Well thanks Charles for not being rude, but why surprised?  I mean you know I'm a Christian and I have a biblical worldview so why is this surprising?  I know it's not very politically correct, but you know I've never been very good at being PC. 

I can only control what I can control.  I can't control that which is not mine to control. 

We all have a choice to support a business or not.  We also have a choice when it comes to voting in these politicians who spend our money.  Once in, we have no choice but to go to the polls and vote them out the following term if we don't like how they spend our money. 

first of all no.  Like I said earlier I'm not one to go to McD's anyhow.  So as far as doing any boycotting, I'm not really anyhow because I don't like McD's.  I'd rather go to Wendy's or Chick-Fil-A'. 

Second of all, I'm not positive but I think this is  fairly new brought on by Richard Ellis, a VP of communications for McDonalds.  He's a homosexual and using his position to help fund NGLCC.  He sits on the board of the NGLCC. 

The NGLCC frequently lobbies Congress on same-sex marriage and other aspects of the homosexual agenda.  I can't support this.

 

 

 

Well of course I don't like giving money to anyone that supports  something that goes against my worldview but again, you can't not hire someone because of religious preferences.  You're not supposed to ask so there is no way to know really anyhow. 

Besides all that I know of no scripture that says you shouldn't hire non-Christians.  Scripture is clear about believers not being yoked with unbelievers  in business (as in owning) or marriage tho.  And usually those I know who did enter a mariage contract or a business partnership unequally yoked  has run into problems usually ending in a disaster or divorce. 

 

I figured this would happen but may as well go with the flow. So what you are saying is these rules can be broken so long as you are naive to the circumstances? Which in reality you are not but because you don't have 100% proof you have to wing it and hope for the best, but then that would defeat the whole faith idea now wouldn't it? You can control your money. You can refuse to purchase anything for fear of sinning. But then you would have to sacrifice your family for your beliefs. But then you have to question if this is what God intended, then you have to question just how far does your interpretation goes as to how you follow Gods laws. Wow, this can get very complicated.

And this is why I live a basic "I believe in God", "I do what I believe is right to the best of my abilities", "I do what I can to help others", "I live and let live" life.

KFC,

Wow! 6 pages of good blog discussion.  

From your post #44:

I agree. For me, this is the whole crux of the matter. This is what every Christian has to consider once they learn what the company that they are patronizing is doing.

 That's what the AFA is about providing a service giving us information of what happens behind the scenes and making us aware of that.  

Once we know, we decide whether or not we want to support the company that's been held up for scrutiny. It's a good thing...it's what living in a free country is all about.

Christians, as a group, have power of the purse too.  

KFC,

Good questions.   

 

 

 

 

Yes lula, that is a good question. But a better question would be "when was the last time you cared what your money was going to?" or "Do you question every dollar you put in someones hands and do you question every dollar that is handed to you?

Did you know that it's said that most US currency has traces of cocaine on it? Would that stop you from using it or even giving it to your kids? You see how some things can be so greatly exaggerated to be more than it really is?

all the time.  I mean I'm not paranoid or anything but if something doesn't seem right, I'm not giving.  Years ago I stopped giving to the United Way for similar reasons  I gave for years and then when I got wind of a few things that seemed not right I stopped. 

now Charles you're going overboard here. We're just trying to be good stewards of our money and not support things that run counter to our belief system.

 Of course we're not scanning our dollar bills.  I'm sure there's alot of germs on each bill as well.  Heck the IRS gets dollar bills used as toilet paper once in a while...now that I would not use. 

 

Like KFC says, all the time. Most of the time, we are irked by some petty issue, not a noble cause. In my case, I am boycotting Deep Discount dot com for stealing fourty dollars from me. So I do care.

But this whole blog is about finding out where some of your money is going, not agreeing with it, and doing something about it. It may not hurt Mickey D (as I stated earlier), but it is not furthering the cause either. In the end, we all have to answer to our conscience. And whether we move a mountain, or just kick a little dirt, we still have to face ourselves every morning in the mirror.

An organized boycott tries to influence behaviour. An individual boycott makes a statement. It may be just a windmill, but it is our windmill.

Bingo! That was my point all along. One is a right, the other is nothing more than blackmail.

Let's be realistic here. That statement is not true. If people worried about every penny one spent we would paranoid to the 10th power. The truth is most people don't put to much mind to what happens to the money they pay to any business or person. Sure, one wonders and hopes that it's used for good intentions but please lets not act like we actually question every dollar. Most people react based on current events, what gets me is how those who decide to not support something act as if "Oh I can not sin" when you have been doing it all this time but never bothered to check, care or at times even wonder. Again, it's perfectly acceptable to be a sinner so long as you are naive that you are sinning. And this is why I can't complicate myself with trying to live my life by every word in the bible or anything from Gods word. Because in a world created by God (as per one's belief) where every second of the day sin is as common as air, I would drive myself nuts trying to follow it to the letter.



My point exactly. This is an exaggeration. Sure one has the right to do what one wants with ones money, but as DrGuy and Mason put it, it should be an individual thing, not a organized one.

Look, I am not trying to put down your beliefs here. I am simply pointing out how some things are taken to an extreme when its unnecessary. I just can't help getting started when hypocrisy becomes part of everything. And this problem with McD's screams hypocrisy. Rather than avoiding McD's for it's bad for your body food, it should be avoided because it's now connected to the gay community? I guess you are going to have to stop talking to me since I am tolerant to gay people and their rights as humans.

alot of the times or when I can I do.  For instance for years I ran in road races. Sometimes I ran almost every weekend in the summer.  Every road race donates their funds to some cause.  I would have to agree with the cause to run the race.  There has been times when I didn't agree with the cause and chose to skip the race.  Very rare, but I remember it happening once or twice. 

I never said anything about a requirement did I?  And I'm not outraged at all.  You're reading me all wrong LW. 

well I'm not freaking out at all.  Why would you say that I am?  I didn't eat there prior so like I said a few times here, I'm not really even boycotting because I didn't like McD's in the first place.  All I did was see this article and thought it blog worthy so I posted it.  Guess I was right on that one! 

I could't agree more. 

and that's all it is. Individuals make up a group.  It's a bunch of individuals coming together and saying, "did you know that part of our money is going to support homosexual marriage?"  I'm an individual, not an organization.  A church is made up of individuals.  Without the individuals there would be no chuch.  The AFA is only alerting us, as individuals, to the issue.  We can choose to boycott or not, as individuals. 

now this is ridiculous speak.......what don't you understand Charles?  I am tolerant of homosexuals and rights as humans as well.  What I'm against is the changing of our constitution saying that a man and a man constitutes a marriage and I won't support that endeavor. 

 

 

But how can you be tolerant of homosexuals and their rights as humans while wanting to prevent them from being human? I agree, I too do not like the idea of changing the Constitution. But they have rights, rights not considered when it was written.

My argument is simple and LW made it even easier to understand, if you gonna be picky about something, you gotta be picky about everything. Otherwise it's pointless in a way.

Ha, ha, ha. Charles, you're just being stubborn. Like always.

a man marrying a man makes them human? Huh? Aren't they already human?



Then you do support the changing of our constitution? You can't say I don't like it but.....

It wasn't considered because it's sinful. Our Nation when it was founded was so predominantly Christian that the culture evidenced what is called a "Christian consensus" and the idea of a man marrying a man would never have crossed their minds.

Come on KFC. Do I really have to?



Hmm, just because I don't like something doesn't mean I will stand in its way. I said I don't like the idea, but I also believe they have rights, as people. And considering this is a Democracy, I can only voice my opinion and accept the choice made thru the democratic process. The point is I take things into consideration. I don't simply stamp something as bad just because my faith dictates it. Just look at those children that died because their parents faithfully believed prayer would cure them so they refused to seek medical treatment. I don't know about you but I find it hard to believe God would have wanted it that way.



So because they never considered it they should be excluded? I am gonna pull out from this argument. This will lead to nowhere, as usual. This is not a debate, this is a one sided argument with a wall. I can see how Erathoniel comes to you defense.

No they do not. The rights spelled out in the constitution apply to all men and women. They have been restricted by laws, and in some cases the courts have decided they infringe upon those rights. But they do not have rights that were not considered when it was written. The constitution is a limitation of government, not an enabling document for citizens.