Punctum Saliens

A post (via challies.com) about Rick Pearcey’s McDonald’s boycott. He does not agree with some decisions that McDondald’s has made and is therefore not going to frequent their restaurants anymore. Good for him. This type of thing is not done enough. I boycotted Amazon.com many years ago (the embargo is still mostly in effect, today) but the reasons were not so noble as Rick’s. I wrote them a letter and everything. It felt good but at the same time rather anti-climactic. And I haven’t done it since. Why?

• It takes time and energy: I have to stay up to date with things so that I know what kinds of bad things companies are doing. Then, I also feel I have the ethical responsibility to make sure I lift the boycott if they amend their ways. Keeping up with the situation takes even more time and energy.
• It feels useless. What possible difference could Rick’s buying a Big Mac make to a multi billion (trillion?) dollar company? That’s the anti-climactic piece I mentioned above. I told Amazon.com I wasn’t buying any more books from them and I feel they felt bad for a second then took out their bank statements, lit a cigar, kicked off their shoes and just laughed and laughed and laughed.
• The alternative is inconvenient and, most likely, more expensive. Yes, Amazon.com has great customer service, great selection and great prices. So, If I’m not buying books from them I’ll need to either pay more money or more sanity to deal with another company. Paying a dollar or so more for a different fast food item once a week may not seem that inconvenient, but what if you’re paying $3 more a book and you buy many books a month? What if you have to pay $2000 more for a car? The inconvenience and additional expense of following your convictions can be daunting in some cases.
• The alternative is sometimes worse. What if this company whose policies I cannot accept does happen to make one thing I really do need and the only other place to buy it is from a warehouse in NJ who ships it from Chile after being assembled in China? Is that better than supporting a company who goes against your beliefs? So, not only do you have to investigate the company you’re boycotting but you now have to track your alternate source.
• It makes me look arbitrary. “Oh,” people will say, “you’ll boycott Blah Blah Widgets because they think yada yada yada so why not boycott Foo Bar Tech and Baz Woo Cosmetics and Flip Flop Toys? They do this and that and the other.” It’s impossible to boycott everyone with whom you disagree. So where do you draw the line? Is the important thing that a line is drawn — somewhere, anywhere — or is the important thing that everything on my side of the line has been checked out 100%?

The other thing I found myself doing (both in the Amazon.com case and after I quit smoking) was that I’d get up on my soapbox and demand that everyone else follow my convictions and for the same reason. Talk about annoying! These are my convictions — not yours. Obviously, McDonald’s and Amazon.com have different convictions and don’t they have the right to express what they believe? It’s a touchy situation — equal rights for expressing our convictions and beliefs. I don’t think anyone really has a good answer for how to handle it.

It’s not easy to back up your convictions. So, why do it at all? Is Rick going to change McDonald’s? Did I change Amazon.com? I know, I know. “It all has to start somewhere.” “It’s the principle of the thing.” “What if everyone said that?” It’s this cliche and that hackneyed expression. But really all I’m going to get out of it (in the vast majority of cases) is the self-respect that comes from following my convictions. The question is, is that enough to offset all the negatives and inconveniences and additional costs of the alternative?

So, yes, I applaud Rick for taking a stand. I think more people need to speak up about companies who have made poor decisions and support the wrong things but we also need to act. And that is the real issue here. How far are you willing to go to demonstrate your beliefs? How much would you give up? If you had to put a time and money figure on it, what would it be? How much effort are you willing to put into investigating the companies with which you do business? How much extra cost are you willing to incur to shop an alternative, less convenient option? What if you had to give up listening to your favorite music artist? Or give up using your current cell phone company/provider? Or switch MP3 players? Or buy a different make car? Or do business with another bank? Would you be willing to institute the boycott and stick with it? Or do we just avoid looking too carefully at these major things in our lives so that we can continue using them with a “clear” conscience?

Bobby Maddex at Sign of the Times is as mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. And he does make some valid points. He and “those … who champion moral absolutes, human dignity, the traditional family, and a transcendent reality” are held to a different standard and are not allowed to take cheap shots, distribute deceitful propaganda, and are very often criticized for their stance. So, it’s natural and reasonable they they should want to fight back and do unto others as gets done unto them.

And, for the record, I don’t agree with Dawkins and the neuvo atheists. Hell, I don’t even agree with the old atheists like Bertrand Russell. I think there is something — a LOT of somethings — beyond science. But I also don’t agree with Maddex. And I’ve written a bit about Russell so now it’s Maddex’s turn.

First of all, the use of righteous anger is VERY dangerous and hubristic. James 1:20 says: “For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” To be truly righteous anger, you have to be truly right — don’t you? And it’s very easy to say and think that you are right but are you? Truly right? Calling your anger righteous just because you think God is on your side is tricky. A lot of people think God is on their side and so they all have the right to call their anger righteous.

Second is the old corollary to “they will know we are Christians by our love” which is “we will know we are Christians by their hate.” Listen. Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean God is on your side! Yes, Jesus said that those who follow him will be hated. But taking hate from the world as an “affirmation” that you are right is not the same thing. It’s kind of like: every human will die and, therefore, everything that dies is human. Wrong!

So, go ahead and parody, satirize, and poke fun at those who hold different viewpoints because they are doing it to you. I think this world would be a much, much, much better place if we could all laugh at each other and ourselves more often. And I do think that we all have the right to believe what we believe and everyone else just better “deal with it.” But, at the end of the day, we still have to live on the same tiny speck of dust as the other person. We still have to live next door to an atheist or an evangelical. We still have to elect a single president over both atheists and evangelicals. We still have to send our kids to school with atheists and evangelicals and figure out what they are going to be taught. We have to live our mundane lives between two diametrically opposed, antagonistic viewpoints and still get eight hours of sleep every night. Looking at it from this perspective, is the best answer the answer that both sides seem all too keen on? Is continued hostility and escalating aggression going to get us anywhere? Neither side is going to convince the other side it’s wrong no matter how many jib-jab-like parodies are produced. It’s not going to work, folks. So, let’s come up with an alternate solution, shall we?