The fact that this line of reasoning has become so complicated is evidence that the Christian-good ethics connection (regardless of the merchant’s intent) is not the most reasonable interpretation of this non-verbal message from the point of view of the non-Christian consumer.
And that’s why I’m saying that inquiring into the merchant’s “true intent” is of limited value. The societal/cultural context is what counts. And in that context the basic message (to a non-Christian) is “I’m Christian and you’re not and I’m going out of my way to make an issue of this. And because it’s in the advertising for my business, I am emphasizing that potential customers should pay attention to this message and take some action based on it.” It is thus reasonable for us non-Christians to interpret that as a hostile message.
The most obvious and natural conclusions for the non-Christian consumer for “making an issue” of this in business advertising are:
“I prefer (or give preferential treatment to) Christian customers.”
“Christian business are better than non-Christian businesses, because Christians (I) are better than non-Christians (you).”
“You should become a Christian.”
To non-Christians, these are hostile messages.
Additionally, by putting the message in the context of advertising, the merchange is saying “Potential customers should pay attention to this message and decide whether to patronize this business based on it.”
I’m not convinced that this isn’t really the main reason for the Christian symbols in ads and such. Here in Chicago you don’t see too much of that, but of course there are a lot of Catholics here, and you do see “St. Ed’s parishioner” in the Church bulletin ads. I always though of it as more of a “support a fellow parishoner” kind of thing than a “they’re Catholic, so I know the business is on the up-and-up” kind of thing.
Of course, there are certain businessess where it is relevant, such as funeral homes, where it would make sense to let the customer know relgious affiliation.
Personally, other than the above situations, I think using religious symbols as advertising is pretty tacky.
I’m much less likely to patronize any business that uses religion in it’s advertising, and 100% guaranteed to not patronize them if they then throw in a political message I disagree with, but you know what? I appreciate the heads up. It makes it easier for me to avoid giving my money to people who may well pass it along to causes I don’t support. What’s not to like?
What “most reasonable” interpretation? The fact that we can invent lots of different reasons for the action–some of which we can even substantiate with direct testimony in our own experience–indicates that there is no single reason, and that claims for “the” reason or “the most reasonable” reason are little more than wild speculation.
Possibly. I find that people often discover hostility where they seek it. A merchant who made a point of emphasizing some other tribal identity is not, necessarily, expressing hostility, even if you choose to perceive it. I do business with a lot of places that make a serious effort to play up their association with local professional sport teams. They are surely not appealing for my business, since I am uninterested in professional sports and I find the hoopla surrounding cheering for the “home team” to be off-putting, but I do not choose to perceive their rampant fandom as hostile–their marketing is simply targetting an audience of which I am not a member.
(You have also changed the termsof the discussion with this point. Your initial assertion was that a claim of Christian membership was a claim that non-Christians lacked honesty. Now you are simply asserting that Christian flag waving (or cross waving) creates a hostile environment for you–a point to which I would not object.)
I do not find any of your first three conclusions to be the “most natural.” Mind you, I recognize that every one of them has been the message, implicit or explicit, of some merchants on some occasions. I simply do not see a reason to assume that any of them are the intent of any given merchant without further evidence and will assert that the first two reasons are the furthest thing from the mind of any cross waving merchant whom I know, personally.
Regardless of their reasoning, of course, their message may very well create an atmosphere that you find hostile. I have no criticism for anyone who does pay attention to the message and chooses to decline to patronize the merchant based on that atmosphere.
Emphasizing support for (and implied superiority of) a particular religion has implications and vibes that supporting a sports team never could. For example, we don’t have a tradition of separation of state and sports (though it might not be a bad idea, given the money poured into supporting pro franchises that may not proportionately benefit the community).
Something I didn’t mention before that bothers me about businesses promoting a particular religious identity, is the implied message that the faithful should patronize that business instead of going to the infidels down the street. It’s one reason that these promotions leave me with a slimy feeling.
Only because Columbus can’t attract a major league team and you apparently leave town when the Wolverines visit every other year.
While we do not have separation of sports and state, it is also true that most U.S. religions have moved past the stage of vandalising the opposition’s properties or starting bar fights with supporters.
Even if you don’t like the analogy, I have not disputed that a person may perceive hostility from religious advertising.
I work in a suburb that is largely Jewish, and many of the businesses have hebrew lettering or stars of David in their windows. It never has occurred to me that this is meant to be hostile to me, a non-Jew. Probably because I don’t interpret these types of things as sending any of these messages you claim should be obvious & natural.
Last time I checked we had two (NHL and pro soccer) and since their founding they have amassed just as many championships as Cleveland’s pro franchises, which is to say, zero.
I agree, none of the things talked about on this board bother me. I am not religious, but don’t mind other people expressing their religion. I have yet to be assulted by a religious person because I am not. The opinions expressed on this board are mostly “guilt by association” objections and just faultly thinking.
Modern Judaism isn’t known for it’s blanket hostility towards non-Jews. Modern Christianity is known for ( often ) being hostile towards all non Christians.
And I bet you’d feel different about that if you were a Palestinian in Israel.
A good point. Seeing Buddhist or Jewish or Hindu and etc symbols doesn’t bother me nearly as much because they simply aren’t in a position to do me much harm. Besides cheating me; or personally whacking me with a lead pipe or something, which is not typical business practice . Buddhists aren’t going to be installing a Buddhist theocracy here in America anytime soon.
I tend to agree with what you say here about modern Judaism, but of course I dispute that Christianity is OFTEN hostile towards non-Christians.
This part of your post seem to contradict the first part. Is modern Judaism known for being hostile to non-Jews, or not? If not, why would I feel different if I were a Palestinian in Israel? I think you are confused about which of your biases you want to stick with here, DT.
Just because something can seem a certain way, it doesn’t mean it is that way.
Regional politics, obviously. And as pointed out earlier, power; Jews in America aren’t in a position to do the kind of harm that they can do in Israel if they let their religious impulses run away with them.
Take a look at Gentleman’s Agreement some time. That isn’t science fiction. It’s not prevalent today since the Holocaust has made it embarrassing. If you doubt that, you should know that my great aunt had to lie about her religion to get a job - in New York City.
I don’t have poll numbers, but I do know that Father Coughlin was very popular, and that Woody Allen was making jokes about restricted clubs in the early '60s.
