A Tale of Two Presidents: What is Hate Speech, What is Not

A Tale of Two Presidents: What is Hate and What is Not
by, Charles W. Christian

 Recently Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A stated that he “affirms the biblical view of marriage,” and therefore does not support homosexual marriage.  He said this in the context of being asked about his Christian faith, for which he is well-known.  He is a longtime supporter of Christian non-profit causes.  Immediately many interpreted this as an attack upon the rights of others (at best) and as hate speech at worst. 

Also recently, Barack Obama, the president of the United States, stated that he did not affirm the idea that small business owners in America built their business without some help, including the help of government sponsored legislation, government regulated protections, and non-governmental help of family and friends and forerunners.  This was immediately attacked as a kind of hate speech against small business owners (at best) and as a downright attack upon entrepreneurs (at worst). 

My contention is that neither of the above mentioned men was engaged in “hate speech”, nor was either speech an attack upon any group.  Hateful attacks are so prevalent in our media driven culture today that it is easy to misquote, mischaracterize, and misinterpret public statements by any leader, especially if that leader does not agree with one’s own particular views.  In the case of the Evangelical Christian president of Chick-Fil-A, whose political leanings are toward the Right, the Left (mostly what I would call the “Far Left”) branded him as a promoter of hate.  In the case of the President of the United States, who speaks mostly from the political Left, the Right (mostly the “Far Right”) immediately branded him as an attacker of small businesses everywhere and a “hater” of those who flourish through “individual achievement.” 

Ironically, it is the attackers of these two men who have spewed the only hatred here. 

In both cases, their politics-driven attackers have misquoted and/or have mischaracterized the intentions of both men in the statements they gave.  The president of Chick-Fil-A was answering a simple question about his faith and what implications he saw in regard to his faith in the context of a current political hot button issue.  The president of the United States was speaking at a campaign rally in the context of addressing the historic reality that America’s approach to matters of business has never been thoroughly individualistic, although it has rewarded individual achievement. 

Cathy, Chick-Fil-A’s president, was correct that historically Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, have not supported the idea that marriage can be homosexual or same-gendered.  Obviously, there are Christians who believe that homosexual marriage would be acceptable, but his particular background has a history of being in opposition to such a proposal.  This is because the Church has historically viewed the term “marriage” as a theological term, even a sacrament (a “holy act” ordained by God with specific parameters, much like baptism or communion).  Therefore, it would be unthinkable to many Christians, not just Evangelicals, to change the definition of “marriage” into anything but what is observed in Scripture and in Christian liturgical tradition (a man and a woman monogamously committed).  There are Christians, even Evangelical Christians, who do not have a problem with the concept of civil unions (unions recognized by the government as contractually binding between couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual), but even many of those within this group of Christians would hesitate to give it the name “marriage,” since that is seen as a theological/biblical term.  The president of Chick-Fil-A was simply echoing this fact in his own response, and affirming that his own opinions are in agreement with those of much of traditional Christianity.  In addition, his affirmation was not done in a hateful or condemning manner, and therefore does not meet any of the qualifications of what could reasonably called “hate speech.”

President Obama’s assertion was intentionally taken out of context (“You did not build that”).  Taking someone’s words out of context in this manner is in itself a hateful act at worst and thoughtless at best.  The “you did not build that” portion of the speech, if one listens to only 30 more seconds of his address before and after that quote, is in the context of things like highways, the internet, and regulations that have historically assisted small businesses – and large ones – in the history of American enterprise.  In fact, one can find Republican assertions that echo the same sentiments best summed up in the old phrase, “We all stand on the shoulders of others.”  While this phrase was taken out of context and “spun” to be an attack on small businesses during this highly charged political season, it is actually an affirmation that has been echoed by many small business owners on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum.  Therefore, it was not “hate speech” at all, nor was it an attack on small businesses.  Rather, it was an attempt to say that even his own party, which has not historically garnered wide support by small business owners, is worthy of such support.  Now, small business owners and others may not agree that the president or his party is worthy of such support, but that does not entitle anyone to intentionally misquote the intention of another.  Ironically, those who have intentionally twisted the words and intent of the president, just like those who have intentionally twisted the words of the Chick-Fil-A president, are engaging in the type of hatred and attack that both sides of the political aisle should condemn.

Of course, in addition to those who have twisted the words of both presidents discussed above, there are plenty examples of hate speech and unfair attacks.  They come from both sides of the political aisle.  Sometimes we choose to believe these lies and distortions because they come from a side of the aisle that we are rooting for, or that we more closely identify with in our ideology.  However, as people of the Truth, we should remember that lies or lies, whether they are riding an elephant or a donkey!