RE: the “black-owned” thing: I think this is generally only done in predominately black neighborhoods where many of the businesses are NOT owned by black people. It’s a sign that the money is being “kept in the community”, and not going to those they see as exploiting the community (ie, the non-black business owners). While you can debate the ethics of this sales tactic, it probably is effective.
pkbites said:
**Also, I’d like to ask why some of you would purposely not shop at a business that was blatently christian & advertised as such.
If I avoid a store because the owner is black, and includes that fact in his ads, I’m called a racist, a bigot. If you avoid a business only because the owner is christian, and includes that fact in his ads, does this not make you a bigot? **
I think there is a slight difference here. Those who would avoid businesses that advertise themselves as “Christian-owned” are doing it, not because they are bigoted towards Christians, but because they feel attempting to use your religion to make a buck or gain a leg up on the competition is an underhanded sales technique.
[hijack] (well maybe a hijack)
Our church was looking for an architect to design an extension; the consensus was that we should definitiely employ a Christian one, so we did; about halfway through the job he got divorced and went totally off the rails (yes, this can even happen to Christians ), He wasted a great deal of our money trying to prop up his failing business. Of course, any idea of legal action against him was frowned upon, plus, as he was our ‘brother’, we hadn’t formalised any kind of contract with him, so, all in all, it was an expensive lesson.
Now, I’m not saying that what happened to us is in any way common, but since then, (for ‘earthly’ tasks at least) we’ve decided to employ people on the basis of their ability to complete the job in a satisfactory fashion, and we always make sure the contract is watertight.
[/hijack]
Anyway, what I think I’m saying is, why should, for example, a car mechanic have to advertise that he’s a Christian, to drum up custom? - is their no merit in his ability to fix your car properly? - Religious beliefs are irrelevant in mundane professions.
I find any public display of religion offensive. Since this is IMHO and not GD, I will leave it at that.
However…
I would love to hear what “they” would say if I put up a sign touting my “religion”:
“Come on down to Heembo’s ‘We think Christianity is a fairy tale for people who don’t know how to behave without the fear of eternal damnation as an incentive’ Data Processing Center! Act now and we’ll throw in these useless crucifixes at no extra charge!”
Heem “I promise not to put quotes around anything anymore” bo.
That’s hardly touting your “religion,” that’s needlessly thumbing your nose at someone else’s beliefs and of course they would find that offensive. If your sign said “Heembo’s Data Processing Center - We are an agnostic company” that’s more along the same lines as the OP is discussing and no more or less offensive than the Christian signs (but still just as pointless).
Now if they had a sign that read “Bill’s Auto Services - where we believe you’ll rot in hell for your sins unless you repent and accept Jesus as Savior”, well yeah, that’s offensive and over-the-top.
About the “black owned” thing, I find this as being just what blacks wanted to get rid of back in the Reconstruction period, “seperate but equal”. Should it matter whether or not a black guy or a white guy gets the profits? I bet you if there were “white owned” signs, a lot of blacks would find it racist. If I walk into a store and see a black guy and overhear the fact that he is the owner, I have no problem buying from him, but if I see a sign up front that says “Black owned”, then I’m out of there. Same thing if it were a “white owned” shop.
Of course you’re right. I should have seen it all miles ago, but I am blinded by my faith, and so I felt the need to let others know what I think, regardless of whether or not they care to hear it. The fact that you find it offensive is but another opinion in this mangled bowl of soup called freedom.
Implicit in stating that one owns a Christian store is the opinion that this matters to people, that it should matter to people, that it sets them apart from other non-christian businesses, and that they are (yes, they are saying this) better than their competitors.
It is analogous to the heterosexism that permeates our society. Wear a wedding ring - that’s great! Put a picture of you and your wife on your desk at work - how cute! Put a picture of your same sex partner on your desk - can’t they just keep that to themselves? Wear a wedding ring to show your love and commitment to your same sex partner - That’s not a real marriage…
So you are so right, Crunchy wunchy bunch hunchy froggy woggy, but I have stooped caring about that long ago. As long as there are people fighting to have the ten commandments posted in schools, I will be fighting to expose religion for what it is - a disease.
Crunchy:"That’s hardly touting your “religion,” that’s needlessly thumbing your nose at someone else’s beliefs and of course they would find that offensive. If your sign said “Heembo’s Data Processing Center - We are an agnostic company” that’s more along the same lines as the OP is discussing and no more or less offensive than the Christian signs (but still just as pointless). "
There are some that would respond (ok, me) by saying that specifically, Christianity inherently has conversion of others as its prime motive and is thereby thumbing its nose (albeit indirectly) at other beliefs when it is used in any way as an advertisement or in support of a commercial store. But when I see the star of David or a Buddha statue in a store window, I don’t feel in the slightest that the store has an agenda outside of simple religious display of their personal symbol. When I see a crucifix in a store sign however, I instantly get defensive and look out for impending attempts at conversion…
I went to a dinner theatre that opened a few years back (don’t panic - the dinner was in one area, the theatre in another), and encountered small, free-standing paper tripods with biblical quotes on them on all the tables.
My first reaction was, alas, rather impolite (though quite involuntary): I said to myself, “You must be joking”. As Murphy dictates, I was overheard. What followed was a lively discussion about proselytism and lost appitites.
I found out later that a church group had put forward much of the money needed to build the structure, though I don’t know if it was in exchange for said advertising, or if that was done by management.
I haven’t bothered returning, so I suppose I was offended.
If a business advertised itself as christian owned, I would make some effort to avoid it. I don’t think that makes me a bigot. It’s similar to avoiding businesses that advertise themselves as “republican owned.” I don’t support the republican agenda, thus I shouldn’t give them my money. While not all christians support the religious right’s agenda, those that advertise their business as “christian owned” probably do.
What I like to see in an ad is “locally owned.” That’s far better than bringing race or religion into it.
Stop deluding yourselves. In other words, you were offended or would be offended and will not patronize these stores as a result.
Buddhists don’t proselytize? In what alternate universe? They might not be as visible in your neck of the woods, but Buddhism is inherantly expansive. Judaism is fuzzier, with its nation/religion duality, but I’ve heard of converts.
As for me (and I’m not atheist), it depends. A little imagery is fine, maybe a quote or two. Try to convert me and I’m gone.
from my Thorndike-Barnhardt Dictionary:
offend: 1. hurt the feelings of; make angry; displease. 2. sin
Now, I guess you could say I’m displeased with what the OP describes, but I think “offend” connotes more feeling than is actually present. I’m certainly not angry, and my feelings are fine. I just steer around it, just as I would a car wreck on the freeway. Call that what you will.
I was just thinking about this the other day, after reading yet another one of those “Christian couple will clean your house” ads in the classified. I’ve always thought it stupid when people try to use their “Christian-ness” (I’ve never seen Buddhists or Hindus do this, for example) as some sort of gold star to show that their morals are better than other people’s. Mr. S and I actually met at a place owned by two brothers whose families went to church regularly, but who then proceeded to blatantly screw their employees, while being not particularly competent at their profession.
Regarding the black thing…some corporations have policies in place that mandate giving a certain percentage of their business to woman or minority owned businesses. Occationally, they are court ordered to do so (this was part of a settlement at a Fortune 500 company I worked at).
I recently had to hire a plumber. I purposely skipped the yellow page ad with the little fishy in the corner. I figured that guy was getting business from people who were impressed by the little fishy, I would choose to patronize someone else. I wasn’t offended…but if advertising you are Christian gives you a competative advantage, there should - in my non-Christian worldview - be some reward for not participating. I suspect the plumber I hired was Christian (most people are) - I don’t care.
I can’t say that I’d be offended, but I also wouldn’t go out of my way to patronize the store, either. Clearly, they are implying that they only want to serve Christians, and I wouldn’t want to offend them with my hell bound soul. I don’t harbor any ill-will towards people who would do this, but I don’t see why there would be any need to do this.
On a slightly different note, why is it that so many people on this board have difficulty pluralizing “Atheists” in a topic heading? Maybe I’m just extra sensitive to the wordbut it seems like about half of the threads devoted to atheists are un-pluralized.
I think of it as one of those “If you have to say it, it probably isn’t true,” things. A Christian of good moral character, in my opinion, wouldn’t be using his faith to futher his business, so I am immediately suspicious of the owners’ business practices.
I wouldn’t say that I’m offended in the sense that I would be offended if they did advertise, “Joe’s Dry Cleaning, Where we know that atheists will burn in Hell!” I just figure that the way they chose to advertise reflects on them. I don’t patronize any business more complicated than a diner or knick-knack shop that has bad grammar in their advertising, either. Not because I am offended by bad grammar, but because if they’re too sloppy to have someone double-check their ad copy, I wonder what else they’re being sloppy about.
All of this is colored, of course, by personal experience. I was cheated and lied to by a business that advertised itself as Christian. I’d never had done business with them in the first place if anyone else in town offered the same service. Now my policy is: Go to the next town, or do without.
I never said I found it offensive, I said people would find the statement you wrote offensive, as it was a direct attack on beliefs. Simply stating one’s religion is not an attack. Saying “I’m agnostic” and saying “We think Christianity is a fairy tale for people who don’t know how to behave without the fear of eternal damnation as an incentive” is not the same thing.
I did say the signs are pointless in any case, but you seemed to have just skipped right over that point.
**
I never argued this with you. I simply said your example wasn’t along the same lines as the OP’s example. In fact, my stance on the matter is that I want the best service or product for my money and your religion has no bearing on this. See, I’m agreeing with your POV, just not the example you gave.
**
Crunchy wunchy bunch hunchy froggy woggy? How did you know that was going to be my user name? Turns out it was too long though and I had to shorten it. BTW - what’s up with that anyway? I was being respectful in my post, showing why I thought your example was a poor one and saying at the same time that I thought the Christian signs were pointless. You’re acting childish with the name calling bit.
**
Your words, not mine. You got very defensive when I simply meant to point out that your analogy didn’t hold up (IMO). No one has called you ignorant in this thread.
So to me, this sounds like a personal pre-conceived notion you have concerning Christians. This is not entirely without merit I admit, as some Christians can be very pushy and militant in their attempts to convert and the religion doesn’t have a great track record for being as righteous as they’d like to believe. But to see the sign as nose-thumbing is one’s own interpretation. Who has ever gone in to the store and asked the owners why the sign is there as opposed to just jumping to conclusions?
(mild hijack)
For the record, Jews are not supposed to try converting anyone, ever. We’ve got a local buddhist monestary on the island here, and I’ve yet to see them advertise, either.
On the other hand, we do have many places that advert themselves as “Woman Owned and Operated”, which is a bit of a shame to see, but there we go.
Oop, let me complete that thought: it’s a shame they see the need to say so, rather than relying on quality of service/merchandise to bring and keep customers.
I think in some cases the word “christian” is used more as a synonym for “honest” than as an afirmation of faith. This is tacky and ignorant, the result of thinking that there is one religion in the world, and that everyone else is a shiftless ne’er do well. “Christian” means “memeber of the community” to these people. Truly, they are ignorant more than anything–they may never have met anyone who wasn’t a christian or an “apathetic”.
What I posted re Christianity vs Other Religions isn’t a “preconceived” notion or unfounded prejudice. It is purely and wholly a feeling I possess that results from how Christianity as a religion is practiced in my environment (being Seattle, USA and other Pacific American cities I’ve lived in). The only non-Christian proselytizing I have ever observed (and I live in a very culturally diverse neighborhood) have been an occasional polite question from Hindu or Krishna groups at the airport. Several times a month I get cold-call knocks on my door from the LDS’s or Witnesses, I pass preachers on the street corners and campuses on a daily basis who I politely refuse to talk with constantly. In my workplace, I have also had Christian coworkers (upon discovering that I’m not) politely foist bibles, scriptures, or suggestions to come and “give church a try, it’s fun”. I am also “encouraged” annually to give to company charity drives that specifically support Christian-funded organizations.
Conversely, I can walk into the local shop or store of any Eastern restaurant or knick-knack shop and even though they are saturated in shrines and religious symbols, I have never once had it even implied that they were there for proselytizing purposes. Several of my coworkers are Islamic, Hindi, as well as Jewish. Never have I had them say anything that I would remotely interpret as dissaproving of my own spiritual choices in spite of being vastly different than their own. Yet inevitably when criticism of my secularism arises, it is from a Christian.
So when I see a store front with a fish symbol or dove 'n twig in the logo, I as a natural consequence of my environment, view that advertisement as in indirect disparagement of anyone non-Christian or as yet another clanging component of the evangelical Christian white-noise that saturates the society I live in.
I am a product of the environment. I, like others that have posted, recognize this and don’t let it stew or fester into bigotry or discrimination. But it has ingrained in me a “wary avoidance” when it comes to someone possibly asking me to commercially support their evangalism through the purchase of their wares.
), He wasted a great deal of our money trying to prop up his failing business. Of course, any idea of legal action against him was frowned upon, plus, as he was our ‘brother’, we hadn’t formalised any kind of contract with him, so, all in all, it was an expensive lesson.