« A disturbing trend... | Main | Happy Thoughts--June 7, 2004 »
Shopping on Sunday revisited...
Continuing in the same vein from yesterday's post about LDS professionals, a related issue (brought up in one of the comments) is the principle of Church members not shopping on Sundays. I'm not going to discuss, though, the should we or should we not issue, but instead take that as a given.
The question, then, is how far can/should you go to defend the 'sanctity' of the Sabbath?
In my Pornography and Free Agency post (uh, oh...just gave the search engines something more to go on, didn't I...) I discussed that even accepting 'pornography is bad' as a given, there are still several distinct attitudes one can take. Generally speaking, they are:
(1) Personal obedience--no outward opposition at all
(2) Personal obedience--light opposition outwardly
(3) Personal obedience--active opposition, including all possible legal means
Applied to shopping on the Sabbath, then, we have:
(1) I don't shop on the Sabbath--but don't care if other people do, or if stores remain open.
(2) I don't shop on the Sabbath--and don't shop at stores that are open on Sundays any day of the week either.
(3) I don't shop on the Sabbath--and I organize boycotts of stores that are open on Sundays, as well as support laws that say that stores may not open on Sunday at all.
There's a thin line between supporting your religious beliefs and being discriminatory towards others who don't share them--and as with the issue of only using LDS professionals, I think the people who have attitudes (2) and (3) have crossed it.
It's proper to stand up for your beliefs and encourage others to do the same--and attitude (1) already does both. Stores wouldn't be open on Sundays if they didn't think there was a profit to be made. Simply not shopping on Sundays yourself takes away from the store's Sunday income and makes it more likely they won't have the financial incentive necessary to justify keeping their doors open. If enough people don't shop on Sundays, then they've 'encouraged' stores to keep the Sabbath day holy themselves and have fulfilled their obligation towards supporting righteous behavior.
Attitude (2), though, goes beyond this... #2 people stop shopping at a store altogether if it's open on Sundays--which takes away from its total income, not just its Sunday income. This is not an appropriate (or even an effective) means of supporting the Sabbath because (a) the store is not any more likely to close on Sundays than before because its Sunday income in particular has not been affected and (b) this is a demonstration of pride and isolationism rather than righteousness. You're, in effect, saying "I'm going to PUNISH that store for not conforming to my religious beliefs by taking away all my business."--no less discriminatory than not shopping at a store because it doesn't have an LDS owner. Taken to the logical extreme, we'd soon see exact divisions in the population with the LDS part only going to 'Church standard' stores, and everyone else going to different 'Sunday' stores--and the end result is closed circle social isolationism again...just the sort of thing Church members should be avoiding.
(We'll skip over discussion of Attitude #3 for obvious reasons...)
The main point...if you want to support the Sabbath, don't shop on Sundays. That's all you have to do. I don't think much of the 'boycott' method (whether it's even effective is arguable) and think there's a fine line between being 'righteous' and 'discriminatory' which (no news flash here) Church members often cross...
June 4, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/18231/802415
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shopping on Sunday revisited...:
Comments
There was a Harmon's grocery store in my parent's community (Orem, UT) that posted a huge sign saying something like "Out of respect for the community, we are closed on Sundays." It was interesting to see though, that after a few weeks or months, the store reverted to being open on Sundays.
I have no idea what informed that decision and prefer not to speculate. I do know that my parents still shop there pretty often. My parents don't boycott any and every store that is open on Sundays. They just prefer to support the stores that close on the Sabbath day. If they have the option to do their business with a store that is closed on Sundays they will choose that store over a store that chooses to be open on Sundays.
It's one thing to say "I will only do business with LDS people" and it's a slightly different thing to say: "I will especially lend my financial support to institutions that support my value system."
There's another way we could look at this. My wife and I have, on a few occasions recently, been trying out various sushi restaurants in Salt Lake City. We went to one place that had been highly rated, only to realize that the restaurant was almost more of a bar/watering hole than a restaurant. We don't have any objection to being in a restaurant that serves alcohol, but it felt like this particular establishment was more bar than restaurant and determined that in the future we probably wouldn't go there -- simply because we didn't like the overall atmosphere that much.
I guess everyone has to choose where they will draw the line.
Posted by: danithew | Jun 4, 2004 2:47:56 PM
I remember five years ago or so when the Orem Harmons opened, some of the locals took around a petition asking people to boycott Harmons because they were open on Sundays. That may have had a direct part in the (brief) period of time they didn't open their doors on Sundays...
One of my college roommates worked for Harmons at the time, so he had first-hand knowledge of what was going on. The 'boycott' people annoyed me at the time (although I may have had an inherent bias) and that experience has stayed with me since then. (The Harmons boycott was the one first and foremost in mind when I wrote the post)
Looking back at what I wrote, I may have made it sound like more 'black/white' than it is. But, I still feel boycotting a place because of their Sabbath policy (not, obviously, because you genuinely don't like the place) is somewhat self-righteous and in fact not particularly productive either...
Posted by: The Baron | Jun 4, 2004 3:11:46 PM
You have a great way of framing issues. Very thought-provoking.
I think things depend a great deal on how serious we tend to think a sin is.
Suppose there are two video stores in town that, except as noted below, are equal in every aspect.
Under Attitude (1) it makes no difference which shop you choose, because your personal use of the video stores will be righteous.
Under Attitude (2) you will prefer one video store over the other because it agrees more with your religious beliefs.
Under Attitude (3) you will actively encourage boycotts or legal action against your non-preferred store.
So here are some scenarios:
A. Store X is open on Sunday and Store Y is not.
B. Store X rents R-rated videos and Store Y does not.
C. Store X rents hardcore pornography and Store Y does not.
D. Store X rents computer-generated virtual child pornography and Store Y does not.
Scenario C would get me to Attitude (2), and Scenario D would get me to Attitude (3).
Posted by: Eric James Stone | Jun 4, 2004 4:44:42 PM
What if instead of social isolationism, it's a form of self-sacrifice? If it actually is more economically efficient to stay open on Sundays, those who choose not to open on Sundays put their businesses at risk (given free-market competition). If a person feels that the owner who closes on Sundays is pursuing a worthy goal, then being willing to support him by paying slightly higher prices may be altruistic rather than self-righteous. [This example could apply in other ways as well--what about a Saturday-sabbath observer who's about to go under because he refuses to open on Saturday, and no one shops on Sunday? I could consider going out of one's way to shop there Mon-Fri a worthy endeavor].
Broader demographics also seem worth considering. In LDS-packed Happy Valley, one may prefer to give one's patronage to stores that close on Sundays in part to avoid rewarding those establishments which force their (presumably mostly LDS) workforces to work on Sundays. In regions in which a supermajority of the population is not in favor of refraining from commerce on Sundays, this position would be silly.
Posted by: BDemosthenes | Jun 4, 2004 9:12:37 PM
Being outside of Utah, if we decided to boycott stores that are open on Sunday, there would be nowhere to shop.
It reminds me of a time not long ago when my wife decided she would boycott stores that violated WHO's International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. It wasn't long before she ran out of stores where she could shop.
As a drama student, I am familiar with the issue of how far to go in trying to be obedient and standing up for one's beliefs. I have made a decision to refuse any part that requires me to use profanity. On that note, should I refuse a part in a play that requires ANY character (me or otherwise) to use profanity? Should I refuse a part in any play by that playwright or that director? should I refuse any play performed in that playhouse?
Posted by: Kim Siever | Jun 7, 2004 9:45:55 AM
Eric,
What about scenario E?
E. Store X is open on Sunday and Store Y sells soft porn videos. Store X sells only PG-13 and under videos and Store Y is closed on Sundays.
Posted by: Kim Siever | Jun 7, 2004 9:49:58 AM
Does perspective make a difference? When I make decisions like this, I think of it as rewarding stores that support the same standards I do. As such, I try to let a store manager know about it.
For example, I normally buy milk at a convenience store (it's over a buck a gallon cheaper than any of the grocery stores I shop at). I could buy it at either of two stores for approximately the same price. One of the stores displays "men's magazines" at the checkout stand, so I shop at the other one. I've thanked the manager a couple of times that I'm glad he's made the decision not to stock the magazines and that's why I buy my milk there.
I don't have any local stores/businesses that are closed on the Sabbath, but I think I'd take the same approach.
Posted by: Pat Eyler | Jun 7, 2004 12:54:11 PM
Isn't free agency important in this discussion? If God gave us the freedom to do wrong then why should we prevent our peers from hurting themselves? (There is a difference between wrong action that causes harm to others and wrong action that causes only personal injury.) Having an objective morality and allowing other people to damage themselves is not contradictory.
Encouraging others to do the right thing is proper, not supporting or cooperating with those that do wrong is too, but taking the choice away from another by forcing them to do right is indefensible. Choosing the right action is a personal responsibility that can't BE a choice if the wrong action is not an option.
I choose option (2).
Posted by: Noah Langenwalter | Jun 7, 2004 3:09:56 PM
Isn't free agency important in this discussion? If God gave us the freedom to do wrong then why should we prevent our peers from hurting themselves? (There is a difference between wrong action that causes harm to others and wrong action that causes only personal injury.) Having an objective morality and allowing other people to damage themselves is not contradictory.
Encouraging others to do the right thing is proper, not supporting or cooperating with those that do wrong is too, but taking the choice away from another by forcing them to do right is indefensible. Choosing the right action is a personal responsibility that can't BE a choice if the wrong action is not an option.
I choose option (2 and 1/2): I do the right thing--and I do all that I can without resorting to force(physical, legislative or otherwise) to help others do right too.
Posted by: Noah Langenwalter | Jun 7, 2004 3:16:42 PM
Dear Baron:
WHy don't you try applying your schema to abortion & SSM? Personally, I will go for option #3. Either we are _living_ the gospel & support _institutions_ that allow everyone to do so, or...not. As Melissa points out at T&S, and liberals love to point out, it is _institutions_ that make the big difference in society. right?
Posted by: lyle | Jun 8, 2004 7:10:41 AM
lyle,
Do you then avoid hospitals that perform abortions? Do you refuse to live in cities, states and countries that allow abortions?
Do you avoid visiting courthouses that have made same-sex marriages legal? do you avoid city halls that provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Do you refuse to live in cities, states and countries that allow same-sex marriages?
At some point, it becomes ridiculous.
Posted by: Kim Siever | Jun 8, 2004 9:22:47 AM
kim: Actually, while it's not practical...i don't think that practical & ridiculous are very synonymous. Perhaps when we have a city of Zion, you won't want to move there? Or alt: dont' want to make the effort to create a Zion city where you live? Love to say it :), but none of the stuff you mention will be there. So...do you want Zion today? tomorrow? or...
Posted by: lyle | Jun 9, 2004 11:57:48 AM
But the fact all remains. If, in Utah, even Salt Lake City, every mormon refused to shop on Sundays, there would be a significant drop in Sunday revenues at the stores. Even if mormons shopped at the same stores on other days, the sunday revenue drop would close the stores on Sunday.
MRKH
Posted by: Mark Hansen | Oct 8, 2004 10:01:02 PM
America is supposed to be a freedom country, but if I choose not to shop on Sunday, then people who don't do the same will protest to take away my freedom to chose. And if they got what they asked, you have no freedom to say anything about this kind of people. But I will insist, no shopping on Sunday guys not only for my sake but for God also.
Posted by: bernagen | Mar 26, 2008 9:10:48 PM
