|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True® - the First For-Profit E-mail Publication (and Still Going Strong). |
Why is a Touch of Equal Time a Problem?
As I put this week's issue to bed, I thought I had done a terrific job of handling what could have been a very controversial story. But let's go to the start -- here's the story from this week's issue:
Subscribe for Free
Consider Yourself Spurred
Michelle Incanno says she was a Starbucks addict, buying beans and coffee drinks frequently. The Springboro, Ohio, woman recently got a cup of joe at her neighborhood outlet when she noticed something new on her cup: a quotation that, Starbucks says, is designed to "collect different viewpoints and spur discussion." The company invites replies on its web site. The quote on Incanno's cup read: "Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure." Incanno was outraged. "I was so offended by that," she said. "I just want coffee." She says she won't return to Starbucks. (Dayton Daily News) ...But if she does, she might want to consider switching to decaf.
Note I didn't say she was stupid, nor did I say she was wrong. But indeed I did imply she overreacted a bit. And she did. That's all -- end of story. Unless, of course, you're an overly sensitive reactionary type like, say, Ms. Incanno.
Indeed she's not alone in her overreaction. Here's the very first comment from a Premium subscriber on the story:
Randy, I really think you showed your anti-God bias in the story about Michelle Incanno who read that anti-God screed on her Starbucks coffee cup and decided not to patronize them anymore. As a Christian, I would have been offended too and am not going to buy Starbucks again. This is what the free marketplace allows for, right?What I don't understand is why you put Ms. Incanno in with the stupid crooks, etc, as though her actions were either stupid or ridiculous. She's simply following her beliefs and acting on them, hurting no one in the process. Starbucks has the right in this land of the free to print what they want on their cups; Incanno has the right to refuse to fund them; you have the right to make fun of her for it, but I totally disagree that she should be lumped in with these bozos, like the minister who turned out to be a crazy pervert, stupid bank thieves, etc. You're making an exception for her, making fun of her for her beliefs, not her actions, like the others. I've supported you in the past, but this time I think you're wrong. Please let me know your views on this, as I think you should print an apology to her online for attacking her for her deeply held beliefs just because you don't agree with them. --Vivian, Florida
One thing I do like about Vivian's note: she didn't scream that I'm going to hell, etc. In fact, she defended my right "to make fun of her". But really, "anti-God"? A "screed"? Hardly. "Making fun of her beliefs, not her actions"? Exactly the opposite -- I said nothing about her beliefs. Vivian doth protest too much.
But even before I bothered to reply to Vivian, several other Premium subscribers had comments of their own that helps puts the story into perspective:
Why is it okay for Christians to literally litter the streets with Jesus paraphernalia and not okay for Starbucks to put a discussion question on a cup? Obviously, because it dared to imply that God does not exist, although the question, without that little implication, was very Jewish in nature. And even I, a wishy-washy Unitarian Universalist, think that Starbucks is better out of the religion game at all. I don't much like the idea of corporations making religious comments be they Christian OR atheist. --Mary, KansasThat little blurb you included about the woman who won't go back to Starbucks was interesting to me. The majority of time you see stuff like that, it's something biblical, or about how great god is. Now for a change there's something which makes you think and doesn't infer that god is real, and someone goes nuts. I highly doubt she would've had the same reaction if it had been a biblical quote. --Michelle, Colorado
And:
What do you think the response would have been to a Starbucks cup that said, "Go to Church" instead of the opposite? I'm certain the answer would have made a True issue also. --David, California
Indeed a possibility, David!
Certainly Starbucks knew the cup would bring reaction -- and that was exactly the idea. The entire cup quote program was designed from the start to "collect different viewpoints and spur discussion," as the story itself noted. Ms. Incanno chose to go to the media with her point of view, and that's ok, but I'm "anti-God" to give her more publicity, or to help that discussion along? Please.
The a-religious (please don't read "anti-" there; "a-" simply means without) are told by society they must sit still and shut up when someone wants to force religion on them. But that's not reasonable; why is it that there has to be wailing and gnashing of teeth when someone dares to talk back? Why do so many in-your-face, fire and brimstone finger-waggers scream "Freedom of Religion", but then refuse to recognize the same right in those who quietly speak in reply? Sure the religious have a "Constitutional right" to practice religion the way they please; why don't the a-religious? And if one side or the other decides to step into the public spotlight to sputter and rant, why shouldn't those who aren't addicted to caffeine be free to roll their eyes in reply?
RSS
Most Recent Comments
I find it interesting how many religious people say "Atheism is a religion" and how many people adopt that religious label to define themselves by and then try to argue that "I'm an Atheist and Atheism is not a religion".
Atheist and Atheism are part of the Christian religion. People have always felt the need to label others by their own belief systems.
"Nigger", "Piker", "Faggot", "Spic" and a host of others were/are words of hate used by bigoted, narrow minded people to define others having a different skin color, heritage, lifestyle, national origin by their own intolerant standards. It unites those having ideas unable to stand on merit.
Atheist is no different. It , too, uses a label created solely to define a person that thinks differently.
Asense, (without sense). There's a word that a person who does not have a belief in mysticism could use to define mystics.
That person would have to join that long line of bigoted, narrow minded, intolerant groups that have always bonded those who wallow in ignorance.
The ignorance is not the belief. The southern whites believing they were great was not the issue, it was stating others were inferior. That is the problem.
And that is what the word Atheist does. It is an offensive, intolerant, bigoted word created by people that can bind themselves together by stating how morally superior they are to all those that do not believe as they do. Those they label as Atheists.
I do not accept that label. I will NOT define myself by the narrow minded labels offered by others. My morality will not allow me to subjugate myself to those that would use hate words.
It is an offensive word, but just as the grunting sounds of a pig are only a series of sounds in the truest sense I do not grant those bigots who wish to apply that series of sounds they call "Atheist" power over me by even taking offense.
I accept that they are achieving what they wish for in this life then look to achieve the same in my own life by associating with people of morality . . . no matter their skin color, heritage, lifestyle, national origin or belief.
The Starbucks cup asked a question. One that could be answered in many ways depending on your focus. One that needs answered.
Without resorting to name calling.
Posted by: The J, Las Vegas, NV | July 19, 2007 9:06 PM
Atheist is no different. It , too, uses a label created solely to define a person that thinks differently.
...Well, I suppose that's technically true. Defining things is what all labels do. Words are used to define things. Would words like "black" and "homosexual" also be "words of hate"?
"Atheist" literally means that I'm not a theist, i.e. not a believer in God. I don't see anything inherently offensive about that. If you were uninterested in politics and I called you apolitical, would you consider that rude? The reason that "asense" sounds rude is because you're ascribing a characteristic to people that they don't think is true and that they find insulting. It's true that I don't believe in a God and I don't find it insulting to have this opinion attributed to me. (And no matter how sure I am of my own beliefs, I wouldn't dismiss someone else's opinions in a hotly disputed subject like religion as "asense".)
Admittedly, people can get defensive when you put them into categories, if for no other reason than because it feeds into an "us-versus-them" mentality that seems to be instinctive in all of us, an attitude that you can see even in the warring chimpanzee factions described by Jane Goodall. But people do organize themselves into groups and cliques, and sometimes this is organized by religious belief, and not having a word for those factions won't make them stop existing. In fact, it may impede fruitful discussion about these differences.
Posted by: Laura, Maine | July 29, 2007 4:31 PM
What I appreciated about your story and follow up was that you posted the link to the Starbucks quotation program page. That made it easy to follow up and look at the range of quotations. Somebody else followed up and posted the number (#247) of the quotation in question. So the attribution is:
-- Bill Scheel
Starbucks customer from London, Ontario. He describes himself as a "modern day nobody."
Ms Incanno did not see the distinction between Starbucks and the actual person who made the statement, but it is interesting that the newspaper story also did not make this distinction, thus inferring that this one quote is on all Starbucks cups and is a company philosophy. It was impossible for me to tell if this statement was on all of their coffee cups without going to their website and looking at the other quotations used. Turns out it is merely one of many though provoking quotes.
I found the quote in question reasonable and thought provoking. It is the sort of question that all Christians should be able to answer at a personal level if they wish to be effective in their evangelizing. Everyone has doubts and if you fly off the handle when someone expresses their true doubts, then they can't afford to talk to you honestly.
On the other hand if one wishes to be an inquisitor, then it is foolish to waste time trying to answer such questions. One should just track down any who dare ask honest questions and put them to death! Or if that is not feasible, maybe just boycott their businesses, scream and shout, that sort of thing.
Posted by: Paul, Fresno California | August 4, 2007 12:49 PM