Today a copy of John Perkins’ 1976 autobiography, Let Justice Roll Down, arrived in my mail box as a gift from a friend. I looked for this book as a part of my research into John MacArthur’s claim that he and Perkins traveled to Memphis on the night Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. I reported the results of my research and my interview with John Perkins’ daughter in a prior post.
In this book, Perkins mentions the support he received from John MacArthur’s father but doesn’t mention anything about going with John MacArthur to Memphis on the night of MLK’s death. I think that would be a story I would include if it had happened to me.
Social Justice
What is striking about this book is Perkins’ commitment to social justice. I say it is striking because Perkins has declined to speak on the record about the MacArthur story, choosing instead to allow his daughter to speak for him. Deborah Perkins has supported the story of Charles Evers who said he didn’t go to Memphis with MacArthur and Perkins that night.
Why is it striking to me? John MacArthur has gone on record as criticizing the social justice movement in the evangelical church. He promotes a critical statement on social justice which seems to cast doubt on much of what John Perkins has worked for.
As I read Perkins book, I came across these words:
The contribution of the civil rights movement to the black man’s struggle for justice and equality is one that is undeniably great. And this is so, because those who led the movement were committed men and women. They were committed to the cause. And to the struggle.
But how sad that so few individuals equally committed to Jesus Christ ever became part of that movement. For what all that political activity needed — and lacked — was spiritual input. Even now, I do not understand why so many evangelicals find a sense of commitment to civil rights and to Jesus Christ an “either-or” proposition. (p. 99).
Perhaps, Rev. Perkins should ask his friend John MacArthur why so many evangelicals can’t walk the gospel and chew social justice gum at the same time. Or maybe John Perkins could help MacArthur understand his point of view.
Later in the book, Perkins wrote about the ostracism his children experienced in the all white schools of Mendenhall, MS. No Christian leaders, parents, or students spoke up to support them. He wrote:
I had to just watch. It hurt. The question kept popping up inside me: Does the gospel — that is, the gospel as we presently preach it — have within itself the power to deal with racial attitudes? The thing that hit me was that the supposed presence of the gospel was simply not effective in terms of human relations. If evangelism is truly on the side of God and His love, then it should never allow itself to look like it’s on the side of a bigot-producing system. (p. 108).
I know which side I want to be on. To be fair, I believe most people want to be on the right side. However, I invite anti-social justice warriors to ask themselves why Perkins’ question is just as relevant in 2019 as it was in 1976.
Pulpit and Pen website, Beginning of Sorrows.org site, post some great articles on MacArthur. Just Google: Scandal, Negative Feedback, Controversial Articles, Abused By, on him and name of church. Google if he is a Mason/Masonic; Luciferian and or satanic AND if funded by. Research how much money he made each year in Ministry, what owns, worth, property, Camps, Ranches, Houses, Vehicles, Boats, Planes, Vacations Homes, how many Bank Accounts, Businesses acquired with the people’s money? Did he build Shelters, Help the Homeless, how much money did he help poor, fatherless, widow, orphan, single parent/their children and just helping people in General and how much money went to Missions in entirety? How many times has he gone through the Bible completely through in teaching and is PRAYER a focal point or PREYING on the people to build his empire? Go back and get all messages and hear how much time God, Jesus, Holy Spirit talked about, Bible etc., Do you even know what he owns, worth and ALL above would apply to any Ministry, Pastor, Church? Why are you robbing your families of your time and money to build someone’s smarmy B.S. empire, regime and dynasty? Where does God get any money? Do you EVEN KNOW who founded and funded MacArthur and any and all Ministries?
Unrelated to MacArthur’s Master’s University scandal, and on the subject of Falwell Jr.’s Liberty University scandal..
See Brandon Ambrosino’s Politico article, just published today:
“‘Someone’s Gotta Tell the Freakin’ Truth’: Jerry Falwell’s Aides Break Their Silence”
More than two dozen current and former Liberty University officials describe a culture of fear and self-dealing at the largest Christian college in the world.
Thank you for sharing. John MacArthur, who was recently forced to step down from leadership at the higher education institution he founded, is in no position to lecture others about “social justice,” something his 1963 MA degree taught him nothing about.
John MacArthur is no more qualified to discuss social justice as he is plant cell biology. The self-serving White Patriarchy of John MacArthur and his followers won’t age well in the history books. Thankful for Dr. Throckmorton’s coverage.
For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
— Matthew 25:24–30, New English Translation
That pretty much sums up the attitude of much of modern Christianity towards “Social Justice”.
Blessed are the Rich, Cursed are the Poor, and they can go to Hell. Literally. “God’s words, not mine”.
That last is a dead giveaway. Their conscience tells them that this is somehow wrong, so they need an excuse for it. Whenever I hear those words, I find it really, really difficult to keep on acting Charitably towards them, as my own personal code calls on me to do. And am reminded once more of my own imperfections, for my instinctive reaction is to think of the words of the Mikado;
” Yes. Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. Something of that sort. I think boiling oil occurs in it, but I’m not sure. I know it’s something humorous, but lingering, with either boiling oil or melted lead. Come, come, don’t fret — I’m not a bit angry.”
Except I am of course. Angry. Very. Wrath – one of the 7 deadly sins. Sigh.
The best therapy for me in that situation is to go practice a random act of kindness to someone in need. My atheism makes that easier.
My favorite rocket scientist! When I read that evangelical leaders consider social justice (“race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality”) values to be “deadly”, “dangerous” and “corrupted”, I too have to practice the random acts thing to clear the rage in my own head. Since there are now 11,463 Signers, I see a lot of randomness in my future and probably yours.
“Social Justice” is a pretty flexible term that means many things to different people. I think it suffers from the same problem as “feminism”, which is why a majority of American women do not identify themselves as feminists. It’s not because women do not support women. It’s because they don’t want anything to do with the extreme looney leftist baggage that gets attached to it. I would be very interested in hearing Perkins’ take. I need to read this book.
No, it’s not that, it’s because anything that’s not about preserving white heterosexual male privilege is considered to be ‘extreme looney [sic] leftist baggage.’
(My spelling is acceptable.) If that belief is what is required for you to explain away widespread resistance to your ideology, then that is fine. You are good. Others are bad.
Maybe it’s because no matter what the subject is, you always find a way to tell us how much you hate feminism and the left, and how they are really to blame for everything, even the racism of 60s white evangelicals.
When have I ever said that I hate feminism? I’m certain I have said I despise the extreme left, but not simply the left, as I am squarely on the left on a number of issues. I can’t stand the extreme right, either.
Those labels are largely irrelevant and simply fascist propaganda to oppress the American people.
On a blog that covers right wing evangelical misbehavior, virtually all of your posts are about the left being terrible. This site is exactly where someone who dislikes the actions of the far right would be safe to discuss it, especially from a conservative perspective, yet you simply can’t find it in yourself to do so.
It’s safe to say you can and do stand the extreme right. You do it every day and every post where you redirect discussion about bad actions by the far right into a discussion of your perception of the ‘far left’.
You know the saying about the person sitting at a table with 10 Nazis?
^^^See above reply.
I have found you at times willing to self-evaluate and debate fairly. However, you do seem to only pop in and argue when either railing against something to the left or defending something to the right. This is simply an observation, not an indictment. I do agree with Reflex that this would be the perfect forum in which to discuss the negative actions of the extreme right from a conservative point of view. I don’t remember you doing so, only the rare “I don’t agree with them either” type remark which seems to serve as a way of establishing balance.
I enjoy a rational debate about the different perspectives of liberal/progressive vs conservative views. I don’t as much care for left wing vs right wing. The problem with this point in history is that the latter is further away from conservative thought than ever before. Many who post here defending right wing issues just recite a list of talking points in various fashions, rather than express any understanding of traditional conservative values, which is disappointing. Then again, these times are disappointing on so many levels.
Honestly, I don’t rail against the extreme right because I have had no direct encounters with it since 1986 when I was expelled from Pensacola Christian College after less than a semester of being myself. I encountered the extreme left at Kent State, which I and every normie I knew at that school regarded as an idiosyncrasy of campus insularity, unphased by reality. Ten years of living in Chicago cemented my disdain for a certain brand of entrenched Democrat leadership. I’m sure if I had to do a 10 year stint in Idaho, I could have come out of it despising red politics. But today, I lean right on a majority of issues, even if I believe the Republican Party is despicable and useless. I am praying for a third party for people with more mainstream, less combative views.
1) The topic of these articles is the misbehavior of the far right and especially the evangelical far right. If you have not had experience with the far right then your replies are inappropriate as they misdirect from the topic of the threads and the discussion people are having that is on topic. If you are in a social setting and people are talking about the Pittsburgh Pirates, it’s not appropriate to join the discussion and keep making comments about how much the Steelers suck, and reply to all comments about the Pirates with a comment about the Steelers.
2) Responding to discussions about the far right by talking about the far left is a form of “whataboutism”, defined as “the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue” and is a form of trolling perfected by small children to avoid difficult discussions about their behavior. It does not belong in adult conversation.
3) If you have not had encounters with the far right at this point it is because you are avoiding it. I’ve been to three protests in the past three months at which members of the far right engaged in displays of white supremacy, extreme homophobic behavior, brandishing of military grade firearms, Nazism and symbolism, extremist street preaching, screaming at small children and general hate. One of these was at a library during a children’s story hour. Another was at a normal community festival held every year in my hometown. If you aren’t seeing it, you aren’t looking or you are actively avoiding it.
4) If you really know nothing about the far right and have no encounters about it, the polite thing to do in a discussion on it is to either read passively or ask questions, not interject random comments about your perceived political enemies that have nothing to do with the discussion. Ask people what they are seeing, how their communities are being affected, and set politics aside to determine why people are upset. Perhaps follow up by exploring it yourself.
Finally, a few months ago you disputed the notion that there is a pipeline from people like Ben Shapiro to the far right. At the time I held back from pointing out something, but I’m going to point it out now: You have been an example of this. Your language and terms, the positions you take, have become markedly more extreme over time. Even in this post you used the term ‘normies’, a term I’ve never heard you use before and one that is currently mostly used by the Red Pill/Blue Pill alt-right crowd to describe people who do not believe their misogynistic and racist views. A lot of other language and views you have stated since the election of Trump have become more extreme, I remember you as someone who discussed more honestly without trolling, and who was more respectful of other viewpoints in the past.
Believe it or not, I care about you. I have defended you on Twitter, and I have not treated you like obvious trolls such as LT here. I am concerned about the direction you seem to be going, and it has nothing to do with whether you are right or left, but instead whether your mind is being subverted to justify an increasingly hateful agenda. None of us are immune to this, not you, not me, not Warren, and friends need to be on guard against each other falling prey to these tactics and not tie it to whether or not we agree politically or religiously.
I wish you well.
I can assure you that I am not anything close to alt-right, and by alt-right I mean anything white nationalist, Christian nationalist, Christian fundamentalist, white supremacist, identitarian, anti-immigrant, or homophobic. I consider my views open to challenge, but I necessarily believe that my views are as correct as I can possibly make them, otherwise I would not hold them. My comments represent my honest reaction to what Warren has written, and he can ban me anytime he likes. Until then, fire away. But I promise, if I am drifting in any direction, it is left.
Nobody is suggesting a ban. I am asking that you respond to the topic rather than do a whataboutism on the left.
And I get that is your perception of where you are going, but I’m telling you as an outside observer I see something different. I could be wrong, but as someone who has interacted with you for years, it’s what I see.
I try to live my life for God/Jesus.
What is a hateful agenda?
It is necessary for all of all of us to be informed about issues and events, even if we are not exposed to them in a personal way. The kind of demonstrations Reflex mentions do not (yet) occur in the area I live in, but I am educating myself about them because they are so heinous and important to understand. One can’t let lack of personal experience place blinders on one’s perception of reality. Doing so could also be “regarded as an idiosyncrasy of [partisan] insularity, unphased by reality.”
I would like to point out one other thing. You used a well established epithet in your term “Democrat leadership.” The proper term is “Democratic leadership.” This is an insult wielded almost exclusively by the right wing, and more towards the extreme right wing. It is grating to many exactly because of it’s intended meaning. You may have meant it that way, or you may have picked it up from what you have been reading – only you would know.
Referring to your recent exchange with Reflex over what you consider to be “loony,” your example shows a peaceful protest using signs. His shows one using assault rifles and other firearms. For the vast majority of these, one side uses words, the other uses bullets. Perhaps you should consider railing against the other side just a bit. It would display the kind of honesty I had come to expect from you, and appreciate.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
My apologies that my use of “Democrat” was taken as an insult. I just view the term “democratic” as being specifically descriptive of a type of process, not a party, but I will keep that in mind in the future.
Regarding the photo as an example of the “looney left”, I shared that as an example of those who are preoccupied with things that are far outside the mainstream. Chick-fil-A is the fastest growing food chain in the United States because their sandwiches are good. If someone does not like what Chick-fil-A is about, they can just stop going. As I stated elsewhere, I do not buy Nike products any longer because they are promoting an individual who I find objectionable as a role model, and I just want a pair of shoes with no controversial political statement attached to them. I vote with my dollars. If I filmed myself burning my old Nikes on the sidewalk while wearing a shirt that said “Blue Lives Matter” and then put it on YouTube, I would probably put that behavior in the looney right camp.
Understood. Perhaps remember it like this. The Democratic Party is the name, just as The Republican Party is their name. It is Democratic leadership for leaders in the Democratic Party, or democratic leadership for general democratic style leadership. Just as it is Republican leadership, not Republic leadership. Since this epithet has gained use over the past few decades, it will save you unintended bad faith to remember that.
I’m not sure I really understand the rest of this. Chick-fil-A is a successful company, Nike is a successful company. You boycott Nike presumably because they employ a sports figure who knelt at a football game to protest police shootings of unarmed black men. I can’t think of a more peaceful, even respectful, protest or a more deserving issue. But either way, that boycott has received promotion from right wing figures from Ted Cruz to the Trump campaign and every pundit in between. Even if not, the man is on Nike advertising.
In the case of Chick-fil-A, these facts are not exactly promoted by the company. Someone had to find this out and then explain it in ways the general public understands. Ex-gay issues still aren’t widely understood. These protests are sometimes necessary to get the media to report on important, yet perhaps not “sexy” stories. This is largely the point of any protest. To do it peacefully seems the perfect expression of this.
I think Reflex’s point is sound. You do tend to jump in and comment negatively on left-leaning issues while remaining either silent or positive on right-leaning ones. Again, this is not an indictment but an observation. If you don’t like it, change it. If it doesn’t bother you, then own it. Just don’t pretend it isn’t so.
My issue with Kaepernick is not that he knelt during the anthem, although I’m not sure he reached as many people as he offended by choosing that manner of protesting. My problem with him is that he is dork, equating voting with supporting oppression, perpetuating a slur against cops with his stupid socks, and celebrating Che Guevara. Nike is free to hire him for marketing purposes, and I am free to buy Adidas.
You respond to a two sentence side note but not the rest of the comment? Why you are boycotting Nike is not really the point. I only mentioned it because I originally thought it was due to their use of sweatshops, but your subsequent comments made me realize it was probably something else. I had forgotten that the right wing kerfuffle over Kaepernick had targeted Nike.
You are repeating the pattern here, the one that started my replies. You seem incapable of addressing any bad behavior by right wing entities without diverting to the supposed bad behavior of the left, which is off topic.
Understood. Perhaps remember it like this. The Democratic Party is the name, just as The Republican Party is their name. It is Democratic leadership for leaders in the Democratic Party, or democratic leadership for general democratic style leadership. Just as it is Republican leadership, not Republic leadership. Since this epithet has gained use over the past few decades, it will save you unintended bad faith to remember that.
I’m not sure I really understand the rest of this. Chick-fil-A is a successful company, Nike is a successful company. You boycott Nike presumably because they employ a sports figure who knelt at a football game to protest police shootings of unarmed black men. I can’t think of a more peaceful, even respectful, protest or a more deserving issue. But either way, that boycott has received promotion from right wing figures from Ted Cruz to the Trump campaign and every pundit in between. Even if not, the man is on Nike advertising.
In the case of Chick-fil-A, these facts are not exactly promoted by the company. Someone had to find this out and then explain it in ways the general public understands. Ex-gay issues still aren’t widely understood. These protests are sometimes necessary to get the media to report on important, yet perhaps not “sexy” stories. This is largely the point of any protest. To do it peacefully seems the perfect expression of this.
I think Reflex’s point is sound. You do tend to jump in and comment negatively on left-leaning issues while remaining either silent or positive on right-leaning ones. Again, this is not an indictment but an observation. If you don’t like it, change it. If it doesn’t bother you, then own it. Just don’t pretend it isn’t so.
No, it’s not that, it’s because anything that’s not about preserving white heterosexual male privilege is considered to be ‘extreme looney [sic] leftist baggage.’
I agree that “social justice” is too broad a term. Racial/cultural inclusion might be a better term for what Perkins was looking for. I have been with him twice for conferences, and I have always been blessed by his perspective on the white evangelical church. I go to a church that I thought was fairly racially inclusive until the immigration crisis became intense last year. I found out that we have members that feel we as a country are being invaded, that white men are an endangered species, and that we all need to on our guard (all through Facebook posts). My church is very involved with the Hispanic community with a thriving Spanish-speaking congregation and an ESL program that serves several different cultural groups (I’m very busy with both of those). I was saddened, and I pray that those who appear opposed to racial/cultural inclusion will come to understand that besides being the current reality, it is what God demands of His Church. I really respect my church leadership for continuing to reach out to our ever-changing community.
Social justice is broad but it does for sure include racial inclusion. Even if we stay with that and your concerns about white nationalism, I think Perkins’ concerns are just as valid today as when he wrote his autobiography.
Have you ever asked those individuals what they see happening that alarms them, or what they are afraid will happen? Anytime I hear people respond to questions like that, it’s just nonsense. I live in a small Tennessee town with a large Hispanic population drawn by construction jobs. While there are few neighborhoods that are genuinely integrated (actually, the only truly integrated areas when I lived in Chicago were still socio-economically exclusive), It seems like most people embrace the changes. When the restaurant of a Hispanic family burned down, the town rallied to raise funds for them. All the kids go to school together without issues that I am aware of. But there isn’t the political tug of war here. You see and hear very little support for Trump.
Have you ever asked those individuals what they see happening that alarms them, or what they are afraid will happen? Anytime I hear people respond to questions like that, it’s just nonsense. I live in a small Tennessee town with a large Hispanic population drawn by construction jobs. While there are few neighborhoods that are genuinely integrated (actually, the only truly integrated areas when I lived in Chicago were still socio-economically exclusive), it seems like most people embrace the changes. When the restaurant of a Hispanic family burned down, the town rallied to raise funds for them. All the kids go to school together without issues that I am aware of. But there isn’t the political tug of war here. You see and hear very little support for Trump.
Feminists can’t help how the virulent anti-feminists malign and distort their beliefs and goals. That’s up to you to figure out.
In any case, it’s ridiculous to excuse the racism behavior of the people who participated in the ostracism of Perkin’s children as being put off by the “loony left.” There is no excuse for the type of racism that they experienced, especially for whom God was central to their lives.
That would indeed be ridiculous. Glad I didn’t say it.
“extreme looney leftist baggage”
I don’t even know what this means??
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0226b55f760275e964d4ee7df7e2c9db672fd1184fa550f789d643223d7e7c88.jpg
Why is that looney? It’s just a protest. Nobody’s getting hurt.
Point of comparison, here is what I am actually seeing in person…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/273af60a0da889afe025625b9f6320ae09335c095bc28016a96b32d4b739ebc4.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2d33dea1cf0b22ff1bc27922f5f044902d3424395332a8c6d8714d473c373c19.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b846264fcd5cffbd73aaf510e3433aba3270d15c50845fd258250c2d6e604e0d.png
(photos are mine, taken over the past couple months, and include members of the Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Atomwaffen Division and Operation Cold Front)
Also completely looney. If you have to cover your face to say what you want to say or brandish a firearm to menace people, I’m assigning that a big fat looney badge.
I’m still failing to see what is looney about the first protest. They aren’t protesting ‘chicken’, they are protesting homophobic and bigoted policies practiced and promoted by Chik-Fil-A. And they are doing so peacefully and in about the least threatening way I can imagine.
Equating that style of protest with literal Nazis brandishing weapons and skull masks is disingenuous unless your position is “all protests are always bad and all are equal to each other” which seems silly.
To be clear, I did not equate the styles of protest. I just characterized them both as outside the mainstream. There is nothing illegal or harmful about the Chick-fil-A protest, and I have zero interest in preventing it. I simply do not think they will win many allies with what they are doing. In the case of people carrying weapons and covering their faces to prevent identification, I personally would like to see some laws to prevent those things in certain circumstances. I can’t say what the Constitutional challenges might be to, say, restrict the carrying of guns, bats, chains, knives, or sticks over 6″ within 100 yards of a legally assembled protest or march, but I would like to see it.
Anyway, I have Perkins’ book on my list. Looking forward to reading it.
If you don’t equate them,why bring them up at all? The issue here isn’t so much your specific beliefs, its that in every article about the actions of the right, you bring up the left. By default that is equating them, when right now there is no equivalence.
What I was equating was the widespread resistance to the label of social justice, even though by most accounts it is a positive thing, with the widespread resistance to the label of feminism (even by a majority of women), even though by most accounts it is also a positive thing.
Roughly half of the country is conservative to some degree. If the goal is to expand a commitment to advancing social justice, then allowing extremists to hijack the label and conflate it with Marxism or any variety of extreme leftist ideologies is problematic. It has hampered feminism, which should be a no-brainer, and it will hamper social justice.
I feel you are missing the forest for the trees. The issue here is that on every topic about right wing bad behavior you somehow go off on your idea of feminists, social justice and now “Marxism” whether or not they are relevant. I do not remember the last time you brought up the left in a relevant way in a discussion, it’s literally always in a way to deflect from a discussion where the right did something bad and people are talking about it.
The discussions you want to have there, as misguided as I feel most of them are, simply aren’t discussions that are appropriate to the topics you post them in. They are “whataboutism” which is a form of thread hijacking typically used by trolls.
The next time Warren posts about feminism in some context, I’d be happy to engage with you on that in that space. A thread about evangelical misbehavior isn’t that space.
You mean a few people in costume – to draw some attention – engaging in the A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N right of PROTEST??
Why are you trashing American citizens protesting for JUSTICE???
What would you have said about John the Baptist out in some crazy garb eating God knows what?? What about Jeremiah – or any of the prophets in their seeming craziness – speaking the Word of God?????????
They can protest chicken sandwiches if they want, just like I have quit buying Nike anything after 30+ years, but I consider them the fringe.
A few dozen people??? And you are coming up with a huge fascist category term??
When did “fringe” become a “huge fascist category term?” Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of examples of fascist ideology running around our country, and the world right now. I’m just not sure using that descriptor for things like this is helpful. Doing so tends to dilute the meaning of the word and make people immune to it’s seriousness.
David – Fair question…and, frankly, I am open to an alternative word – I simply don’t want to use “right wing” as I perceive that is already diluted – and then conjures “left wing” which I perceive as a fabricated fascist category that unfortunately certain ones have so self-identified.
However, to be clear, my objection was not to “fringe”, my objection was to the descriptor “extreme looney leftist baggage” to a few people in costume engaging in very American activity…. This is a phrase that the Hannity’s et al would label about 80% of those that oppose the POS in the WH.
Ok, I misunderstood what you were referring to. I myself prefer to reserve the fascist label for something stronger, but then I haven’t watched Hannity in a looong time (thank God!).
I don’t watch him at all… he’s to radical. But then so is Don Lemon.
I watch the five and Tucker, and occasionally L. Ingram.
I’ve yet to find anyone that’s middle of the road on CNN and MSNBC.
When I do I’ll watch them.
I don’t think they are protesting chicken sandwiches, as much as they are calling attention to what Chick-Fil-A, as a corporation, funds. I happen to know a bit about their history with this and it isn’t pretty. If they are continuing to donate to the same causes as they did before, I don’t disagree with these protestor’s actions. I can’t imagine anyone in my life experience ever considering me near the “fringe” of anything.
As for Nike, good on you. I have a friend who stopped ordering from Amazon as well. I’m not sure I am that strong. These are the sorts of things, if done in widespread fashion, that companies listen to. That includes the “chicken sandwich protest” to my mind, but you are welcome to your own view obviously. I just suspect there are better examples of “left fringe” out there for which you might reserve that judgement 😉
Original article:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/chick-fil-a-lgbtq-protest_ca_5d7292afe4b07521022bb616
It’s the same thing as the ‘ Sky is falling ‘ global warming crazies.
You know them they’re on CNN, PBS,and MSNBC daily with their LIES and Propaganda to the American people.