Actually, Lee, I didn't have any specific ones in mind when I wrote that getting someone's favorite show cancelled would not cause them to appreciate the boycotters very much. As a general statement, it seems hard to argue with.

That said, there seems to be consensus that the boycott against Dr. Laura's TV program was chiefly responsible for its cancellation. Likewise, many people are of the opinion that Fox News pulled Glenn Beck's show because the boycott succeeded in getting many advertisers to jump ship. His ratings were fine, but that didn't do the network much good when it could no longer lure the more lucrative advertisers.

Actually I prefer it hot and black. That was after all good enough to sink Hirohito's armadas.

Jason, thanks. It's good (from my own perspective, at least ;-) ) to be back.

"personcott", Mike D? That's hilarious!

Kevin, I'm drawing a blank on any examples where a boycott actually got a TV show off the air. Did you have a particular one in mind?

Much appreciated, Kim. Here's a similar business that's closer to Jason and me: http://edenwaycoffee.com/

It's good to see you again, Ben, and I'm delighted we agree on the Russell Moore argument. Here's hoping this becomes a trend. ;-)

Mike P, I agree - and yet, I think about a Christian who made himself horribly obnoxious, for decades, in England in the early 1800s. If he hadn't done that, but had instead urged love of one's neighbor irrespective of the neighbor's deeds, then Wilberforce would not have stopped slavery in Britain (and contributed mightily to stopping it in the USA). Yet, if I understand you, you'd say that what Wilberforce did was not proper Christian behavior. I'm having trouble reconciling the cognitive dissonance, and I'd really appreciate your help. (And no, this isn't sarcasm.)

Gina, clearly the secret to get lots of interaction at this blog is to post on (cough) hot topics. (And before you say anything, Jason, I'm well aware of Frappuccinos and other iced coffee beverages.)

As far as post-christian goes it does seem like that. Sometimes I wonder though; modern mores often seem to me have a curious resemblance to upper-class mores in the eighteenth century. There is less emphasis on visible displays of hierarchy now then then of course. But in some ways I rather get the feeling that we've seen it all before.

I wrote an article a few years ago on this subject, which I feel still applies:

Active Christian or Christian Activist?

It has become popular recently among many Christians today to make loud and visible protests when they perceive a threat, including the use of boycotting products and companies. While it saddens me that our nation and world is moving further and further from traditional Christian values, I wonder if boycotting businesses is really the answer. The money made by the business is theirs to do with what they want, is it not? And where do we stop if we feel we should have a say how they spend their money? Should we check out everyone we do business with and know how they will spend the money we give them for their product or service?

What if I find out that a contractor I want to hire (who may be the best around) likes to get drunk and live a promiscuous life on his time off? By hiring him am I supporting un-Christian values? Or what if there is a really good restaurant I like to eat at. It’s clean and family friendly, but the owner is an atheist who actively supports organizations that are dedicated to remove religious influence from society. Should I stop eating there because my money may be eventually used for the causes he’s involved with? Do I need to check them out before I spend money at their businesses, or should I just use the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy?

No, I think it’s easy to pick on the big, obvious companies because they are bigger, more visible and much easier targets. But if we really believe we need to exert “influence” with our pocketbooks, then we would have to check out everyone and everything we give our money to. And what if our country uses the money it collects from us to do blatantly un-Christian, perhaps even evil things? Should we disobey the law and refuse to give them money?

There is a story in the Bible (Mark 12:14-17) where those who were against Jesus tried to trap Him. They asked if it would be proper and right to pay taxes. Now, you have to know how much the Jewish people hated the Romans and hated giving them money. They were very ungodly and did a lot of evil things with that money (it was actually a VERY evil, cruel and godless empire). But what was Jesus’ response? vs. 17: “Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”
I know there are some differences, like it was the law to pay taxes and that we have the freedom to shop where we want, but what was Jesus’ point? Jesus wasn’t as concerned with how the Romans were going to use the money as He was that we put God in His proper place and give to Him what is His.

And what does God want? Jesus said just a few verses later (Mark 12:29-31) when asked which was the greatest commandment, “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

The United States, Europe, and most of the world has walked away from whatever Christian heritage they possessed. It’s not a pleasant thought, but we are going to have to wake up and face this fact. Most Christian experts agree that we now live in a “post-Christian” world. We may have been founded on Christian principles, and I believe we should stand up and make our voices heard, but we should always strive to show our love for God and each other above everything else. I may not exactly know where the line is, but I know there IS a line we can’t afford to cross where our activism turns into something not unlike the Jewish Zealots who sought to overthrow the Roman occupation by force in the name of God. That was not what Jesus had in mind for that day, nor is it in His plan for our day. Christianity survived, grew and thrived in those early days NOT because they became social activists and changed their society on the outside (through enactment of laws for instance), but because they genuinely loved God and one another and allowed the Holy Spirit to work on and change one individual at a time, from the inside out.

Recently, there was a big controversy in the news about the decision of British Airways not to allow a flight attendant to display a necklace with a cross (company policy required personal jewelry to be concealed). Many Christians became upset and cried “discrimination,” calling for the boycotting of British Airways. But look at what some of the Christians (British Airways Christian Fellowship) who work there had to say:
“We consider the campaigns instigated by some Christians and churches to be disproportionate and do not conform to the principles of grace found in the Kingdom of God.  It is the way of the cross, not the wearing of it, that should determine our behavior.” 
“We would hold that, in Christianity, outward signs of a cross are simply an exterior representation of what should be in the heart. Outward physical expressions are not in themselves essential to demonstrate inner faith.”
Amen. Let us remember that we serve a God who is in control of all things. I know it can be frustrating to see the world continually slide away from the things of God, but we need not be surprised at this. People who are without God don’t know any better. They are in the grip of sin and do what comes natural to their spiritually dead condition. But Jesus turned the world upside down and showed us a different way. Not only are we to love our enemies and pray for them (Matt 5:44), but we are to show the world that we are His disciples NOT by our beautiful churches or by our social activism, but by the love we have for one another (John 13:35). It is only through the changing of hearts, not policies, that will make the ultimate difference.

For coffee drinkers: Try Land of a Thousand Hills. It was started by Bishop Rucyahana as a way for people to earn a living after the massacre. (Micro-Enterprise) http://store.landofathousandhills.com/

Mike, I'm sure Starbucks will be happy to take your money, no matter what your beliefs. I don't think they discriminate. =)

I boycott Starbucks because I think their coffee is over-roasted and their cafe mochas too weak. But, I like Russell Moore's argument.

I'm sure there are quite a number of companies that I could boycott, or should I say personcott. But the reason I and my family have decided to shun Starbucks is that by their definition I am a bigot because I think re-defining an institution as old as recorded history is a very bad idea. So I would think they would not want the money of a bigot and hater, and we don't plan on giving it to them.

Besides the things that pointificators brought up, I have friends and relatives that work at Starbucks.

At the library I have to process a number of Shirtless Warrior Books. No one seems to be for boycotting the library.

Besides if we are to boycott starbucks aren't their other more dignified things to boycott it for? Coffee grown by workers treated in an unseemly fashion probably does get in their somewhere.

Oh, welcome back, Lee.

Our brethren are sometimes not very thoughtful when calling for boycotts. Some of the most ill-considered have been aimed at television shows. Aside from the possibility that parents ought to police their own TVs before trying to get rid of a program, I've always thought this kind of boycott is very counterproductive and likely to make more enemies. How would you feel toward people who got your favorite TV show yanked?

How many institutions are their that don't engage in boycotable practices?

Somebody tried to organize a Christian boycott of non-kosher butchers, almost 2,000 years ago. Paul's response, in 1 Cor. 8, was as wise as Solomon's would have been. To apply it to this issue, I'd say that a cup of coffee in itself is no big deal, but if it would cause a problem for someone to see me going into a Starbucks, why then, I'll never enter another one.

What bothers me most about boycotts is less their use of power against the company, and more their use of power against those like Russell Moore who would respectfully disagree - or even want to simply discuss. "If you don't join us, unquestioningly, then you're a bad Christian!!" is what I'd expect to hear.

Furthermore, boycotts can easily outlive their usefulness. Jonadab son of Rechab ordered his sons to never drink wine, sometime before 850 B.C. Now, I'd think if the prophet Jeremiah ordered you to do something, you'd at least give it reasonable consideration, but in Jeremiah 35, around 300 years after Jonadab had died, his descendants said "We won't drink wine, and you can't make us, Jerry!" This would make for that regrettably awkward moment in any dinner party hosted by an Italian American. ;-) It's one thing to have stringent personal commitments based on the ill social effects of alcohol consumed immoderately, and quite another to say that you're keeping an order given by an ancestor a quarter of a millennium ago. And a third thing entirely to insist that you adopt my commitments while being persuaded neither by reason nor by Scripture. As Jon Acuff often reminds us, sometimes something gets stuck in Christian culture way past its expiration date.

I.e., even if the boycott works and SBUX caves, do Christians rush back in, or will they more likely carry a grudge? And what lasting harm might such a grudge have? Plus, will thousands of Bible studies now have to find a different place to meet, permanently, lest they risk some vaguely remembered stigma?

Seventh Day Adventists refuse to eat meat based on Paul's comments. That's fine as a matter of recommendation, but they enforce the rule. It's doubtful that meat you buy at Safeway was offered to an idol in the slaughterhouse.

Paul seemed to echo the conservative notion :-) of letting everyone decide individually, and having market forces work it out. (Caribou Coffee is owned by Muslims, as I understand it, and so would be an alternative to Starbucks where one could be certain the company would be opposed to gay marriage. On the other hand, should our dollars go to support Islam?)

Drat - now I suppose I **really** need to join the tea party... ;-)

Oh, by the way - our church has a very large, built-in coffee shop with Starbucks equipment, Starbucks coffee, Starbucks logos and prettymuch Starbucks everything, and it sits right next to the sanctuary. My wife volunteers in the shop about once a month. This whole boycott issue could get very interesting.

I am not in favor of boycotting Starbucks because I wish to drink lots of coffee.

Seriously, this whole thing is starting to look like a matter of two tribes equally convinced that the other desires to destroy them. It is not clear that this helps solve that problem. Wrath is at least as sinful as lust.

Or again, I want to continue drinking coffee.