The F*ck You Sandwich

Just when I think humanity couldn’t possibly disappoint me yet again, we have the F*ck You Sandwich Day.  Nothing says family values like eating fast food F*ck You Sandwiches.

I get really tired of people talking about morality as being exclusive to Christians.  Not that I think I have any kind of claim to it.  But I had a big old argument with a friend (who is Catholic, strangely enough) about priests who risked their own lives during World War II to do the right thing.  He ended up making me admit that yes, sometimes people do good things because of their faith.  Which anybody who knows me would realize I did not like one bit.

So I’d like to ask all of you Christians out there, when you’re mounting a show of your family values.  Could you please not do it by eating F*ck You Sandwiches and enriching a corporation whose charitable foundation funds some decidedly untasty entities?  I mean, couldn’t you have donated the money to feed hungry children or something?  And while you’re at it, I’d sure like it if you got all up in the face of fornicators and adulterers and the like.  Thanks.

8 thoughts on “The F*ck You Sandwich

  1. Personally, I prefer to call them “Cluck You” sandwiches — but you hit the nail on the head as far as that while steaming pile of idiocy goes. :-)

    One of the (few) things that helps keep me from abandoning all hope for those who follow the Cross is the fact that I have one Jewish “honorary uncle” who is alive only because a Catholic family took him in as one of their own because it was the right thing to do, at extreme personal risk, when the country of his birth was overrun by Hitler’s hordes in 1940. Humans are strange, strange creatures — we’re capable of simultaneous acts of horrific evil and almost supernatural good. It’s hard sometimes, but I always keep that (and a few other personal examples) in mind… helps on the really dark days.

    But yeah, I’d like to know if anyone who stood in line for those stinkin’ sandwiches gave at least the same amount of time & money to helping those in need… [sigh].

  2. I think you’re shooting the wrong target here. Companies will always be staffed by people who have different opinions and even unsavory ones. That said, the ‘eat to show support’ and ‘kiss in to show disapproval’ are both in bad taste and show that quite a few Americans simply don’t understand how to have civil discussion.

  3. Personally, I’m not interested in having civil discussion with someone who thinks my human rights are up for debate. Civility has its place, but it tends to favour the status quo because it’s all about being polite, not shaking things up, not stepping on people’s toes. When the status quo tramples over minority rights, a focus on civility can distract from justice. Discrimination is discrimination even if you dress it up in respectful discourse, polite language and the cloak of tradition. Sometimes we need the freedom to step on the majority’s toes, to sting them out of their familiar comfort zone, to wake them up and show them what their apathy is costing us.

  4. But Winterwind, marriage is not a human right and while you may view SSM as a civil right, others do not. What you call discrimination, they call extra rights. Thus the need for a civil discussion on the nature of rights and the validity of SSM rights.

  5. ChazIng, I understand where you’re coming from, but I have a limited amount of time on this Earth, and I’m not going to waste it on the kind of people you describe. Others have more patience; good for them.

    Would these people call it asking for extra rights if an interracial couple wanted to be married? And if so, how offensive would that be? Would you expect an interracial couple to have a polite, civil discussion with every ignorant racist, patiently explaining that consenting adults shouldn’t need the approval of bigots to make a commitment to each other? That is too much to ask of people.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does list the right to marry as a human right (Article 16):

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Note that it prohibits discrimination based on race, nationality or religion, but not sex. I only mention this because the US and other Western nations are signatories to the UDHR, and the idea of marriage as a human right was never controversial until gay people started asking for it!

    Personally I don’t care whether someone calls it a human right or a civil right. I think the language of rights is sometimes limiting because “rights” are an arbitrary construct, and at the end of the day what matters is whether an injustice is occurring, not the terminology we use to describe it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s