Offend Who?

A Brushfire War on Christmas

October 12th 2007 11:18

I recieved an email this morning from American Family Association. It concerned the fact that the "Mrs. Fields" company will not be selling Christmas products this year. They say they "don't want to offend anyone." Apparently they don't object to offending Christians... Who, exactly are they trying not to "offend"? Athiests? Newsflash, athiests get Christmas Day off just like everyone else. It's a NATIONAL HOLIDAY, folks. Jews? Most of the Jewish people I know aren't so offended by the term Christmas that they heretofore refused to buy Mrs. Fields products (as long as they're Kosher), that is. My Jewish friends buy and enjoy lots of things, regardless of the time of year. Maybe Mrs. Fields should make all their products Kosher so as not to offend their Jewish customers? Or maybe they already do... Muslims? Maybe that's it, folks. Muslims have been told not to celebrate any holidays other then their own, so they won't be buying any treats labelled "Christmas." Perhaps next year Mrs. Fields will come out with special products for Ramadan? I'm sure it will delight the Muslims and not offend anyone else. Makes me wonder, though... will Mrs. Fields stay in business after offending their former customers (who happen to be Christians)?

Vote

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: S.L. - Category: No Category

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - A Brief Nobel History ]

[ Next - The Downfall of Icons ]

Comments

25 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by youranter

October 12th 2007 20:06

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

We don't get Mrs. Fields stuff here, but if this is how cowardly they are, I'm glad. How far over are we supposed to bend to be liberally PC?

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 12th 2007 20:20

All the way to grabbing our ankles from what I can see.... lol

Comment by Jeff Musall

October 13th 2007 01:58

Where can I get a Mrs. Fields catalog?

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 13th 2007 02:30

I don't know where you can get one, Jeff. But I will gladly tell you where to put it. lol

Comment by youranter

October 13th 2007 11:25

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

Poor Jeff. A one shot wonder and then he goes into hiding again. Nothing important or relevant to say, he'll blindly follow the Dem dogma and think he's made a difference in the world.

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 13th 2007 12:11

Like most liberals, he can't stand up to scrutiny of his positions. So he takes pot shots and goes back under his rock. What a sorry bunch they are, huh, Youranter?

Comment by Jeff Musall

October 13th 2007 15:01

One shot wonder?
Actually, my position is that this whole "war on christmas" crap is idiotic, and it is starting even earlier this year...it's just not a real issue..

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 13th 2007 15:07

Maybe not an issue to you, Jeff. Suppose there was a war on athiests? Suppose Madeline Murray O'Hare were being insulted and her beliefs ridiculed. Maybe it wouldn't offend you, but being a good athiest, you might at least take note. In case you hadn't noticed, there's a lot more evidence of a war on Christmas than there is for Glo-bull whatever. Maybe you need your eyes checked...

Comment by Mr. D and Philosophy

October 13th 2007 15:28

I think that the war on Christmas is crap as well. However, by crap I mean that I think that the entire anti-Christmas movement is ridiculous. I don't truck much with organized religion, Christian or otherwise, but I can be okay with a holiday that encourages people not to be asinine twerps and to give gifts to people they care about. I mean, seriously, how many chances a year do you get carte blanche to give people things guilt free?
That said, I do think that there is some justification for discouraging religiously connotative images in public institutions: schools, churches, and federal buildings. There's a problematic legal issue there, at least in the US, that's better left alone.
That said, bring on the a-religious decorations. I love garlands.

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 13th 2007 15:41

Hello Mr. D! As you said, Christmas is a time of giving and recieving goodies. I pity people who refuse to engage in holidays. It's their choice, of course, but they have no right to supress the enjoyment of others. Christmas is a legal holiday which has come under fire in recent years. How they can take the day off and then gripe about those who celebrate it is beyond me. It's like the idiots who hate God but spend money with "In God We Trust" written on it. It's gone beyond "public buildings" in many places, however, that Christmas scenes are forbidden. There are public Christmas festivals that are no longer allowed to show anything to do with Christmas. There are even churches which can't use any display that connotes the "reason for the season". Christmas is slowly and deliberately being changed to "holidays" while the Muslim religion is allowed to have everything they want forced on the non-Muslim public. Can't have it both ways, Mr. D. Either we respect all holidays or none at all. That's the crux of the issue.

Comment by Mr. D and Philosophy

October 13th 2007 18:08

Ah, I see where I might have been unclear. I didn't mean to say that only Christian symbols should be subject to that public buildings ban. Nor did I mean to say that other religions should not be subject to such bans. It's my thinking that it's either got to be universally applied law/rules/regulations or none at all. I agree that it shouldn't be one set of rules for one group and a different set of rules for another. That's discrimination and intolerable to a reasoning mind.

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 13th 2007 18:12

I agree completely! Discrimination is a terrible thing and should NEVER be allowed.

Comment by youranter

October 13th 2007 20:47

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

Minor point Mr D, churches are not public buildings. Being owned and operated by whatever religion built them they should not be held in the same regard as schools or gov't buildings. While they do indeed enjoy tax free status, they are not funded by public money but rather the congregation and that particular religion as a whole. Sorry but I don't see why or how anyone can be offended at seeing a nativity scene in front of a Catholic church. You're absolutely right that the laws should be applied equally across the board otherwise it is indeed discrimination. So why are we Christians and Jews being discriminated against in our own countries?

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 13th 2007 20:56

Excellent points, Youranter. How did I manage to miss the part about churches being "public" buildings? I'm glad you caught it! I must be slipping!! lol

Comment by Mr. D and Philosophy

October 13th 2007 21:29

I have no disagreement with your position on churches. They are private entities and expressly devoted to a religion. Displays in accordance with the given doctrines of faith are, to my mind, well within the boundaries of reasonable expectations. That such displays on the grounds of a church are being forbidden by law is a ridiculous overstepping on the part of the legal system. Religious tolerance, which is theoretically supposed to be one of the United States founding principles, clearly isn't being observed in instances such as these. I didn't mean to give the impression that I considered churches, mosques, temples or any other place of worship as a public building in the sense that a courthouse, city hall, or governmental structure is a public building.
As for how someone could be offended by a Nativity scene, it's something which I don't feel particularly qualified to answer, but I'll give it a try. Offense is strange and complicated process, psychologically speaking, and not necessarily driven by good reasons. Moreover, the particular culture of political correctness, of which I'm no fan, in combination with some other unsavory social trends in this country has created a mentality of entitlement in a vast swath of the populace. People seem to believe that since they don't like something, it doesn't warrant existence. Alone, this mentality is merely ridiculous and immature.
However, and this goes to your question on discrimination, for reasons that defy my comprehension, the legal system has been catering to this mentality for at least the last twenty years. There's an entire generation of people who have come of age in a culture that doesn't believe in disciplining it's children, fostering a sense of personal responsibility, and does believe in having someone sued every time something goes wrong in their lives. An outspoken segment of the population has decided to put Judeo-Christian religion on trial, for both good and bad reasons. I'd like to think that some of the good reasons have led to reasonable revisions in policies, such as removing religiously connotative materials from public buildings that serve a multi-religious population. I also recognize that some of the bad reasons, which go to selfish childishness, have led to discriminatory laws like ones forbidding nativity scenes in front of churches.
The real ugliness of it all is a point that you all have been making, it's not happening across the board. A greater degree of tolerance is being shown to non-Judeo-Christian religions than to Judeo-Christian religions. How that is justified in the minds of judges and lawyers is beyond me. So, that's my attempt to answer your questions in a reasonable amount of space.

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 13th 2007 21:51

And a very good answer it was, Mr. D. Why they expect to have everything both ways is beyond me, too. Like I said, we all have freedom or none of us do. Anything else is discrimination. The extremes of catering to Muslims is really annoying, when no one else has the same privileges. As for the multitude of entitlements, that's no less than disgusting! Rewarding laziness and bad behavior is so popular right now. Like punishing those who do well. It's insane.

Comment by Jim Stillman

October 24th 2007 18:00

Oh, dear, SL, you do carry on. And, as ever, you never let facts interfere with rants. What’s regrettable is that there are so many of your political persuasion that are willing to join in the paranoia. Christians are in the majority; no one is attacking their faith. Get over it.
The American Family Association sees everything as an epic struggle between evangelical Christians and the secular world. That organization depends on finding threats to its values for how else could it generate revenue.

But this will merely give you fodder to go on about those heathen, God denying, evil, unpatriotic and traitor-dupes: Liberals. So let’s just stick to cookies.

This is a statement from Mrs. Fields (the emphasis is my own):

"This year, Mrs. Fields is celebrating our 30th anniversary and as always, looks forward to families celebrating the Christmas season with our delicious and fresh baked cookies and treats. Our plan is to kick off the 2007 holiday season beginning November 1, 2007 with seasonal gifts available both in-store, in-catalog and online. We have a complete line of holiday specific themed gifts including Christmas items that we have been perfecting for the past eight months, and are eager to share them with Mrs. Fields' customers. From the Mrs. Fields' kitchen to yours, we hope to help make your 2007 Christmas and holiday warmer, brighter and tastier."

Of course, ranting is more fun and calling attention to a threat (even if imaginary) does generate lots of blog "hits". Even sucked me in!

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 24th 2007 23:21

Ah, Jim... If Judaism were being threatened, I would be front and center to defend it. What a shame that your "good liberal conscience" can't do the same....

Comment by Jim Stillman

October 25th 2007 17:36

I joined in, at the tail end of the conversation, just to make the point that the Mrs. Fields' story simply wasn't true. I notice that you failed to address that issue, the basis for the initial post.

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 25th 2007 22:05

I reported the facts as I heard them, Jim. Show me substantive evidence that Mrs. Fields is going to continue her Christmas goodies and I will investigate. If I'm wrong, I'm able to say so. However, thus far there has been no proof and I stand by what I said to begin with. If the company (or any other company) discontinues making Christmas treats in order to keep from offending someone, they won't get my business.

All you provided was a quote which could have been made at any time. If recent, perhaps they took note of the shoppers they'd lose and compared it to those they might "offend."

Comment by Jim Stillman

October 25th 2007 23:51

The only evidence that I have that Mrs. Fields has for years offered Christmas products in a catalogue that comes out about the end of October is the website for the company and the catalogue. I have done some research into the matter and all I can verify is that the American Family Association started this controversy by quoting a "Diane H. of Michigan," who allegedly was told by a company supervisor that "they do not offer anything with 'Merry Christmas' because they don't want to offend anyone." Further accusations suggested that Mrs. Fields had bowed to Islam, despite the fact that the company sells no Ramadan-themed products. The AFA noted that the summer catalogue did not offer Christmas products.

From what I have read, Mrs. Fields has always introduced their annual
Christmas products at the end of October, and the 2007 season was to be no exception, thus explaining why searches of the website had yielded no results. However, possibly in reaction to the accusations, by the night of October 12, 2007 a search of the Mrs. Fields website revealed at least three products mentioning Christmas in their name (Holly Berry Christmas Cookie Cake, Twelve Days of Christmas Bundle, etc.), although the descriptions of the items explained their unavailability prior to November 1st. Given the obvious explanation for the search results, and the fact that no corroboration of the supposed "ban" has been uncovered, I assume the entire "controversy" was without any basis in reality.

I really cannot conceive of a company refusing to market a popular product that makes them money. This is wholly different in asking employees to use a more inclusive greeting acknowledge this is a season for all people. In any event, whenever I am wished a Merry Christmas I respond the same way.

The “bottom line” is that I will unlikely be able to definitively convince you that, at least in my view or on my part, there is no concerted attack on your faith. I truly am sorry that you were so offended about my criticism of your views. If my characterizations were over the edge, I apologize.

I still think you’re wrong.

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 26th 2007 00:52

Uh... Jim...? Are you related to John Kerry or Hillary Clinton? You said on another of my blogs today that you would "no longer" attempt to "debate" with me. And here you are. Trouble making up your mind, or what?

As for the Christmas cookies, etc. I used the information I had. If it was in error, so be it. If I was wrong, I was wrong. It was not intentional. That being said, Christmas is a federal holiday as well as a religious one and there are plenty of factions trying to remove it, whether you like it or not. Pretending it isn't happening won't change anything.

Comment by Jeff Musall

October 26th 2007 04:54

Wow, SL...caught in a right wing lie, and still trying to defend the your original (bad) position...this is another case of rightie nuts feeding each other crap that they all believe, because it makes them feel better about their self-righteous selves...

Comment by youranter

October 26th 2007 10:05

youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern

Why don't you read what SL wrote, Jeff? Or have someone read it to you so you can understand it? SL said she went with information on hand and reported it. I don't know why you left wing nuts have to ask for proof of everything that doesn't follow your beliefs, but demand it from the right wing. Maybe a bit two-faced? You'd probably be taken a bit more seriously if you cut out the name calling too. I doubt it though. You've shown your true colours in the past and I'm sure people read you for entertainment value only, not for any of your pontifical reasoning.

Comment by S.L. Bradish

October 26th 2007 12:34

Youranter is right, Jeff. Maybe you could find someone to read (and explain) things to you when you have a problem understanding. Very interesting how excited you get when I make a possible error, yet you continue to beat the same stump for years and expect it to run! Libs/dems really are entertaining, you know. They hammer away at the same discredited "news" for years after they're proven wrong. Slapstick humor at it's finest!

[ Previous - A Brief Nobel History ]

[ Next - The Downfall of Icons ]