The assertion that “I am Christian therefore you can be confident that I am honest” does not imply “They are not Christian, therefore, they are not honest.” Rather, it implies, “They are not Christian, therefore they are an unknown quantity.”
In order to know what the declaration really means, you need to actually ask the person making the declaration. I am sure that some Christians want to imply that non-Christians are not honest, but that is neither the intention of every Christian with a similar ad nor does one conclusion or the other necessarily result from the statement.
That said, I have known Christian business people on both sides of the fence. I have known crooks who used their membership in a Christian church as a lure to entice victims to become their prey. I have also known Christian business people who (naively, in my view) simply felt that they should let people know where they stood, who actually believed that since they were honest and that since they derived their ethics and morality and sense of fairness from their faith, that they should let people know that. There are a lot of views and personalities in the world and the mere presence of a religious declaration on an ad or a logo rarely indicates the motivations of the authors.
There is a family restaurant near my town that serves good food at fair prices and provides excellent service. I have never had the owner or any server smack me in the face with religious aphorisms or witnessing. So it is a bit jarring, to me, to encounter little scraps of Scripture and short sayings I associate with Fundamentalist Christianity on the entrance or mingled among the other artwork along the walls. It just seems out of place. However, since the food is delicious and the service great and the religiosity stops at small signs scattered around, I have no problem patronizing the restaurant. I have no idea what the owner’s politics might be. There are no religious-based condemnations of (or support for) abortion, homosexuality, evolutionary theory, or any number of political issues associated with religious views. It appears to me that the owner is simply a person whose own spirituality infuses his life and has overflowed into the small restaurant on which he has placed the stamp of so much of his personality. (The decorations are a mixture of film and sport memorabilia–and I know he has an interest in each–and drawings made by kids at the school where he has volunteered, intermixed with the tiny religious sayings.)
Der Trihs You have a excellent understanding on the false teachings of supposed followers of Jesus.
And this is the part that I think God is going to flip in your life, the gospels are the tools to expose the false teachings you have stated above. If you read and understand the gospels along with the letters you will be able to distinguish between and counter the false teachings and the true followers of Jesus, which is a small minority of Christians.
You already know the lies, and I’m pretty sure that God has plans that include exposing those lies and bringing people back to the truth.
For the record, I also would be happy to eat at this restaurant. The religious message is disconnected from the business, and doesn’t seem to be aimed at the public or calculated in any way; it’s merely an expression of personal identity, period. As such, I wouldn’t consider it suspect according to my “what’s the intent?” sniff test detailed in a previous post, and I’d cheerfully eat there without any complaint or ill thoughts.
It doesn’t imply that others are not honest, but it does imply that the advertiser is a bit more honest (or ethical or moral) than they are. If you are constructing an ad, you have purely informational content, and you have content that says why the reader should patronize your business. Since I’m assuming that no one cares if the person is Christian (unlike an ad for a kosher butcher where religion might be relevant) there must be some competitive advantages assumed in adding the fish. When an ad says the products are a great value, it implies that they are a better value than others. Ditto quality, Honesty for Honest John the used car salesman, etc. It could also mean that the advertiser is saying he’s in the club, and invites other club members to use him instead of the heathen. In this case, we non-club members can choose to not visit. In the first case, we can see the ad ties Christianity to a number of virtues above other religions, reject this, and still choose not to patronize the business.
While you never make the claim, plenty of people to claim that religious people, and Christians in particular, are more ethical than others. Why else the claim that America is a Christian nation?
BTW, I suppose the strategy works or else they wouldn’t keep doing it.
No. It only claims that a potential customer has a better assurance of honesty than with a vendor or service provider who makes no similar claim. It does not claim that the competitors are less honest, only that the customer can feel more comfortable by choosing the advertiser who makes public the reasons for their “honesty.”.
Well, the “Christian nation” bit is a call to chauvinism and tribal pride mixed with some good old fashioned xenophobia that the “other” is necessarily “bad.” The insular nature of many groups in U.S. society produces a lot of people who truly do not understand entire groups of other people whom they have never met and about whom they learn from oddly skewed sources. This tends to generate fear and a retreat to the security of the tribe.
However, I have already noted that there are Christians who really believe that only Christians can be really, really honest (along with noting that there are charlatans who are more than willing to prey on that odd belief). My only point is that the views of people who choose to exhibit their faith in their commercial advertising are liable to have a whole range of motivations. They may, indeed, be crooks preying on the gullible. They may be latent theocrats hoping to impose their personal theologies on on society, at large. However, they may also be people who simply have an abiding faith they are prompted to share with the world.
I am not arguing that anyone should support a company displaying religious toned advertising, regardless of the intent of the advertiser. If it offends, choose another vendor. My only point is that it is an error to presume that they are all crooks or theocrats.
I think the Christian nation claim is an attempt to counter separation of church and state claims. You don’t have to justify religious interference if you can claim that the religious interference was intended and expected.
ETA: Oh, and when someone says, “You’re discriminating against Jainists!” the Christians can then turn around and say, “But it’s a Christian nation, after all.”
I’m not getting how that assurance can be disconnected from the implicit claim that Christians are more honest. If I see a diploma on my doctor’s wall, I’m assured that he is competent to treat me, and in fact more competent than a “doctor” with no diploma.
I don’t recall anyone claiming that, even those with bad experiences. That we should be suspicious of them I did see. I suspect the club aspect is what makes most of them put the fish in the ad - they hope to draw from churchgoer.
I think there is some “God on our side” stuff happening also. Jesus is real, we’re Christian, so Jesus loves us and protects us - unlike those heathen Spaniards.
I agree it does not follow in a strictly logical sense, but in my view it does follow in a “non-verbal message plus societal context” sense.
I don’t consider this an unreasonable conclusion, even though in my view it might be more applicable to theoretical logic than to the realities of human communication. But even if I do accept it, I’d say that it is a statement that is nearly as if not exactly as insulting as the other interpretation.
But that’s not how communication in the context of promoting a commercial enterprise works. The merchant fashions his message and the public interprets. There’s no going back to the merchant to double-check the intent.
I’m not sure how to explain it better or why you are having trouble seeing the difference.
One more try. The (hypothetically good) Christian advertiser knows that some percentage of competitors are equally honest and has no desire to denigrate them. However, the customers do not know which of the competitors are honest and which are not. By hanging out the “Christian” shingle, the Christain vendor intends to indicate that in his place, honesty is a top quality while in other places the same quality may be there or may not be there. There is no claim that no one else is (as) honest, only that the customer can rely upon his honesty.
It is still an advertising gimmick, but it is directed against the odds of there being someone less honest, somewhere, not a claim that the Christians have a monopoly on honesty.
However, I am not claiming that anyone should do such an examination–or even care. I simply note that when there are multiple reasons why a specific action has been taken, while one is freee to make one’s own decisions how to respond, personally, making a generalization that assigns motivation in this specific Forum is an error.
The gospels are lies and myths, just as the “false teachings” are. There are no true teachings, it’s all “false teachings”. There’s no God, no rational reason to believe in one, the Bible is a collection of nastiness and craziness, and Jesus is just a dead preacher who started an especially nasty religion. And the Gospels are just tools to spread the madness and evil that is Christianity.
I agree. That’s certainly the pattern I see. When someone uses the phrase “Christian nation” it’s generally associated with either a demand for some religious rule to be imposed, an excuse for intolerance towards another religion, or a demand for special Christian priviliges.
If making a statement in advertising is intended to help a potential customer solve the “who is honest?” dilemma, then the merchant could choose to say “I’m honest.” That statement bears the same problem, from the point of view of the viewer, because you can’t know that it’s true. He says he’s a Christian, but I don’t know whether it’s true. He says he’s honest, but I don’t know whether it’s true.
By using “Christian” as a substitute for “honest,” the merchant is laying on an additional level of uncertainty. “I don’t know whether it’s true he’s a Christian” plus “I don’t know whether his understanding of ‘Christian’ is the same as mine.” plus “Does either of our understandings of ‘Christian’ sufficiently coincide in order for the statement to be helpful in any way?”
The explanation you give is telling us, as viewers, to ignore all these questions and simply pretend that “Christian” is means nothing more nor less than “honest,” which does imply that “not Christian” means “not honest.”
Overt displays of religion wouldn’t deter me, any more then overt displays of athiesm would deter me. It’s their store they can put whatever they want on their walls.
If a store has something I want, and the store doesn’t look “shady” I’m in.
I dont know why you insisit so much on insulting peoples beliefs when nobody in here insulted you. And even if they did insult you, why drop to their level? I’m not sure what Christianity ever did to you, but damn, let it go already.
Among a certain number of people in the U.S., the identification as “Christian” indicates all that is good in the world. Beyond that, there is a certain level of tribal “I’m one of us” mentality that permeates various groups–particularly, in my experience, among certain Fundamentalist Christians. An awful lot of those people really believe that they are pretty much “who people are” with a few outliers among the Episcopalians and the odd Catholic who might not be too put off by a mention of Christianity. I will note that in areas where there are many Catholics, I periodically see advertisers making note of that, as well, particularly in parish bulletins or diocesan newpapers. They also strike me as very much tribal, (“I’m like you”), rather than employing a claim of moral superiority.
My only specific point in this thread has been that a claim that “I’m Christian” is not necessarily equivalent to “everyone else cheats.”
There are Christian advertisers for whom “I’m Christian” does mean “I am the only who does not cheat.”
There are Christian advertisers for whom “I’m Christian” simply means “You can trust me: you might also be able to trust a lot of other people, but you can trust me.”
There are Christian advertisers for whom “I’m Christian” very likely means “I’ve just sharpened my knife and I will say anything I can to get you to come in and let me skin you.”
Having known all three varieties of merchant, I merely note that if one picks any single analysis of the advertising claim “I’m Christian” as the one that the merchant intended, one has a reasonable expectation of having judged wrongly.
Wow. In Houston? That’s a lot of Chinese and Indian food. I would have thought Sacred Hearts would be more common.
It’s slightly off topic, but as a Buddhist, the thing I find odd is the way that statues of the Buddha are used as decorative accents by non-buddhists. Our local home decor place (Winners) has virtually no Christian icongraphy, and tons of statues of Buddha. There are maybe half a dozen buddhist families in this town, at most, and about a hundred thousand Christians.
Only a couple indian and chinese restaurants, and their statues haven’t changed in years.
Once again, no one said that the fish is a claim that Christians have a monopoly on honesty.
I agree that in some cases an advertiser wants to say that he is honest and ethical. There are many ways of doing this, from enrolling in BBB or similar independent rating agencies, to just saying they are honest and ethical, and hope that bringing it up shows confidence.
But the advertisers in question aren’t doing that - they’re using the fish symbol. Say the average honesty of the rest of the retail population is X. Their claim, clearly, is that their honesty is Y > X. What’s the evidence? They’re Christian. (There is no other evidence given.) Thus, the claim is that Christians have greater than average honesty. (And the doubters here read that as Y < X, but surely isn’t what the advertiser means!)
There could be a subtext that all Christians have honesty Y, so non-Christians are lower, or that only Christians who use the fish have honesty Y, which doesn’t say anything about other Christians who don’t. But it is clear that the fish is a symbol for greater than average honesty.
And yes, it is a kind of assurance of honesty in a loose sense. Perhaps they think that they’ll be honest because if they aren’t they’ll go to hell. The reason they think Christians are more honest is immaterial.
BTW, this doesn’t even prove that they think some subset of competitors, say Zen Buddhist storekeepers, are more honest - it just talks about the average.
I think that taking this into the realm of statistics, even to this limited extent, is still making more of this that we need to.
Yeah, the merchant is definitely associating ethics and Christianity. However, I do not think the thought process gets anywhere near “so some percent of my competitors must be dishonest.” It would certainly be a hard case to make in a small rural town where everyone is presumed to be Christian, perhaps correctly. I don’t see it as a claim that “Someone out there is trying to steal from you,” but simply, “I won’t steal from you.”
As for the BBB and similar assurances of ethics, they do not satisfy the need for the tribal association, which, I suspect, is at least as important as the claim for personal honesty.
I doubt that we’re going to get much further on this line of discussion.
Good enough. I’m happy now, and I agree, as I did before, that the tribal association probably is the most important thing the vendor is consciously thinking of. And I totally agree BBB approval doesn’t satisfy that need.
