Engaging Culture
AFA Launches Boycott of McDonald’s
The American Family Association, founded by Donald Wildmon, has launched a boycott of McDonald’s Corporation. The reason, as the organization says on it’s website is: “It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald’s has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.”
What do you think?
I'm not surprised, but I'm also not all that upset about it. Regardless of my views on homosexuality and gay marriage, what do we expect from a corporation run by people who likely do not have a relationship with God? A boycott seems a little ridiculous to me. I think there are much more effective ways to battle at the frontlines for our nation's values –like engaging in media and culture and actually being relevant, which I gather is end this blog encourages.
Good food for thought, most definitely.
Why just McDonald's?
Does it make a better headline?
What about Wells Fargo, IBM, Aetna, American Family Insturance and American Airlines? They all supported the NGLCC's 2008 Business & Leadership Conference more than McDonald's, UPS, AT&T, OfficeMax, Intel, Coninental Airlines, Comcast, Hilton, Hyatt, Southwest and Citi … just to name a few.
see here> http://www.nglcc.org/news/leadership/sponsors
I concur with the previous commenter, "… what do we expect from a corporation run by people who likely do not have a relationship with God?"
Love the Lord thy God, and boycott your neighbor as yourself … or something like that.
When choosing a strategy, we have to ask ourselves
1. Is it ethical?
and
2. Will it achieve the desired results?
A boycott of McD's is probably ethical. People have a right to decide to eat there or not. Besides, if someone brown bags it instead of eating greasy junk, they save money and protect their health. There aren't any ethical problems inherent in the tactic of boycotting a purveyor of over priced junk food.
Will it achieve the desired results? Now this is where things get goofy. What are the desired results? The promoters of the boycott state that the boycott is about McD's giving the "…weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda…"
So… what's the point kiddies? Do you have one?
Is the point of the boycott to punish McD's for supporting Gay and Lesbians? If that's the intention, then prepare to fail. The boycott will generate more supporters for McD's than boycotters. Is the intent of the boycott to dissuade McD's from supporting the NGLCC? If that's the hope, then it's doomed to failure for the very same reason.
If the point is to draw supporters to their organization and re-energize their current membership by identifying an "enemy from without", then they've hit pay-dirt. It will work just fine. Donations should be up already. Nothing unites like hatred, fear and a common enemy.
It's a shame we can't get people excited about building bridges of understanding between people and God. If a ministry sponsors NGLCC, will their sponsorship offer them an opportunity to work within the gay and lesbian community for the salvation of souls? Insights, anyone?
McDARNIT!!! …there goes my weekly consumption of their new Chipotle Angus Burger (which bye the way had anyway noticed they used the McRib sauce for???)
But seriously Mc'D's should not be in the business of taking sides on issues like this, and if they think that it is alright to do so, then they can suffer the revenue losing backlash!
I also happen to think that Dr. Phil should also be boycotted :
http://groups.google.com/group/bullydoc/web/doc-or-bully
MJ
Whew! The only thing I have had from McBarf's in the past 10 year or so is their Orange Vanilla Milk Shake (2 days ago). I have to watch what I eat so they are out of the question. (I had just finished a 24 mile bike ride so I indulged). but this is not about their "food" is it? I remember reading about AFA's boycott of Ford over the same thing. Did it work? They will take credit that Ford has almost tanked. But the topper was when they issued a letter saying, "You are now free to buy from Ford." I am not free to buy from Ford? Give me a break! I think the same result will arise here. No one will know and probably no one will care what AFA says to do. I won't eat at Mickey D's because I don't like the food not because I have been told to boycott. Will they call me and ask me what I think? I doubt it so their research will be skewed. Count me out of the boycott. And for the record: I am not for the homosexual agenda at all.
So what is AFA asking? For me to put my best friends, Christian believers who serve the our local community in many ways, out of business for owning several McDonald's restaurants? How about my Christian friends who own American Family Insurance franchises? Ford franchises? By the way, the believers who own the local McDonald's restaurants received four anonymous hate phone calls in one day over this issue. The cultural impact of these boycotts is secondary to the division and strife it causes among God's people.
I wonder why it’s always issues like homosexuality we’re asked to demonstrate about. Do we boycott companies who fail to uphold God’s standards (if even they don’t claim to follow him) in other areas? Are we asked to boycott companies who don’t help feed and clothe the poor or who are seeking and serving justice for the ‘least of these’? Why are some people so keen to dictate the morality of others instead of living out the morality of Jesus as a much more effective witness?
After the arrest of Rosa Parks, the city of Montgomery decided to boycott the public transit system, which turned out to be a successful boycott. On June 4, 1956, the federal district court ruled that Alabama's racial segregation laws for buses were unconstitutional.
I guess you can't say that boycotts don't work.
Don Wildmon can boycott McDonald's, but he better leave his hands off my favorite (albeit INCREDIBLY liberal) company, Apple.
– lovingly typed on my 2.6 MacBook Pro.
As my wise friend and pastor once said to me: “Thank God for the devil. Without him we’d all be out of a job.” And come on… the 99 cent double cheeseburger is the best fast food bargain on the strip!! I love Don, but he pays people to count the cuss words on TV. I have a hard time connecting my perhaps unhealthy 99 cent double cheese to the advancement of gay rights.
Most of Wildmon's diatribes and AFA's attempts to challenge the culture are designed with two things in mind: first, keeping Don Wildmon's and AFA's names in the news, and second, reassuring the 'true believers' that they're not afraid of taking on anyone, even a major corporation. Whether a boycott produces any tangible results is clearly secondary. I don't have a problem with boycotting per se, but by attempting to reinforce his attack-oriented, polarizing mindset, Wildmon reduces the opportunity for any meaningful dialogue. But then again, I don't think that's what people of his mindset are interested in. There is no middle ground with them; it's all or nothing. And I doubt they seriously believe they'll ever 'win' their war; they're simply interested in propagating their tunnel-vision viewpoint and keeping donations coming in. Not unlike Focus on the Family these days when they venture away from what has always been their strength, family and child-rearing issues, and delve into politics. (By the way, does anyone know whether Dr. Dobson has decided to actually vote or not? For McCain? It's been keeping me up at night…)
In a diverse environment most major corporations, correctly, advance and affirm the rights of employee groups. As an employer, McDonald's or any other large or small company, has an obligation to serve its employees fairly and equitably. I don't think it has anything to do with whether the top management or board of directors is comprised of people who, as one poster surmised, 'don't have a relationship with God.' Perhaps some of them do and they feel that whatever policies are in place are appropriate, even if those policies clash on some level with their Christian values.
Engaging the culture is about conversation, dialogue, listening, respecting and honoring those with whom you disagree. As at least one other commenter mentioned, I too have Christian friends who own several McDonald's franchises and we've talked about this very issue. Their viewpoint is, how can we reach out to employees and encourage them by our witness if so-called Christians don't believe we should even employ them? Where is Christ in that?
What's ironic to me is the statement from AFA's own website: "It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars." What would be a neutral position? Don't ask, don't tell? How loving and encompassing is AFA's philosophy in reaching people for Christ if they're only going to go on the attack when a company gives "the full weight of the corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda"? Wildmon will hold back the dogs if a company maintains neutrality? Don't people in Switzerland need Jesus too?
To me, with people like Wildmon or organizations like AFA, it's not about the 'issue'. It's about them shouting at the rain; not because they don't get it but because they can't sell it.
"Their viewpoint is, how can we reach out to employees and encourage them by our witness if so-called Christians don't believe we should even employ them? Where is Christ in that?"
"It's about them shouting at the rain; not because they don't get it but because they can't sell it."
Excellent post.
McDonald's does not care about culture. They care about selling gross hamburgers. So they blew with the wind of culture. There are more of "them" than "us" …they just did the math.
To shape our culture we have to change people. We have to show the love of God in amazing ways that causes people to embrace Him. We have the greatest tools for evangelism that the world has ever known. Let's use our talent and time on that for now. A boycott — in this situation–does more harm than good (except for our hips.)
It does not surprise me that "AFA" is based in Tupelo, Ms. I grew up in Tupelo in the 50's. No dancing, alcohol, working on Sunday, and "seperate but equal" were the hot topics back then. My great grandfather told me slavery was preached in Tupelo churches as justified in the bible before the civil war up until the time he died. (lev 25,exodus 21, ephesians 6, tim 6, luke 12). And now it is time to pick on the gays, and what a great place to start from, Tupelo, Ms!! I recently read the bible 3 times and decided that what I was "told" by preachers was not what I read myself.
Take genesis 19. The story told by "Pastors" is a city is doomed if its morality is running amuk. But they ignore that Lot offers his daughters to the city to be gang raped, then is allowed to escape, flees to a cave and has sex with his daughters and gets them pregnant. And this pig Lot is protected by god?
I read the bible three times because of bigots like "AFA" and decided that it would be immoral to follow a book that condones murder, rape, incest, bogotry, slavery, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. "Pastors" follow parts they like, and discard what they do not. They do not follow the old testament claiming "jesus was the lamb and the old testament rules do not apply", but have no problem quoting the old testament ten commandments or other o.t. passages such as those that pertain to homosexuals. By the way, jesus said that the o.t. does apply, check out luke 16:17 and mat 5:17 "Do not think I have come to change the laws or the sayings of the prophets".
jesus (matthew) said you should gouge out your eye if you lust for a woman. He also said the bible is not open to man's interpretation. Why are there so many two eyed christians? Are they all gay?
Bigot is defined as "person with strong, intolerant, unreasoning attitude" Most people in the world that follow the bible (muslim o.t.+koran, jews o.t., christians o.t.+n.t.) epitomize the definition of a bigot. I do not follow it because I think it is immoral.
Leave the gays alone. You are going to loose this battle just as you lost the battle to slavery.
One last note. This book, written by bronze age tribesmen living in tents (really "stoneage" as that was their primary means of murder) never mention "rape". This was because women were "property" that could be borrowed with the consent of the owner. Penalty for borrowing without permission- 50 shiekels. Thats $150 today.