Darla Meyers
Extreme boycott
By Darla Meyers
Those of us who are regularly notified of a company or supplier that is supporting abortion or sodomy are often faced with the sacrifice of having to boycott a company's product to which we have become loyal. We try to find an excuse to be exempted from the boycott because... (fill in the blank).
The idea of a boycott is to send the company or organization a message, with our dollars or voice, that their product, although often used, will no longer be allowed in our household. With a well-formed conscience, we cannot spend our dollars on any company or organization that is for the murder of children through embryonic stem cell experimentation and extermination, abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, or for the sodomizing of America. It may pain us to boycott, but we are willing to make a small sacrifice in order to send a powerful message, en masse, that a company's product, no matter how loyal we have been to its use, will no longer be allowed in our household.
How many of us are thinking of the Republican and Democrat Party candidates as a "product" that should be boycotted? Both parties have sent us candidates that are anti-Constitution, anti-life, and anti-traditional one man/one woman marriage. If ever there was a need for an Extreme Boycott, this is the time. Instead, we are adopting an "I'll Boycott Only If It's Convenient" mentality. Why aren't we sending a message to both parties that we will not vote for either party's candidates until they provide a candidate (product) that does not support the culture of death?
Alan Keyes isn't the only person sounding the alarm on the top two political parties: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=75449. Steven Waldman, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com, and author of Founding Faith is also sounding that alarm: http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/09/16/mccain%e2%80%99s-language-on-abortion-shifts-toward-the-middle/.
Nobody wants to hear bad news about a candidate or "product" to which they've become loyal, even if there is an acceptable alternative to the boycotted product. If voters acknowledge that their candidate should be boycotted, it's human nature to try to ignore the bad news and act as if the culture of death, presented in different forms, can be accepted in some instances. Who, exactly, may die in the case of "some instances"?
Ignorance is not bliss with the upcoming elections. It's time to call an Extreme Boycott of both traditional party candidates by voting third-party. If we continue to vote for candidates who are anti-Constitution, anti-life and anti-traditional marriage, neither party will have a reason to send us candidates we can morally support. We do have an acceptable alternative. This November, will you compromise or will you vote with a clear conscience?
© Darla Meyers
Those of us who are regularly notified of a company or supplier that is supporting abortion or sodomy are often faced with the sacrifice of having to boycott a company's product to which we have become loyal. We try to find an excuse to be exempted from the boycott because... (fill in the blank).
The idea of a boycott is to send the company or organization a message, with our dollars or voice, that their product, although often used, will no longer be allowed in our household. With a well-formed conscience, we cannot spend our dollars on any company or organization that is for the murder of children through embryonic stem cell experimentation and extermination, abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, or for the sodomizing of America. It may pain us to boycott, but we are willing to make a small sacrifice in order to send a powerful message, en masse, that a company's product, no matter how loyal we have been to its use, will no longer be allowed in our household.
How many of us are thinking of the Republican and Democrat Party candidates as a "product" that should be boycotted? Both parties have sent us candidates that are anti-Constitution, anti-life, and anti-traditional one man/one woman marriage. If ever there was a need for an Extreme Boycott, this is the time. Instead, we are adopting an "I'll Boycott Only If It's Convenient" mentality. Why aren't we sending a message to both parties that we will not vote for either party's candidates until they provide a candidate (product) that does not support the culture of death?
Alan Keyes isn't the only person sounding the alarm on the top two political parties: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=75449. Steven Waldman, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com, and author of Founding Faith is also sounding that alarm: http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/09/16/mccain%e2%80%99s-language-on-abortion-shifts-toward-the-middle/.
Nobody wants to hear bad news about a candidate or "product" to which they've become loyal, even if there is an acceptable alternative to the boycotted product. If voters acknowledge that their candidate should be boycotted, it's human nature to try to ignore the bad news and act as if the culture of death, presented in different forms, can be accepted in some instances. Who, exactly, may die in the case of "some instances"?
Ignorance is not bliss with the upcoming elections. It's time to call an Extreme Boycott of both traditional party candidates by voting third-party. If we continue to vote for candidates who are anti-Constitution, anti-life and anti-traditional marriage, neither party will have a reason to send us candidates we can morally support. We do have an acceptable alternative. This November, will you compromise or will you vote with a clear conscience?
© Darla Meyers
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
