The New Yorker approaches topics like a shallow teenager: Slap a disparaging word onto a popular topic and bingo! You have journalism.
Among the long, hallowed list of people, places and things the magazine has found “creepy,” the publication’s latest target is – surprise! – the Christianity of the Chik-fil-A franchise. Blogger Dan Piepenbring found the franchise’s “pervasive Christian traditionalism” with its statue of “Jesus washing a disciple’s feet” and its policy to close on Sundays just too much.
Then again, The New Yorker has called many things “creepy.” From Miley Cyrus’ return to sobriety to IKEA’s aesthetic to children’s books (and don’t forget the Ultimate Creep, Donald Trump). But for a place to be considered creepy because of its endorsement of Christianity lacks humor. Though Piepenbring did his best, declaring “NO MOR” to the “infiltration.”
Angered, no doubt, by the “ersatz homespun ambiance of a megachurch,” Piepenbring accused the restaurant of having an ulterior motive: proselytism and “glorifying God.” Rather than just understanding that the free market exists and that there is in fact a niche for enthusiastic Christians who want to sell chicken sandwiches, the writer took the same, stale path that the rest of the media has been parroting since 2012: Chick-Fil-A is “anti-LGBTQ” and full of “bigotry.”
In his slightly offensive, albeit amusing, metaphor comparing Chik-fil-A to a megachurch, the cows apparently are “the ultimate evangelists.” But that’s not what confuses Piepenbring the most. He wonders why New York City is content to have a restaurant chain that “does not quite belong here.” Even though Mayor Bill de Blasio tried to prevent the franchise from opening in the city, there wasn’t much “controversy” when it actually did open its doors. As for the “suburban piety” displayed by the owners? It’s “distasteful.”
“New Yorkers are under no obligation to repeat what the [cows] say. Enough, we can tell them,” Piepenbring concludes.
How edgy.
