Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Acknowledge our invisible sky-God...or else

For years, PetSmart has refused to use the word Christmas on its website, in television commercials, newspaper ads and in-store promotions, despite tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas and in spite of repeated requests from AFA to do the same.


Want proof? Go to www.PetSmart.com and type "Christmas" in the search bar. As of today, the website brings up zero results, although the company’s website is clearly marketing to "Christmas" shoppers.


At PetSmart, you'll find a "Holiday Shop," a "holiday" wish list and plenty of "holiday" items, but you won't find "Christmas."


Ironically, PetSmart had no problem with saying Halloween though. They promoted their "Halloween Shop" very heavily for weeks in October. So why are they so afraid of Christmas?


PetSmart is censoring the word Christmas, pure and simple. Yet the company wants all the people who celebrate Christmas to do their shopping at its stores.


Until PetSmart proves it recognizes Christmas by using it in their newspaper, radio and television advertising or in-store signage, the boycott will be promoted throughout this Christmas season.


AFA has successfully influenced (intimidated?) almost all of the nation's largest retailers to embrace the use of Christmas in their advertising. But at PetSmart, it's "Bah, Humbug!"


Link


Translation: Our personal faith is sustained by the politically correct buzz words and catch-phrases of the general public, inextricably linking the chosen day of celebration for the birth of our savior, with mass marketing and crass consumerism.


They should just rename it McChristmas.....

40 comments:

  1. Actually, I don't think it's much of anything to do with their personal faith. For the AFA, I think the translation is more, "Our revenue comes largely from scaring a certain demographic of mostly-elderly, mostly-white Christians into thinking that their faith is under attack. Here is another thing for them to be afraid of or offended by. Witness this horror, and send us money."

    I may be feeling a bit cynical, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you've put it better than I did. It's not the faith I have issue with, it's the use of it as a false currency.

      Delete
    2. Mock: "...mostly-white..."

      That's a racist statement. I wonder if it is actually theirs, or you might be projecting your own racism upon them?

      I suspect you might be accusing them of a racism that this group, bigoted in other areas, apparently lacks. The use of "...mostly white... is careless by you. Since, after all, according to the most recent Census data, the US itself is "..mostly white...", and any representative, non-racist group, will tend to also be "... mostly white..."

      Delete
    3. Actually, even the Democrat Party is "mostly white", it turns out.

      Delete
    4. In what sense do you see the description as racist (as opposed to being about race)?

      Delete
    5. "Being about race" more often than not ends up being racist.

      The thing is, you used the race of the AFA's members as part of criticism of it. A silly criticism to make,. because as I pointed out, any average/representative group in the US will be white. Unless, of course, it is a racial supremacist group such as the NAACP.

      Remember... race matters only to racists, bigots, and other similar folks.

      Delete
    6. "'Being about race' more often than not ends up being racist."

      How so? If you insist that anything talking about race in inherently racist, then any number of sociological studies (to pick an obvious example) are racist.

      "The thing is, you used the race of the AFA's members as part of criticism of it. A silly criticism to make,. because as I pointed out, any average/representative group in the US will be white."

      I honestly can't tell if you're trying to make a valid point, or if you're just trying to be contrarian, here. I specified "mostly-white" because, as far as I can tell, the American Family Association's mailing list/donation requests are aimed at a demographic that is predominantly white to a degree that doesn't even remotely resemble a typical/average sampling of the population in the United States. Also, I notice that you don't object to my ageist description of that same demographic as "mostly-elderly", even though it's no more or less descriptive than "mostly-white".

      "Remember... race matters only to racists, bigots, and other similar folks."

      Nonsense. Poppycock. And other such terms of dismissive disagreement. Race matters to the people affected by it. It may be an arbitrary social construct, and one that we'd be better off without, but that doesn't even remotely mean that nobody should talk about it or we should all just pretend it doesn't matter.

      Delete
    7. It is nonsense and poppycock to claim that race matters to anyone other than racists.

      And yes, still racist for you to again bash the AFA for the perceived skin color of its members. There are indeed valid reasons to criticize the AFA. But that is not one of them.

      No, I don't pretend it doesn't matter. Because such things do matter because there are a lot of bigots.

      As for "mostly elderly", yes you are exhibiting bigotry there too. Do you have any specifics to back that up?

      Delete
    8. "It is nonsense and poppycock to claim that race matters to anyone other than racists."

      You keep repeating that basic point, and it keeps making no sense whatsoever to me. If it's that important to you, would you please make some effort to explain how that's so? In something other than vague generalities? ("'Being about race' more often than not ends up being racist.") At this point, I still can't tell if you think you have a valid point to make, or if you're just playing Devil's Advocate.

      Look, I'm bashing the AFA because as far as I can tell their business model is built around taking advantage of people - scaring them with "threats" to their religion, when those threats are at best exaggerated, and at worst made up out of whole cloth. Race, age, and religion are relevant because the AFA targets people who fall into those categories.

      Now, if you want to make the argument that anything that mentions race is inherently racist, go ahead. I disagree, but I'll listen. So far though, you haven't done anything except assert that such is self-evidently the case.

      Likewise, if you think my understanding of the AFA's goals and methods is flawed or mistaken, feel free to enlighten me. So far, though, you haven't done that either; and I haven't seen any indication that you intend to.

      If you're trying to prove a point, then show your work so I can follow along. If you're one of those people who enjoys arguing for its own sake, well... there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I feel no compunction to entertain you.

      Delete
    9. It's the supposed skin color of the AFA members that is seemingly "so important" here. My point? That your insisting on this "importance" and the racism inherent in this criticism detracts from very real, and valid, criticisms of the AFA. C.I. is capable of criticizing the AFA without irrelevant racism. Why aren't you?

      Only a bigot would bring up skin color as part of criticism of someone. Your racism and defense of it is deranged, not "entertaining".

      I could deny the racism in your irrelevant bashing of people for skin color, but then I would be lying.

      Delete
    10. Anyway, I've been looking and coming up empty for any facts to back up Mr. Mock's racist jab at the AFA (it's so important to him and in his most recent comment, he "excused" the racism by accusing the AFA of racist actions he also failed to provide) or the demographics which show they are all in their 70s or older.

      I don't defend the AFA's actions. But I don't think anyone deserves baseless racist jabs and other smears. Especially they they are entirely irrelevant... Next..

      Delete
    11. Dude, as far as I can see, the only person who thinks that "mostly-white" was an important part of my criticism is... you. I've been trying to figure out if there was some basis for your singling out something that I considered a relevant-but-not-central detail, but as far as I can see the only problem with it is that it violates some personal rule of yours that We Must Never Mention Race, Or Else We Are Racists And Bigots - a position which, frankly, strikes me as nonsensical, since it requires redefining both "racist" and "bigot" well beyond the bounds of any common usage. As far as I can see, you've focused in a relatively unimportant detail to such an extent that you've missed the point of what I wrote; and if you have some constructive criticism to offer, it's apparently lost on me. So I don't see any particular point in either of us continuing the conversation, since we're clearly talking right past each other.

      Delete
    12. "....relevant-but-not-central detail"

      you have completely failed to show that it is relevant..

      "We Must Never Mention Race, Or Else We Are Racists And Bigots"

      If you bash for race, you certainly are a bigot.

      "As far as I can see, you've focused in a relatively unimportant detail"

      It sort of calls into question the rest of any argument you make, when you insist on the "relevance" of skin color here. And the point that all the members are elderly.

      "if you have some constructive criticism to offer,"

      Here it is: Don't be a racist.

      Delete
    13. (And yes, I am using it within common usage. And you keep insisting on its "Relevance" here.

      Delete
    14. "Here it is: Don't be a racist."

      Sound advice, and I'll certainly take it to heart. Thanks.

      Delete
  2. These "Christians" would have us believe they are the most oppressed controlling majority in history.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is odd isn't it? But when you've got an 'aggrieved industry' to run, you have to play these games I suppose.

      Delete
    2. Just ask the right wing.

      Faux Snooze has been working the was on Christmas for years.

      Delete
    3. Just as MSNBC gins up a race war, white war on blacks, etc, Ducky.

      Delete
    4. Jersey: Your statement makes no logical sense. Whether or not individuals are denied rights based on their faith (and no, I don't think this is the case in this instance) has nothing to do with the intellectual sloppy and careless statements about such a group being a "controlling majority".

      Delete
  3. On the contrary, I'd avoid the store just for the sheer hypocrisy. It's not the attitude, it's what side you line up on (witness the comments).

    Everyone is a fundamentalist - it's just a matter of finding the right button to push.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not catching the hypocrisy. Are you referring to having holiday sales?

      Delete
  4. What gets me is that it the holiday is still listed on the federal calendar as "Christmas."

    I'm surprised it has not yet been changed to Winter Holiday or something like that.

    Personally, I would rather not see important religious symbols and feast days abused and distorted beyond all recognition and original meaning.

    And I say that as someone who engages in all the secular fun of the "holiday season," including presents, the tree, Santa and drink-happy parties.

    My family and I also celebrate the Christian aspects of the season (Catholics observe 4 weeks of Advent before Christmas), and we invite others to join in that joy at celebrating Christ's coming into the world, but I don't know why anyone would want to coerce pet store into doing so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points. I'd wager that most Americans don't realize the date the holiday was established and how the celebration of the season was shunned by early colonists.

      I also think that the invention of a 'war' on Christmas is rather silly, given that it revolves around the materialism of consumer goods, and saying the 'right thing'; and that it technically only pertains as a day off work, to federal and state workers.

      Delete
    2. We are all so rubbed raw by each other that there is no topic that cannot be easily spun into a controversy.

      Delete
    3. There's merit to that statement. Then again, there's merit to the fact that fine folks like the AFA willfully and purposefully invent controversy to maintain their own relevance.

      Delete
  5. Decided to fact check this. A Christmas search on their site comes up with many results, including items with Christmas in the name.

    Either (1) the AFA has invented the controversy, or(2) PetSmart has caved. I am guessing it is (1)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there's no doubt that it's #1. AFA and likeminded groups play fast and loose with facts, because their sole mission is to generate emotional response and a sense of grievance.

      Delete
    2. As long as we don't follow Jersey's line of reasoning that it is OK to punish and persecute individuals for their Christianity because Christians are a "controlling majority".

      There is absolutely no justification for denying an individual's rights, least of all whether or not that individual is perceived to be in a "controlling majority".

      For my part, I respect Jersey's right to his faith (which happens to be hard faith-based Atheism), and this is without any regard at all to how many practice it: whether or not it is just he himself, or 100% of the people practice it. It makes no difference at all.

      Delete
  6. .I was in PetSmart last week. Lots of candy canes for puppy dogs and stocking stuffed with kitty and doggie goodies. Those items are Christmas per se, of course. But the store is indeed decked out for the Christmas season.

    I am a Christian, but the last time I checked, my kitties don't have any knowledge of theology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I realize that I am likely viewed as an oppositionist when it comes to religion, but I truly believe that groups such as the AFA damage the brand and the appeal of faith, with contrived outrage. This PetSmart issues has been only one of many.

      My dog has her own Christmas stocking and gets themed treats at the holidays.

      Delete
    2. "....contrived outrage..."

      It is similar to the ACLU wasting taxpayer dollars with frivolous lawsuits to censor public officials/etc who use "religious" speech that the intolerant bigots in the ACLU don't like. As opposed to stopping real dangerous things,such as government enforcing religious doctrine.

      Delete
    3. There may be similarities in some situations, but certainly not in cases where people have used government venues in their official capacity as conduits for their religious beliefs.

      Delete
    4. I disagree if it is being a mere "conduit". That is free speech. The ACLU attempt to wipe this out is against civil liberties, tolerance, and the First Amendment. If you don't like what someone says, sit down and shut up and ignore it. Don't file a frivolous lawsuit to force the government to go all North Korea on the offending individual. And yes, so many of the ACLU's frivolous/harassment/censoring cases definitely involve the group harassing individuals for expressing their views.

      However, I do definitely draw the line at any government expenditures to support anything like that. That crosses the line into state sponsorship of religion.

      Delete
    5. I certainly don't have a handy list of ACLU case files, but I draw a hard line at an individual acting in an official capacity, and/or at an official venue, espousing the endorsement of a religious belief. These are the cases I was referring to. It is not a mandate nor in the purview of government, at any level, to endorse religion.

      Though one can sit quietly during such activities....one can also reserve one's personal opinion [belief] for their personal life and activities.

      Delete
    6. ".one can also reserve one's personal opinion [belief] for their personal life and activities."

      The First Amendment protects the right to not keep them secret, though.

      Delete
    7. dmarks, I agree....however, I don't believe that the 1st Amendment protects a right to use [as I've stated before] an official government venue - without the benefit of voluntary association - to endorse or convey one's personal feelings towards a religious belief. It's not as if government venues are the only arena for expressing ones personal belief system...in fact, far from it. Keeping the business of government secular, inflicts absolutely no harm or deprivation upon the citizen, since said endorsement or expression is not a fundamental component of civil government.

      Delete
  7. My father had a little saying: "[Insert person's name] knows as much about [insert topic] as a hog knows about Christmas."

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.