Over at the Chicago Tribune there's an article about the kind of threats that work. Wal-Mart and other bastions of consumerism have decided that "Happy Holidays" is out this year, and "Merry Christmas" is in.
How did the Wacky Religious Right impose their will on the flinty, bottom-line obsessed giants of secularism? Threats. Not of violence but of dollars taken elsewhere. Apparently when hundreds of thousands of credit card wielding Moms and Dads go on the rampage, even the Great Satan of the American Marketplace trembles.
Just imagine the world we'd have if the "religion of peace" would substitute boycotts and petitions for beheadings and burnings. It would be like, well, Christmas.
Thanks to the Brothers Judd.
Mmmm, be careful what you wish for: What if that "religion of peace" started an economic boycott of their own, and started reducing the amount of barrels of oil they send to the market?
How then would we drive to the malls to get all those Christmas gifts to celebrate the birthday of another religion's icon?
Posted by: field negro | November 26, 2006 at 09:20 AM
Great idea, Baldilocks.
As for field negro's question: WE happen to drive a 67 mpg hybrid Honda Insight. If Detroit had invented a solar-powered car in the 70s, instead of coming up with a lot of ugly crapmobiles, we'd be driving that instead.
Hilarious name, by the way.
Posted by: Amy Alkon | November 26, 2006 at 09:38 AM
Oh, also, we find Christmas (the consumerist part) to be kind of ugly and tiresome. We shop way before (for those gifts to assistants, bookkeepers, my editor, and the guys at my mail place) and, for a few items, immediately after Christmas. Amazing what a difference a day can make in what you spend on the same piece of plastic crap.
Posted by: Amy Alkon | November 26, 2006 at 09:41 AM
Amy: Don't blame Baldilocks for this post...the ugly parts of it anyway. It was me, AskMom, who created it.
It wasn't my idea to promote the religious aspects, necessarily, but the feeling of peace and harmony that (sometimes) prevails. Unfortunately Amy is right that the ugly and commercial aspects of the holidays tend to dominate our view.
Maybe she'd approve of our family celebration. There's diversity of religion and some who eschew religion strictly. And not one piece of crap purchased just for the sake of pushing off on someone else.
As for Field Negro's idea of Muslims boycotting oil shipments, they would have to agree among themselves first, a highly unlikely prospect. Them they would be gambling that the other oil producing areas wouldn't love to take up the slack. Also not a good bet. Then they'd have to figure out how to pacify their seething populations, now largely appeased with oil income.
The real point is that western societies, regardless the religious convictions of their peoples, are generally free and prosperous. Others are not, and instead of peacefully pressuring each other through economics, social mores and politics, have to use violence or threats of it.
Posted by: AskMom | November 26, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Economic reality: Oil is fungible. Producers can reduce their total supply produced, but they can't determine the ultimate consumer. And OPEC has never managed to hold a production limit for more than a few months. As soon as the price goes up, incentive to cheat and produce more multiplies.
And for most of them, as AskMom points out, oil IS their income.
I got a real laugh out of the Democrat's demonization of WalMart, which directly resulted in WalMart offering $4 generic prescriptions--and they'll still make money at that price. Oooh, demonize 'em some more!
Posted by: Tully | November 26, 2006 at 04:59 PM
Responding to the "...reducing the amount of barrels of oil they send to the market" comment. This idea is seen a lot, and I'd like to quote Adam Smith, from The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter II:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.". Thank you Walter Williams!
Posted by: bzedman | November 27, 2006 at 06:02 AM
Who cares WHAT WAL-MART says after we give them our money? We Christians have SOooo much more as a community to worry about than that. Really. Think about it.
I WILL, however, be taking my seasonal "protest" cartload of junk to the customer service counter and dumping it because I'm peeved about Target's banning of the red kettles. I'm passive aggressive. What can I say?
Posted by: C. Jane Stewart | November 27, 2006 at 11:08 AM
I got a real laugh out of the Democrat's demonization of WalMart, which directly resulted in WalMart offering $4 generic prescriptions--and they'll still make money at that price. Oooh, demonize 'em some more!
My fellow liberals mostly think I'm crazy when I argue that progressives should generally like Walmart--giving jobs to lower income people and lowering prices should be a plus for liberals.
Posted by: Justin | November 29, 2006 at 10:05 AM