continue to follow your writings and enjoy them as I have.
We had a disagreement on one issue. You’ve made your point, I’ve made mine.
Continue on. I do enjoy your work.
Thank you, Jim O. That’s gentlemanly of you and I appreciate it.