After my previous post on boycotting, I have been doing more reading of others thoughts on the issue, and I must say that I have been surprised and interested by some of the objections raised. I would like to continue exploring the issue of boycotting started in my previous post by addressing some of those concerns (I already answered a couple in the comments section of my previous post so I won’t directly deal with them here). First, here is a link to an article that helps give more information on Pepsi-Cola's involvement with the homosexual agenda.
Some of the objections are as follow. I have phrased them (the objections) myself, in my own words, since not all will use the same words to describe their position...but I think I have done justice to them. :-)
-“Well, if you boycott one for supporting the homosexual agenda you should boycott them all! Boycott the world if you are going to be consistent!”
Another way of phrasing this is…”it’s not right to boycott one but not the other!” The reasonable conclusion of this logic, speaking contextually (this argument is almost exclusively used by those opposed to boycotting) is that we shouldn’t boycott anybody unless we boycott everybody, which of course they are not willing to do, so, nobody is boycotted. The message this reasoning sends is “do whatever you want; I don’t care if my money is used for things I don’t want it used for.” It’s hard to hold corporations accountable if this is the pervasive thought of the people best situated to hold them accountable.
I can’t speak for all others, but I don’t advocate boycotting everybody. I recognize that if you tried to boycott every corporation that supported a cause you disagreed with eventually it gets to the point where it is extremely difficult to sustain.
What I advocate (advocate not meaning that I feel called to lead the charge) is deliberate, concentrated boycotts. By getting large numbers of people on the same page to face down corporations one at a time you stand a good chance to successfully execute a boycott and send a message to other companies, causing some to discontinue support for a cause that could make them the object of a boycott and cause others to not begin support. This approach seems very reasonable and stands a good chance of succeeding. But then, it’s already had success! Ask Wal-Mart and McDonald’s.
The radical homosexual movement is tremendously aided by corporate contributions to their cause. With their support, homosexual activists are able to apply immense pressure to federal lawmakers on Capitol Hill (and to state politicians) cementing their interests most significantly in the government controlled school curriculums and programs; they are able to run extensive grass roots campaigns that are often less than honest but successful in cementing what was begun in the public school system; they are able to silence the opposition with political pressure, and stable and overpowering resources.
Christians have been dismayed and cowed by their efforts, to their great detriment. It’s time they demonstrated their ability to shape the culture too, no longer allowing their opposition to make hay virtually unopposed. Their opposition’s revenue stream is a key element to contest. Force corporations to cut their funding for homosexual activists, and you deal the homosexual movement a significant blow. If nothing else, it helps even the field more.
The world will never be perfect. There will always be evil in it and no one person can fight everything. But that doesn’t mean we should just roll over and let it reign uncontested. We should fight what we can, when we can, how we can. That’s what I advocate.
-”It’s impracticable for me.”
Everybody’s circumstances are different, but with as many different competing companies as there are I am hard pressed to imagine that there is only one option for anything. If I decide to boycott Wal-Mart then I have seven or eight other stores I can go to for the products I would normally buy at W-M. If I decide to boycott Pepsi Cola then I can drink Dr. Pepper (not always easy to find up north – shockingly), Coca-Cola, Root Beer, or some other soft drink. If I decide not to drink Gatorade because they’re part of the Pepsi-Cola conglomerate that shouldn't be a problem either. Last time I checked there were about three other products that were basically the same as Gatorade, one of which actually tasted better and didn’t leave me feeling thirsty.
Boycott Ford? No problem! I can buy Dodge, Chevy, Toyota or Nissan. Between the four of them I shouldn’t have a problem finding a truck to meet my needs. Boycott Starbucks? They just finished a Root’s coffee shop in Rockwall that I hear is good, Sonic is now carrying an excellent Java chiller (four different flavors), McDonald’s has pretty good coffees (so I am told), and I make most of my own coffee anyway (it’s cheaper when all is said and done and made from excellent, organic, environmentally friendly, freshly roasted coffee beans).
There are PLENTY of alternatives for virtually everything! The fact that there are alternatives not only makes it easier to boycott, but it should make us less hesitant to do so.
-“It’s useless.”
As mentioned in my previous post dealing with the same issue…when you boycott one company, assuming you still need products that they carried, you will then start shopping at their competitors. This means that A), the boycotted company will have less money, and B), their competitors have more money. This double whammy puts them at a disadvantage and that disadvantage is made all the more severe in troubled economic times like what we are experiencing. Besides, it’s not useless unless it doesn’t work, and it has worked! The successful boycotts of Wal-Mart and McDonalds make this objection the easiest to rebut.
-”It shouldn’t be such a big deal! It makes Christians look bad and unloving. It’s forcing our religious views on others!”
While I can’t speak for everybody, I don’t advocate boycotting everybody who supports something I disagree with, particularly when it comes to spiritual matters. Quite frankly, if the only issue at stake in the homosexual movement was state recognition of gay marriages then I would be MUCH less willing to boycott a company for supporting that agenda (I won’t go into the details of why…suffice it to say that I believe marriage is under the jurisdiction of God and the Church, not the government, and I would prefer that government didn’t involve itself in defining marriage). The single biggest reason I oppose the homosexual agenda is that it seeks to suppress constitutional rights guaranteed all Americans. A key component of most gay advocacy groups is more stringent “hate crimes” and “anti-discrimination” laws.
Hate crime laws basically, to the best of my understanding, add extra penalty for committing a crime out of hate. Hate, as a motive, usually is and would more so under the guidance of homosexual activists, be proved circumstantially, not factually, because it usually can’t be proven factually. Hate crime laws of the sort proposed by homosexual activists (per my understanding of where they wish to ultimately advance their agenda) stand to undermine the most basic concept of just punishment, sacrificing it to a specific agenda. That should not only alarm Christians; it should alarm all who believe in constitutionally protected justice for all.
“Anti-discrimination” laws such as those put forward by radical homosexual activist groups (like PFLAG) discriminate against those who don’t agree with the people or groups pushing the laws in question. In the guise of fairness, anti-discrimination laws would make mandatory hiring quotas for companies that are based on things like gender, race, “sexual orientation,” religious beliefs, etc. Already we see these principles enacted quite commonly (hiring quota’s, affirmative action, etc.). Religious freedom would be threatened by these laws. You would no longer be able to refuse to hire people because of your religious beliefs which might, for instance, make them believe it wrong to hire homosexual employees. Their right to do so is guaranteed by our constitution, but anti-discrimination and hate crime laws would severely infringe on their rights.
In short, legalizing gay marriage is not the only issue at stake here. As I mentioned earlier, I do not view legalized gay marriage as a hill I want to die on or am willing to die on. I won’t elaborate on it now, but I support laws that would allow indirectly things like civil unions and visiting rights for gays.
I would HIGHLY recommend that everybody viewing this post check out this very insightful post from Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Con blog. I don’t necessarily agree with every point made, but the point of the post is important and it contains some good stats.
Back to the issue…there is a much more serious threat to ALL Americans posed by the radical homosexual agenda. It seeks to undermine the very foundation of religious liberty and freedom in the US, and that is not something only Christians should be worried about. Everybody should understand that such a deadly weapon could easily be turned on them. Muslims should fear it. Mormons should fear it. Humanists should fear it, and the list goes on. This is not an issue only “radical” evangelical fundamentalists should worry about. Once such powers of discrimination and oppression are given to the government, there is nothing to keep the government from using those powers against you!
In closing, I respect the views of those who disagree with me on this issue. But, I think that many are being less than charitable towards organizations like AFA because of their boycott and often less than reasonable in evaluating the reasons-for-and-implications-of opposing the radical homosexual agenda.
There are more questions that could be addressed here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that anybody reading this post is quite satisfied with its length. :-)
God bless and veritas supra omnis!
Posts
