Yesterday, in response to the outrage from Christians, Miller asked for their logo to be removed from the ad. I would take it one step further - if you're a Miller drinker, switch brands. Call them and tell them that you'll refrain from purchasing their product until they totally withdraw their support of such hate-filled and tasteless actions with a clear anti-Christian intent.
Miller Brewing CompanyAs Conservative Thoughts points out, it is doubtful this insulting outrage will get the same level of play in the MSM as the Danish cartoons that caused rioting throughout the Muslim world. Why? Because the MSM is fully on board with the anti-Christian movement.
P.O. Box 482
Milwaukee, WI 53201
or
Miller Brewing Company
3939 W. Highland Blvd, Milwaukee, WI 53208
(414) 931-2000
call between hours are 8am-5pm
no email address to be found
This is not the first time such a thing has happened, nor will it be the last. But, as Christians, we need to stand up and say enough is enough! Don't let this stuff slip past you. Don't riot in the streets, but do take action with your dollars and voices.
There's my two cents.
6 comments:
Oh, please, you drama queen. Put the smelling salts away.
Listen. Parodying the Last Supper (the painting) has been commonplace in pop culture FOR YEARS. If you're only outraged when gays do it, then that shows where your bias is.
Here's a whole slew of parodies:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/other_last_suppers_wheres_the_outrage
I don't usually reply to my comments, but in this case I'll make an exception.
Mitchell - I looked at your link; some of those are harmless fun, some are just as vile as the San Francisco one. I think the key here is intent - while some are just capitalizing on the well-known setting, some others are clearly intent on delivering an insulting message to Christians. I'm not enraged only when gays parody The Last Supper; I'm enraged when anyone parodies it with intent to insult. Given the consistent anti-Christian words and actions by the militant homosexual lobby, I don't know how anyone could understand this advertisement to be anything but an insult. Just because it's been done for years doesn't mean it's okay to do it. My point, in fact, is precisely that - it's time to stand up and say enough is enough. This went over the line, and needs to be treated as such.
Debbie is right - Christianity is the only faith (except perhaps Judaism) that is supposed to just sit back and take every insult thrown its way. A little good-natured ribbing or spoofing is one thing; this is clearly something else, and it would never be tolerated if done to Islam or any other less politically despised religion.
But let me specifically address your point about my bias. I find it utterly reprehensible how I as a Christian am supposed to be 'tolerant' of others when others are rarely (if ever) tolerant of Christianity. I'm supposed to accept having a crucifix in a jar of urine displayed as 'art' because getting upset about it would be 'intolerant'. I'm supposed to accept that while public schools endorse athiesm, humanism, and Islam (all of which are attempting to destroy Christianity), Christian prayer is outlawed because it is 'intolerant'. I'm supposed to stand by and watch an atheist with an avowed mission to remove all traces of God from American currency, government buildings, and historical documents sue time after time because to leave these historical references to the founding of our country would be 'intolerant'. My question for you, Mitchell, is this: why is it that the vast majority of 'tolerance' displayed in this country is on the part of Christians, who are supposedly the most 'intolerant' people here?
I am enraged by this action on the part of the militant gay lobby, because this is part of a concerted, directed effort to dismantle Christianity in America. Why is it, do you think, that this same lobby is fighting to have homosexuality be legally declared a protected class of people (which would be blatantly unconstitutional, by the way), given the privilege of preventing anyone else in the country from saying or thinking anything negative about them? If you don't believe me, check out my previous blogs on the thought police. It's happening, and I will not stand by and watch it happen without a fight.
Am I a little defensive? Absolutely. Will I apologize for it? Never.
1. Different people are going to determine what's "offensive" and what's "harmless fun" in different ways. How did you make that distinction when you looked at the other parodies? You say "intent," but not one of the parodies comes with a statement of intent. When I look at the Folsom ad, I see "harmless fun."
2. Who is this "militant homosexual lobby" that you are referring to when you say they help you discern intent on the part of the Folsom St. artist who staged the photo? What connection do they have to the Folsom St. artist that you know of?
3. Do you know that the Folsom St. event is NOT a gay event? This whole thing is only tied to "gay rights" because Concerned Women for America, who sounded the alarm on this ad, DECIDED to tie it to gay rights, as they are a virulently anti-gay organization. The Folsom St. event is a BDSM event that skews about 40-percent straight/60-percent gay in their attendance. Look at the ad. There are 11 men and 3 women, and the women are posed with men and not with each other (i.e. the demographic make-up of the ad mirrors the festival itself). So why is it that this is coming down to a gays-against-Christians story? Because that's how Concerned Women is trying to spin it. Only problem is... it's not true.
4. This ad is more a comment on art than on religion. The Last Supper is a painting, not a part of the Christian canon, and da Vinci was himself gay.
5. The Folsom St. crowd didn't shove this in your face. It wasn't printed in the San Francisco Chronicle, it's not up in bus stations. It's printed in BDSM publications that you would never see, if it weren't for Concerned Women of America shoving it in your face. In other words, it wasn't Folsom St.'s "intent" (your word) to offend you. It was Concerned Women's intent to offend you -- and thereby turn you even more against the gays. Which, by the way, the BDSM community represents all gays about as well as the BDSM community represents all straights, which is to say not at all.
6. Islam does not allow the depiction of the human form in art. Ergo, there is no similar painting for the Folsom organizers to parody, so there's no real way to know if the Folsom St. people "would have" created an ad like this in repsonse to some Muslim art.
7. You allege that the public schools "endorse" atheism and Islam, which is simply false, and I think you should know that.
8. We all have to be "tolerant" to some degree just to get along in this world together. I tolerate attitudes and behaviors every day that I wish were different (including your chip-on-the-shoulder defensiveness), and every day I work on being a kinder person who concentrates on what really matters. I have a long way to go, and clearly so do you. Please try to calm down. Christianity will survive an artistic parody of a Renaissance painting. I assure you.
Andrew - to address your points...
1. I think this ultimately comes down to an individual judgment call based on the proper application of information and experience. It seems to me that you're playing shallow semantics when you talk about these parodies not coming with a statement of intent. Come on, be real - there is intent behind every advertisement and parody ever made! I know of no incident, statement, or political view issued by Lego that would make me think they're insulting or taking a shot at Christianity with their picture. The same cannot be said for the militant homosexual lobby.
2. Which militant homosexual lobby? This one. Notice the detailed plan to soften America's general opposition to the gay/lesbian lifestyle through a desensitizing process (i.e. with popular TV shows like "Will and Grace" and movies like "Philadelphia"), then silence opposition from the church by raising questions about Biblical teachings intended to divide congregations, then implement hate crimes legislation to punish any criticism of the homosexual lifestyle. Guess what? The Senate just passed a defense department bill with an amendment implementing hate crimes legislation. Not much of a conspiracy theory when you see it play out in real life, is it?
3. If the Folsom event isn't a gay event, then what in the world is it? Your statement stretches credibility beyond ridiculousness. And, by saying it's only been made a gay event by CWA is like saying a crime is only a crime if you get caught. It's a gays-against-Christians story because the planners of this gay event chose to target a major icon of Christianity with their ad.
4. If that was the case, why did they choose this particular painting, which is known around the world as an icon of Christianity? And, the last time I checked, the Last Supper was indeed a part of Scripture (see Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 13).
5. CWA didn't need to offend me - the ad did that all by itself. CWA simply made the public aware of it.
6. The point about Islam was to illustrate that Christianity is expected to take proverbial beatings that are not expected of other religions, and circle it around to the tolerance issue. Apparently my initial comment wasn't clear enough on that.
7. You've got to be kidding me! How can you possibly say that preventing children from reading the Bible during free time, praying, and saying the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are not signs of atheism being endorsed by public schools? At the same time, stories abound about preferential treatment for Islam. Here are two recent ones: Carver Elementary school in San Diego, where a special recess was created for a Muslim teacher to lead Muslim students in prayer (until the public heard about it and demanded it stop); the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Muslim footbaths have been installed at considerable expense. To say that anti-Christian/pro-Muslim bias doesn't exist is ludicrous.
8. I agree, we do have to be tolerant of one another in order to co-exist. My point is that open-mindedness shouldn't extend so far that our brains fall out of our heads. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and this seems to be a very reasonable place to draw it. You are correct that Christianity will survive this event, but the question is: in what condition will it survive? Each little chip taken out of the faith weakens the human side of it. By that I mean that the Christian faith is powerful and dynamic, a force capable of changing the world for the better. That won't ever change. Christians, however, are human, and susceptible to laziness, ignorance, and compromise. Christians are the vessels through which the Christian faith is presented to the world, and each little dig at Christianity -- if not met with solid, foundational, Christian doctrinal responses -- weakens the faith by extension through the people who adhere to it. That's why it's important to stand up to things like this.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, I truly do appreciate them! :)
1. Of course it's a aesthetic individual judgment call. This artwork isn't your cup of tea. To me, I think it's nicely done. That's the way it is with all art, and we agree to disagree. And really, that's about all the story there is here -- until CWA decided to try to make it political. (RE: the Legos ... I think people would disagree about the artist's intent there too, frankly. Do you even know the source of the image? I think you don't. http://www.thebricktestament.com/)
2. Oh, sigh. To convince me that the Folsom St. artist is part of sort of "militant homosexual lobby" you link me to an article written by a Christian activist that leads with a 20-year-old quote, and which has nothing to do with Folsom St.? And then you go off on a tangent about hate crimes? It seems like you're trying to start another thread, and as much as I don't want to follow your tangent, I have to, in parens. (Hate crimes: Religion is already a protected class, covered by hate crimes law. If a murderous homosexual attacks a Christian, that's a hate crime. Why shouldn't it be a two-way street? Furthermore, the bill you link to isn't just about gays. It adds disability status to the hate crimes law too. So, why aren't you arguing that the Deaf, blind, and wheelchair-bound don't deserve hate crime status?)
3. The Folsom ST. event is a BDSM event, not a gay event. I said that already in my original post. The Fair represents all gays about as well as it represents all straights, which is to say not at all, because the event is staged for the benefit of a subculture of BDSM fetishists of all sexual persuasions. This is NOT a gays-against-Christians story. If it must be an X-against-Y story at all, then it's a BDSM/fetishists-against-Christians story, but that wouldn't fit CWA's psudeo-gay-conspiracy narrative quite as well, which is why they're spinning it as they are.
4. I won't speak for intent here. I don't know the answer to your question as to why they chose it. I do know that the Last Supper is an iconic painting, and, like Edward Hopper's Nighthawks, or Edvard Munch's The Scream it has therefore been parodied extensively in pop culture. (See the link posted by Mitchell above.) If you're going to accuse the Folsom St. people of an anti-Christian intent, I think you have to accuse all the rest as well... (P.S. The Last Supper was a Seder. Using your logic, I think Jews could accuse the founders of Christianity of the same crimes: i.e. taking something sacred from their religion and turning it into something different, using it to found a religion that claims Jews are going to Hell.)
5. But the Foslom St. people weren't putting it in your face TRYING to offend you. CWA is deliberately TRYING to offend you, by showing you something they know you will disapprove, and then telling you that somehow your disapproval should be directed at gay people, rather than the artist. They're baiting you into supporting their political agenda by using your emotional response to a piece of artwork. Don't let yourself get used.
6. You just have a chip on your shoulder here, my friend.
7. Public schools do not "endorse" religion, period. If they do, it's against the law. That means they don't endorse Islam or atheism (as you claim), nor do they endorse Christianity. Under the law, nobody is prevented from reading a religious text or praying during free time in school, no matter what the religion. Your examples (including a university example, when you were talking about public schools) are red herrings, which I could counter with examples of my own (gay students expelled from university for being gay, public high school teachers leading their classes in Christian prayer), but I need not because the law is clear -- public schools don't endorse religion. Period. You know this! Don't you?!
8. It's just a painting, hon. It's just a painting.
1. Agree to disagree. A brief look at the Lego website you referenced seems to be a legitimate (i.e. accurate) attempt to portray Bible stories in a fun way, maybe for kids. I see nothing wrong with that (unless a 'brief look' isn't enough to find the negatives you're implying - if so, please enlighten me). Again, this goes to intent, which we apparently disagree on.
2. "Oh, sigh." That's clever! Look, you see an old reference and no connection; I connect the dots and see a deliberate and long-lived plan to subvert Christian influence in America that is nearing its end stages. Not much else to debate here; clearly, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, too. However, religion is a protected right for all Americans, not a protected class of people. As such, I believe ALL hate crimes should be removed from law. Murder is murder - why is it any different based on the motives (which are darn near impossible to actually prove, if you really think about it) of the perpetrator? The victim is just as dead either way. Personally, I'd like to see all 'hate crimes' go away. Let's stick with the facts that can be proven, and give everyone fair and equal treatment. Let's not talk in terms of one-way or two-way streets; I'd rather close down the street altogether.
3. I'll have to take your word for it on that one, but I just don't see the significant difference there. Call me naive, and I'll plead common sense in my own defense.
4. I have no further comment on this one that I haven't already made.
5. I think we're both playing semantics here. You're saying I would never have been offended if CWA hadn't brought it to my attention; I'm saying that just because CWA brought it to my attention doesn't mean I wouldn't have been offended by it anyway. We seem to be at an impasse.
6. Yes, yes I do. I believe the evidence shows there's a good reason for it, too! :)
7. I'm sure you probably could provide 'red herrings' to counter my arguments. No offense, but I think you're hiding behind what is stated legally and what is the reality of the situation in public schools today. Islam is a politically-correct hotbutton right now, so I'm sure there are plenty of incidents of both extremes. My concern is that political correctness has way too much power in America these days, and my fear is that it will eventually trump common sense and fairness. Admittedly, I'm looking down the road here, but every big problem starts small, and I think that's where we are right now. Back to religion in general...your statement illustrates my point precisely: if public schools don't endorse religion, they are by definition endorsing atheism. Are you telling me that taking the word 'God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance is proper separation of church and state? If so, you're denying the entire 231ish-year history of this country. I won't accept that. You can't re-write history just because you don't like what it says.
8. Yes, it is just a painting. But hasn't our conversation -- the result of this painting -- been fun and informative?
Post a Comment