When I think about the future of higher education I don’t normally think about hand-breaded chicken-breast sandwiches, but I can make an exception. Chick-fil-A is a fast-food company that operates primarily in the Southern states and has a devoted following of millions of ornithovores. The company, which is privately owned by its 89-year-old founder, S. Truett Cathy, and run by his two sons, has a handful of other distinctions. It stays closed on Sundays. Its official mission includes a commitment “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us.” And the Cathy family has contributed money, partly through the Winshape Foundation, to various Christian and pro-family causes.
Because of Chick-fil-A’s support for pro-family causes, it has recently run afoul of some gay bloggers who have called for a boycott of the restaurant chain. And as The New York Times reports, “Students at some universities have also begun trying to get the chain removed from campuses.” Indiana University at South Bend and Florida Gulf Coast University are mentioned in a Huffington Post article about the controversy as places where student groups are attempting to get the restaurant removed from campus. (Huffington Post initially reported that the Indiana University campus had banned the restaurant. The University issued a denial, but the situation seems rather murky at this point.)
Students, of course, are well within their rights to criticize the company and to circulate petitions, and Chik-fil-A is well within its rights to support pro-family causes even as it pursues business opportunities on college and university campuses. As it happens, Chick-fil-A appears to have pre-emptively backed away from its previous practice. In a statement issued over the weekend, the CEO declared, “we will not champion any political agendas on marriage and family.” I don’t see a free-speech issue emerging in this controversy. But I do see another instance of aggressive intolerance in higher education towards those who uphold traditional social values.
So far as I can tell, no one has accused Chick-fil-A of discriminating against gays and lesbians in its employment practices or its customer service. The incident that sparked the boycott campaign was a Pennsylvania Chick-fil-A restaurant’s provision of sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar put on by the Pennsylvania Family Institute—a group that opposes gay marriage and has been characterized by activists as anti-gay. The seminar in Harrisburg is “The Art of Marriage: Getting to the Heart of God’s Design.” Presumably Chick-fil-A contributes to other groups that hold similar views. Does that really provide a sound reason to those who favor gay marriage to drive Chick-fil-A off campus?
I think not. The campaign is unwise because it seeks to punish and stigmatize those with whom the protesters disagree. The ideal of the campus as a place where people debate their differences by means of rational arguments and well-vetted evidence has been on a downward trajectory for decades. Kicking Chick-fil-A off campus is a reductio ad absurdum of the now-common tactic of roaring at your supposed opponents. The company, after all, isn’t busy on campus promoting an anti-gay marriage agenda. It’s just selling chicken sandwiches.
Protests like the one aimed at Chick-fil-A are partly or even mostly attempts to exhibit the power of the protesters. That aim has nothing to do with winning the argument—is gay marriage a good social policy or a mistaken one?—and everything to do with controlling the narrative. Only those who agree with the protesters are granted a legitimate voice hereafter. Roar loud enough and you may intimidate the target, but that’s of less importance than pumping up excitement among followers and creating a secondary wave of self-censorship among others who correctly surmise that it is dangerous to disagree.
Organized bullying has become almost a settled feature of American college life. It draws much of its sense of legitimacy from professors who extol victim-group self-empowerment and who offer valorous stories from past protests to gin up enthusiasm for turning disagreements into grievances and grievances into demands. The moral capital of the Civil Rights struggle and the Women’s Movement is spent again and again in ever-more trivial protests: this one against a vendor of chicken sandwiches. Collective action targeted against people and institutions that cannot easily defend themselves is a tactic honed to perfection by the campus left. It works all too often.
Higher education, however, is ill-served by this spirit of censorship. If we want students to learn the principles and arts of governing our republic, for starters they will need to learn the importance of living alongside those who hold views that clash with their own. The campaign against Chick-fil-A also illustrates the tendency of higher education to lose itself in symbolic causes at two or three removes from reality. Attacking Chick-fil-A for the religious beliefs of its owners makes about as much practical sense as banning trays from the cafeteria to save the world from global warming. Higher education ought to teach students to recognize the difference between effective social advocacy and make-believe. These campaigns erase that distinction.
Higher education has recently seen some strenuous efforts to elevate “civic education” to a key concern of the undergraduate curriculum. The Association of American Colleges and Universities last fall issued a “national action plan for civic learning,” and the Lumina Foundation last week presented “civic education” as one of its five benchmarks for all of higher education. Should we consider the campaign against Chick-fil-A as an illustration of this new spirit of campus civic-mindedness? It looks rather like no-holds-barred political activism. I wonder whether higher education is losing its ability to tell the difference.
Perhaps I should add that I’ve never eaten in a Chick-fil-A restaurant, and I’ve never been a beneficiary of Chick-fil-A, the Winshape Foundation, or the Cathy family’s philanthropy. The National Association of Scholars takes no stand on gay marriage, but we oppose bigotry, including its anti-gay and anti-Christian forms.
35 Responses to Is Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay?
whitakal - January 31, 2011 at 8:19 pm
As an institution that remains closed on Sundays, promotes entrepreneurship instead of crony capitalism, and advocates for Christian virtues, it seems to me that Chick-fil-A adds considerable diversity to most campuses. I can see a new ad campaign targetted at colleges: from the famous “Eat Mor Chikin” to the more high-brow “Diversity with Every Bite.”
chuckkle - January 31, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Some students are calling for a boycott of a chain restaurant on campus and using their free speech to complain about the company’s connections to anti-gay organizations. Isn’t this the well established tactic of the consumer boycott?
Not for Peter Wood apparently, who sounds the alarm about “aggressive intolerance” and “organized bullying” and “spirit of censorship” “against people and institutions that cannot easily defend themselves.” Really? Does Wood condemn any and all consumer boycotts? Because it seems that this is just pretty run-of-the-mill stuff.
And we are to believe that a large franchise fast food restaurant chain can’t “easily defend itself”? Hello, Peter Wood, how much money do you think Chick-fil-A can spend on PR and advertising? How much do you think a bunch of gay bloggers can spend? Chick-fil-A already has a professionally produced statement on Facebook.
Peter Wood overkill rhetoric sounds like Chicken LIttle, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
Chuck Kleinhans
richopp - February 1, 2011 at 7:45 am
No, Chuck, what he wrote was that simply because a company contributes to various causes does not mean that it champion’s those causes.
Since the statement from the company seems to have been taken by you as non-existent, one would assume that you tolerate no explanations for anyone’s behavior. Given that fact, we take no notice of your silly rant against a writer who looked at a situation and gave a factual report. His opinions, on the other hand, are clearly fair game, but like a lawyer who does not have the facts on their side, you prosecute the writer for his opinions instead of sticking to the facts of the so-called controversy.
It is quite clear that the company has NO agenda where gays are concerned. I would suggest directing your efforts to more obvious offenders, such as television preachers who gather in billions of dollars from deluded viewers under the guise of “ridding the world of homosexuals,” while they are simultaneously, and legally in some cases, gay Americans. One would assume that there is much more to be gained by exposing this type of hypocrisy than there is in looking for a fight where one does not exist.
Finally, my personal belief is that, as irrational as it sounds on the surface, ANYONE who is radically anti-gay is, in fact, gay. Respond to that.
rbeachy - February 1, 2011 at 8:24 am
It’s either naive or disingenuous to use the expression “pro-family” without quotation marks. It’s a euphemism, pure and simple, for anti-gay. Perhaps the owners of Chik-fil-A don’t understand that, but if so, a boycott might help. Second, Wood’s claim that “Chik-fil-A is well within its rights to support pro-family causes even as it pursues business opportunities on college and university campuses” is ridiculous. Would he make the same claim for segregationists or supporters of the white citizen councils who — no less than Chik-fiil-A — justified their bigotry based on sincerely held religious beliefs? I doubt it. “Pro-family” Christianists can no longer shield themselves with claims about scripture or religion. This is a question of civil rights. Do LGBT folks deserve them or not?
mjk5862 - February 1, 2011 at 9:19 am
I think the real question is whether Chik-fil-A chickens themselves are anti-gay.
bobcat99 - February 1, 2011 at 9:28 am
I agree with most of what this writer has to say, though I bit my lip over this:
“Collective action targeted against people and institutions that cannot easily defend themselves is a tactic honed to perfection by the campus left. It works all too often.”
The campus LEFT? Are you kidding? Since when did the left wingers corner the market on intimidation tactics? And when did American corporations become so defenseless? There is no organized left in the U.S. The left has only interest group politics to offer. Let these students go at it. Corporatism will devour them soon enough. Should this chain be banned from campuses? No. But it is difficult to hear the cultural and religious right continually whine about their victimhood in a country that is overwhelmingly Christian conservative and economically conservative with a Creationist bent. Campus interest group poitics is not going to change that.
mpowley - February 1, 2011 at 9:34 am
“Finally, my personal belief is that, as irrational as it sounds on the surface, ANYONE who is radically anti-gay is, in fact, gay. Respond to that.”
There might seem to be merit to that statement. As Shakespeare noted: “Me thinks M’lady doth protest too much.”
However, by this logic, the rabid anti-Nazis would really be closet Nazis, the rabid supporters of democracy are really closet totlitarians and the rabid supporters of tolerance and free expression are really …. oh dear!!
quidditas - February 1, 2011 at 10:22 am
“And the Cathy family has contributed money, partly through the Winshape Foundation, to various Christian and pro-family causes.”
Oh no, not the forced marriage people.
Now that they’ve bought off Congress and captured the Supreme Court, consumer boycotts are one of the few public actions that corporations might understand.
Certainly it is true that kids are more likely to get fired up about some causes than others.
Personally, if I were banning anyone from campus, I would ban Citibank. I would also get Robert Rubin kicked off the Board at Harvard, sending him his protege Larry Summers packing for good. All in the name of undermining the idea that you can repeatedly fail upwards, an idea that should be anathema to august educational institutions like Harvard as well as to conservative scholars everywhere.
No, I think I’ll keep the boycotts. Not everyone can be “reasoned with.”
12037978 - February 1, 2011 at 10:33 am
Businesses that step into politics shouldn’t whine when they get a political reaction.
richopp - February 1, 2011 at 10:34 am
@mpowley,
Of course my statement was a non-starter and a complete fallacy by design. The point, clearly, was that people’s opinions are many times diametrically opposed to the facts of any given situation. I would choose as a beginning postulate that large companies like Chick-fil-a are bit busy running their stores and have little time for such divisive social causes. The fact that the owner and founder has ALWAYS stated that he is a person of faith who closes on Sunday and supports so-called “religious” causes in no way implies that he is anti-gay. The clear and concise statement from corporate management says everything I need to hear on this matter.
People who choose not to believe it because it is tainted by religion may have a point, but they have not convinced me that the company is anti-gay and actively promotes an agenda that proves that.
I realize that Mr. Cathy is from an earlier generation when people were actually permitted to state their point of view and debate it civilly, and Mr. Cathy himself may, in fact, be a person who is “against” homosexuality, whatever that means. I go to Chick-fil-a to eat a sandwich, not engage in either religious or political causes. The fact that Chick-fil-a sent food upon request to a meeting only means to me that they saw it as an opportunity to advertise. They sell food, not religion, based on my many visits to their establishments.
I do agree that phrases such as “pro-family” have been usurped by certain elements of our political and religious citizens as code words for hating everyone who does not look exactly like them, heaven forbid, as I have SEEN some of these sad, sad excuses for people. However, marketing is marketing. If the Boy Scouts asked for free food, would campus organizations protest that Chick-fil-a hates women because they did not give equal food to the Girl Scouts? Maybe the Girl Scouts don’t like fried foods. Naturally you see the primary fallacy in this argument.
Find some corporate literature or overt printed data or recorded material of Mr. Cathy or his executives stating that they are anti-gay or speaking at an anti-gay rally or demonstratively behaving in an anti-gay manner in their hiring practices, for example, and we have the material for a discussion.
Without that, the single weak thread that this entire discussion is based on–they donated a few sandwiches once to a church group–is pushing the case a bit further than logic dictates.
People with agendas, right, left, middle, whatever, can certainly look for and find trespasses pretty much anywhere in society today. I did not see Americans rally around those who thought our former VP was a little too connected to big oil to be credible regarding the wars, and the profits announced by the oil companies in the past 8 years prove that there was certainly material gain to be had from war. Maybe an illegal war that has drained our treasury, made billionaires from expats like Eric Prince, who is clearly a certifiable mental case, and the death of many of our young solders would be a better area to focus on than a few chicken sandwiches, but that’s only my personal opinion.
sharonwood - February 1, 2011 at 10:49 am
Here’s a reason to kick Chick-Fil-A off campus: the food is disgusting and unhealthy.
lesliemb - February 1, 2011 at 12:58 pm
If a university has made a public commitment to LGBT civil rights, and if that campus has also taken a pledge to support sustainable local foodways (as has mine, where a Chick-Fil-A recently opened), then the campus community has every right to ask why the university concessions folks have chosen Chick-Fil-A as a campus vendor.
haohtt - February 1, 2011 at 2:03 pm
If “pro-family” has been usurped or co-opted by a certain segment of the population to mean something different than its original broad meaning (i.e. “anti-gay”), it certain has a lot of company. Other “usurped” terms in this category include “progressive,” “pro-life,” “tolerant,” “choice,” “gay,” “affair” and the list goes on and on. Students have the right to protest what they want and schools have a right to conduct their business.
11312609 - February 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Dear Lesliemb: Of course members of your campus community have that right. It was never in question. Having the right to do something, however, doesn’t necessarily make the doing wise.
Peter Wood
11182967 - February 1, 2011 at 2:46 pm
We can settle this: Does Chick-fil-A serve Milk?
richopp - February 1, 2011 at 4:04 pm
@11182967,
According to the menu items liated on the following website:
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/#menu
Chick-fil-a sells BOTH “Milk” and “Chocolate Milk” along with the usual suspects one typically finds at such establishments.
Methinks this throws a whole ‘nother spanner into the works, here. What say you?
11182967 - February 1, 2011 at 4:40 pm
richopp: I can’t tell from you comments whether you got the joke or not. Am I missing a subtle joke of yours?
mpowley - February 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm
@richopp
Exactly and well said. There is no respect for opposition anymore. The hue and cry of the recently converted, self-righteous mob rules no matter which way the pendulum swings and innuendo counts for more than fact.
llevitt1 - February 1, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Let’s take it a step further: Peter Wood clearkly hasn’y a clue as to the seriousness of anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-same-sex marriage that is abroad in this country. The ACLU’s recent statement of its 2011 program takes on so many of the issues in this sphere, the fasct of the need to take steps at every level short of violence to oppose bigots like those who own the company in question. It is heartening to see students involved in this activism, and Peter wood is either in the camp of the bigots or needs to do his homework.
llevitt1 - February 1, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Sorry for the typos; but I think the message is understandable nonetheless.
jffoster - February 1, 2011 at 9:41 pm
llevitti1, is anybody wwho doesn’t agree with you a “bigot”? Or just on this issue?
llevitt1 - February 1, 2011 at 9:51 pm
The activities and financial outlays of the owners of the company speak for themselves. You are right, I should not have used so strong a word; but a lot of experience leads me almost instinctively to such a judgment. Their societal role is anti-egalitarian and anti-freedom, hence merits the students’ actions against them.
chuckkle - February 2, 2011 at 2:57 am
Several comments here seem to miss the fact that corporate food donation is not neutral. In the instigating event, a franchise owner or manager chose to cater a partisan event for free. It wasn’t a meeting of the American Cancer Society or a donation to a homeless shelter. When corporate sponsors do this it is considered a business expense under “good will” and advertising (all the sandwiches have a Chick-fil-A branded wrapper and napkins) and accounted for tax purposes (federal, state, and local) that may apply.
BTW, for those who’d like to boycott Chick-fil-A but still hunger for the food, McDonald’s offers an excellent clone, the Southern Style Chicken Sandwich, and most of their stores in the South and mid-South do serve Sweet Tea. And, they’re open on Sunday.
Chuck Kleinhans
virginiamom - February 2, 2011 at 8:34 am
Has it occurred to the college students who organize boycotts, rallies, protests, etc. against corporations every time they perceive some social injustice against some group or other that one day they will graduate and need jobs?
As a small (very) business owner, I have become wary of hiring anyone under the age of 30 precisely because of the self-righteous activism of the college crowd. I simply cannot risk a lawsuit, boycott, strike, protest or whatever from this crop of self-centered, spoiled, me-first, Facebook Generation gang overrunning college campuses these days.
One marvels that any entrepreneur or corporate investor would bother with America anymore. All it takes is one “misstep” — such as donating food to some church meeting — and everything you’ve worked for is placed at risk.
My advice to college kids (my own children included) is that they choose their battles wisely. Get the facts from someplace other than the Huff Po or the NY Times. Follow the money. Ask tough questions. And, once in a while, mind your own business.
Hats off to you, Mr. Wood.
butteredtoastcat - February 2, 2011 at 9:22 am
If Chick-Fil-A were giving money to the KKK, this article would never have been written.
Certain kinds of discrimination are still allowed, and that includes discrimination against gays. I have no doubt that Peter Wood would actually be coming out in favor of “organized bullying” if S. Truett Cathy’s dollars were being spent at cross burnings or being donated to white supremacist groups.
Double standard, pure and simple.
robcrowe - February 2, 2011 at 1:43 pm
If activists truly were after all entities on campus that promote marriage (as opposed to hate), there numerous places to go, starting with the Newman Center, Hillel, and Intervarsity. This is why the NAS is not a respectable body, because instead of the big picture, it whinges about a point, again and again, which simply fuels the suspicions that folks like virginiamom already have.
hopeintl1 - February 2, 2011 at 2:15 pm
I am bemused, at best, that the author does not appreciate the irony of the following:
“That aim has nothing to do with winning the argument—is gay marriage a good social policy or a mistaken one?—and everything to do with controlling the narrative.”
So does that mean we can extend the argument to asking if interracial marriage is a good social policy or a mistaken one? If ensuring civil rights for all regardless of race is a good social policy or a mistaken one? The way the author has framed the narrative tells us all we need to know. Social policy covers how we decide who gets health care or who gets college funding, not who gets basic civil rights. Religion has no role to play in the issue, and religious folks who enter into the political realm attempting to promote their religious values at the cost of the rights of others will, inevitably, face social scorn.
javier75 - February 2, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I am sick and tired of the militant homosexual movement attempting to hijack the civil rights movement. As a Latino who has been in the front lines promoting civil rights for Latinos, I am disgusted by this attempt. While I cannot chose the color of my skin, a homosexual, just like a heterosexual can chose whom they sleep with!
I am also tired of the militant pro-homosexual movement, made up of way too many professors, who constantly cry over supposed discrimination against gays, but have ZERO problem discriminating against religious individuals.
Amazing how professors love to preach tolerance and open-mindness, but do not put it into practice. If we do not conform to the ideals preached at our very liberal universities you will pay a price.
Hopeintl1 is the perfect example of those who believe that if you do not conform to their radical homosexual ideas, you will pay a price. Your threat, hopeintl1, is what this article is all about. Why do professors believe that secularists, humanist have more of a voice than religious people? Why do professors cry over discrimination, but they have zero problem discriminating?
I have quite a few friends who are homosexual and the vast majority of them despise the militant homosexual movement which is hateful, intolerant, closed minded. A movement that will vilify and destroy anyone who dares oppose their radical homosexual agenda.
I am also tired of the militant homosexuals attempting to hijack subjects like bullying. They want to claim that bullying only happens to gays. PLEASE! I have seen professors bully Christians, Atheist, heterosexuals just because the student dared to question the professors Liberal agenda in the classroom. I have seen public schools which have a large homosexual population bully individuals who do not align and comform to the homosexual agenda. Bullying is NOT only something that happens to gays, it happens to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. The bullying is something that can and is done by individuals who are homosexuals or heterosexuals.
javier75 - February 2, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Virginiamom,
Well said! Today’s kids, 15 to 30 year olds, are spoiled brats who believe that the worlds owes them. I also do everything within my power to not higher anyone that is below 30. I have been burnt too many times by today’s youth. They have no work ethic, they don’t accept being scolded for being late to work, for doing a poor job. They boil everything down to the simplistic believe, which was taught to them by simple minded professors, that it is all about discrimination and social justice.
We are facing a poorly informed, indoctrinated, can’t think, me-first, spoiled 15 to 30 year olds who do not know the meaning of working hard for what they want. A bunch of amoral kids who have been easily manipulated and brainwashed by radical Left wing professors who have zero problem lying in the classroom just and using cheap emotionalism to push their radical Left wing agenda.
It is not by coincidence that a study just came out showing college kids are graduating without acquiring the skill of critical thinking.
Don’t believe me? Ask a young person who voted for Obama why he/she voted for Obama. 90% of them will say because of “Hope and Change”. Ask them what this means and they can’t articulate thorough and well thought out answer. Ask these same individuals what Obama did before launching his bid for presidency and 90% of them do not know. We have an ignorant, poorly informed, undereducated youth. Professors take advantage of this and teach lies to our kids in colleges and brainwash them.
We are dealing with a generation of college kids who are more worried about what brand of beer they are going to drink and who they are going to use for their sexual pleasure that evening than how they can live a moral life and how they can help their fellow human being.
My kids stand up to radical professors. They are well learned individuals who do not allow the lies of professors to go unchallenged. Teach your kids to be well informed, to get their information from EVERYWHERE, not just the places that agree with their beliefs. Teach them not to be intimidated by professors who use their standing at a university to silence those who disagree with them.
Just remember, we currently have a culture, in the world of college professors, who applaud murderers and horrific individuals like William Ayers.
tolerance, closed minded, hate is what too many liberal professors advocate against anyone who doesn’t stand with today’s radical Left.
chrisbrkich - February 7, 2011 at 1:22 pm
@javier75,
I’d like to quote a handful of passages from your post and take issue with them.
1. “It is not by coincidence that a study just came out showing college kids are graduating without acquiring the skill of critical thinking.”
While you may argue that this is the result of brainwashing “by radical Left wing professors who have zero problem lying in the classroom”, as a former secondary school history teacher and current instructor at a well-recognised Research One university, I would argue contrarily that much of this begins earlier. Take a look at the textbook industry – and the recent butchery of history in the Texas social studies standards – and I would argue point-for-point that the radical right (borrowing your “radical” label) lies either outright or by omission to promote conservative social and political values in the schools.
I contest that you merely object to college students being provided a challenging view of social issues – a view which is based in ample research and evidence – because you disagree with it politically.
2. “Don’t believe me? Ask a young person who voted for Obama why he/she voted for Obama. 90% of them will say because of “Hope and Change”. Ask them what this means and they can’t articulate thorough and well thought out answer.”
While I’m confident you pulled this statistic out of thin air, I venture that many would have difficulty explaining McCain’s “Country First”.
3. “My kids stand up to radical professors. They are well learned individuals who do not allow the lies of professors to go unchallenged. Teach your kids to be well informed, to get their information from EVERYWHERE, not just the places that agree with their beliefs. Teach them not to be intimidated by professors who use their standing at a university to silence those who disagree with them.”
I would hope you would teach your kids to stand up to professors with whom they disagree, and to get their information from multiple sources.
I teach using a number of progressive authors’ works in my class, including Joel Spring, Frances Kendall, and Derald Wing Sue. Additionally, I encourage my students – many of whom self-identify as conservatives socially, fiscally, and politically – to challenge both my interpretations of history as well as the texts’ interpretations of history. And, I receive these challenges in a respectful and open manner.
However, as an academic, I have a responsibility to ensure that my students’ challenges meet levels of academic rigour. I will give a student who disagrees with me an “A+” on a paper if that student’s paper demonstrates quality academic work – sourced research, a logically consistent argument, meets the rules of grammar and orthography, and is well-structured. However, if I give a student who disagrees with me an “F” on a paper, you can be damned sure that this student failed NOT because s/he disagreed with me, but because the work fails to meet standards of academic quality. And a student who claims I failed his/her paper because I disagree with him/her, rather than because the paper is a piece of garbage, is crying wolf.
4. “Just remember, we currently have a culture, in the world of college professors, who applaud murderers and horrific individuals like William Ayers.”
While I note that Ayers’ past actions are legally reprehensible, you cannot use this as a smokescreen to draw attention away from the unjust suspension of citizens’ civil rights by the FBI, done in the name of “national security”.
5. “tolerance, closed minded, hate is what too many liberal professors advocate against anyone who doesn’t stand with today’s radical Left.”
I’m of the opinion that your rhetoric here is a little ridiculous, but you’re entitled to it. I would argue contrarily that too many conservative pundits argue anyone who doesn’t stand with today’s radical Right are terrorist sympathisers and hate America – an equally ridiculous claim.