jump to navigation

Ghandi beer elicits mea culpas, “Sweet Baby Jesus” beer is just fine January 12, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, damnable blasphemy, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
trackback

It is not easy to be Christian.  Our Blessed Lord counseled us to bear the insults and blows of the world by turning the other cheek, to return hatred to love. Doing thus is certainly contrary to our fallen nature.  But it is what Our Lord demands of us.

I do wonder, however, if one reason why the culture and especially those given to leftism enjoy bashing and mocking us so much, is because they know it is safe to do so.  We have recently had great evidence from France, Nigeria, and the entire Mideast that mocking islam can be extremely dangerous to one’s health.  Our media has learned the lesson so well they not only refuse to mock islam, they attack those who do, and even go so far as to excuse islamic atrocities in response such mocking of their false “prophet.”

And, although we don’t see as much coverage of this in the Western press, hindus have also been known to go to extremes of violence in the name of defending ostensibly sacrosanct aspects of their religion in the recent past.   There is a good deal of hindu persecution of muslims and Christians on the subcontinent, with various forms of violence being quite regular.  Perhaps that played a role in a small New Hampshire brewery beating their breast and exclaiming their sorrow at having caused offense over their relatively innocuously named “Ghandi-bot” beer:

“For nearly five years we’ve been brewing Gandhi-Bot,” the company said in the post. “In those five years we’ve proudly served it to people of all backgrounds. Until this week we’ve never received a single negative comment regarding the label but after a recent article it has come to our attention that the artwork has clearly offended some people.

“We are a very small company that is passionate about brewing beer and have never had any intention to offend anyone but rather share wha we do with anyone interested,” the post said.

“We are working on finding the best way to amend this situation in a manner that both is respectful to those who are offended as well as a way that is manageable for our small company,” the company said.

New England Brewing posted its original apology on Saturday, at about the time criticism began mounting.

It should be noted that Ghandi was just a man.  He is of course lionized by many for his ostensible works of peace (but also has many critics, and those critics have more than a few valid points) and is revered by many hindis, but it’s not like someone bashed “shiva” or whatever.  Nevertheless, the brewery quickly cowered before any criticism.

But no matter how much reverence hindus may hold for Ghandi, Ghandi-bot is quite a bit more innocuous than the blatantly blasphemous “Sweet Baby Jesus” beer produced – which much mocking derision – by DuClaw Brewing Company of – get this – Maryland, the state originally founded as a refuge for Catholics persecuted in Jacobian England:

“Sweet Baby Jesus,” launched about a year ago, recently became one of DuClaw’s best-selling beers. Thanks to a recent plug from Uncrate, a digital buying guide for men, “Sweet Baby Jesus” beer is drawing attention from reviewers and expanding its appeal beyond Baltimore, into New Jersey, Virginia, and surrounding states. Critics call the ‘chocolate peanut butter’ porter beer “truly exceptional,” graced with a “creative name worth repeating.”

That “creative name worth repeating” just happens to be the name of the Lord.

No matter.

These days, taking a celebrity’s name ‘in vain’—without permission—to sell a product guarantees a public rebuke and litigation threats from the celebrity’s lawyer. But taking the Lord Jesus’s name in vain to sell a parochial brew passes for urbane wit and draws a cosmopolitan snicker. One Philadelphia reviewer honored the beer with a “Best Name” award, tittering over the fact that ‘Sweet Baby Jesus’ is “a tiny bit blasphemous.”

And Who could ever be offended by a tiny of blasphemy at the Holy Name, upon mention of which St. Paul tells us “every knee must bend?”  It’s only yet another sin against the 2nd Commandment.  No biggie.

To get an idea of this company’s gleeful irreverence, their tagline for the brew is “Put a sweet BJ in your mouth,” the double entendre being obvious.

Poor souls.  They have no idea what they do.  There have been complaints and criticism from Christians (mostly evangelical) over this product, but the brewery has rather rudely discounted the concerns of Christians. One may rest assured this very “brave” and “transgressive” brewery does not have the wherewithal to similarly insult the alleged “prophet,” nor the religion he founded.

With the growing atrocities against Christians worldwide, with the culture becoming increasingly hostile, and with the prospects of even blood persecution rising in so many locales, it does make me wonder if perhaps a more militant stance on the part of Christians would not be warranted.  For centuries, the Church convoked Crusades against the muslim and other infidel, Saints were canonized who were known for their martial prowess (San Fernando III, St. Juan de Capistrano, etc), and Christian nations defended the faith against blasphemy and heresy with sometimes quite harsh means.  Which is to say, even given Christ’s command to turn the other cheek, there have been many times in the Church’s history when she has not only tolerated violence in defense of the Faith and for the good of souls, but positively encouraged it.

Perhaps, as the former Christendom recedes more and more deeply into the past, and even great lands like South America which were once bastions of the Faith fall into heresy and indifference, and as we observe the threats to the Faith grow more and more menacing, there may come a time again when a more martial defense of the Faith may become necessary.  Some might even feel that time has not just come, but is long past.  Not that we need to behead brewers.  But a far more vigorous defense of the Faith in one area tends to have a spillover effect into others.  Silly-headed merchants seeking to score a quick buck appealing to similarly vacuous souls wouldn’t have dared to use even relatively innocuous blasphemy as their selling-point when Christendom was strong and robust.  Today, they believe it’s a win win – they appeal to the cultural atheism that is supposedly so hip and such a part of the self-anointed elite’s view of itself to sell more product, while they swat away any minor tut-tutting from Christians, who probably don’t make up much of their market, anyway.  But if the cost of doing so were higher, if they could expect a response more than just a few letters of complaints and very half-hearted boycott efforts, little cheap shots like this would not occur with any frequency.

Which situation is exactly the one islam has created for itself even in the formerly Christian nations – people fear the crazed response so much they won’t even point out islam’s obvious failings, let alone mock the “prophet.”  Look what happens to those who do.

Is there a lesson in there, somewhere?

Advertisements

Comments

1. cg - January 12, 2015

Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses and commented:
Poor Jesus. Folks at that brewery do not seem to care that they are committing a serious sin against the 2nd Commandment, “Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord, thy God in vain.”

2. steve - January 12, 2015

“With the growing atrocities against Christians worldwide, with the culture becoming increasingly hostile, and with the prospects of even blood persecution rising in so many locales, it does make me wonder if perhaps a more militant stance on the part of Christians would not be warranted.”

The French government today dispatched a combination of 10,000 soldiers and police officers to protect synagogues, Jewish schools, business and neighborhoods throughout France.

I applaud that decision as Jews were on the Islamic terrorist hit-list last week in France.

Among the 10,000 in question must be a Catholic or two.

It is right and proper in France and elsewhere for Catholics, particularly when they are the majority, to defend, for example, Jews from persecution, terrorists attacks and potential danger.

By the way, the point that I wish to make isn’t at all about Jews.

I simply used the above news story to point out that in a nation that is predominately Catholic, even if only in name, Catholics understand that they must defend persecuted people.

My point concerns the tremendous lack of Catholic solidarity with persecuted Catholics?

A Catholic nation (even in name) understands that it must defend a weaker minority (in the above case, Jews) against maniacs who have and would harm and even kill said minority.

Incredibly, Catholics refuse to apply that principle to their brothers in sisters in the Faith in, for example Iraq.

During the past few months, some 200,000 Catholics in Iraq have fled their ancient villages to escape Islamic persecution.

Unfortunately, among those who had failed to bolt were innocents subjected to torture, rape, slavery and murder.

Hundreds of thousands of Catholics in Iraq have fled said country during the past 13 years.

Countless persecuted Catholics in Syria and in parts of Africa are on the run from Islamic terrorists.

Where is the Catholic response to protect Catholics who this second in Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa are subjected to Islamic persecution?

In that which remains of Christendom, I am thankful that at least some Catholics have come to the aid of Jews.

Now, it is time that Christendom offer that same military protection to the hundreds of thousands of persecuted Catholics in Iraq, Syria, Africa…wherever.

But that won’t happen until our Churchmen call upon Christendom to rush to the aid of persecuted Catholics.

It is time for Pope Francis to make a bold move in that regard.

Observer - January 12, 2015

Steve, France has not been “predominantly Catholic, if in name only”, for a very long time. The French state is aggressively anti-Christian since 1904 when the Laciete Law was pushed through the legislature, to the delight and vocal approval of militant atheists and Masons.

3. steve - January 12, 2015

“With the growing atrocities against Christians worldwide, with the culture becoming increasingly hostile, and with the prospects of even blood persecution rising in so many locales, it does make me wonder if perhaps a more militant stance on the part of Christians would not be warranted.”

The time has arrived for that stance to be taken if Christians wish to survive beyond remnant form.

At least throughout Europe, the terror attacks in France last week had better jolt Christians to examine the failed governmental polices (such as having allowed massive Islamic immigration (conquest) of said continent) that have place the future of Christians there in jeopardy.

The terror attacks in question had better spur Christians to examine their collect decision to have abandoned their religion. That decision created a vacuum that Islam has filled.

The terror attacks in question had better spur, for example, Catholics, to question the pastoral policy of interreligious “dialogue” to which our Churchmen adhere.

The reality is that interreligious “dialogue” is, in effect, the surrender of Christendom (whatever remains of Christendom) to Islam.

By the way, the “I am Charlie” nonsense will not prevent the Islamization of Europe.

Europe will not find its salvation from Islam in blasphemous, vile, so-called “free speech”.

“I am Charlie” will only ensure the continued collapse of Christianity in France and Europe.

God will not be mocked by the blaspheme that is at the root of “I am Charlie”.

Pax.

Observer - January 12, 2015

We need to ask ‘cui bono’? Islamic immigration into Europe is serving its purpose very well. That purpose is the destruction of Christianity in its heartland. Why else do the hostile elites who rule Europe enable and encourage Islamic immigration. They have no liking for Muslims but are using them as convenient tool to destroy us. Meanwhile most Catholics continue to stick their heads in the sand.

4. steve - January 12, 2015

Observer…”Steve, France has not been “predominantly Catholic, if in name only”, for a very long time>”

That is why I qualified my remarks with “whatever remains” of Christendom…or “if only in name”.

At least some sense of Catholicism remains in France and Europe.

Some sense. That would suffice to provide at least a spark to the re-evangelization of Europe.

Pax.

Tantumblogo - January 12, 2015

I took your meaning. I would still call France a “Catholic” country, if only in history.

5. steve - January 12, 2015

Observer…”Meanwhile most Catholics continue to stick their heads in the sand.”

Or are they aware of their destruction at the hand of Islam?

They may realize that in regard to Islam, their Churchmen have surrendered to Moslems via the policy of interreligious “dialogue”.

I believe that plenty of Catholics are aware that the New Orientation has shipwrecked the Church.

But what can they do when their Churchmen, who wield power, have forced the Church to surrender to anti-Catholic sects and religions via ecumenism and interreligious policies…and placated anti-Catholic secularism?

Pax.

Observer - January 12, 2015

I agree. We are singing from the same hymn sheet! I’m pleased you mentioned the dire state of the Catholic hierarchy in Europe, there seems no way out of the current mess as the ‘leaders’ can’t or won’t lead.

c matt - January 13, 2015

About the only things that can be done – increase prayer, and decrease tithing to those that exacerbate the problem.

6. Camper - January 12, 2015

Dear Tantum,
Have you thought of covering the Canadian and French laws that forbid one from criticizing homosexuality? We should start a boycott. In fact, one cause that deserves a bit of money today is one that helps Catholics boycott evil countries and corporations. No tourist money for you, UK!

http://www.speroforum.com/a/WDNDRAIVVH15/75475-Free-speech-advocate-convicted-because-language-is-a-weapon?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+speroforum%2Fnroq+%28Spero+News%29#.VLQ0uSvF98E

Camper

Tantumblogo - January 12, 2015

I’ve written about them periodically. Usually as a mention in another post on a similar subject, about how all that is coming here. But I’ve mentioned a number of times.

7. Camper - January 12, 2015

I suggest that one lesson is that we do need to spend some time on street evangelization. Holding a sign outside the Cathedral of Hope might be a start. The less we do it, the more likely it is to be outlawed. Also visiting prisons. I think some male criminals would respond to the Holy Mass when they see how masculine it is. We should mention the sermon on Audio Sancto that talks about the relationship between chastity and physical strength and _health_:

[audio src="http://files.audiosancto.org/20130922-Pornography-Freedom-and-Social-Destruction.mp3" /]

This is the sermon in which Fr. talked about the use by the CIA and the Shin Beth of pornography to degrade the Palestinians. Netanyahu said about the possibility of broadcasting filth into Iran: “this is pretty subversive stuff.” We should take that into the prisons. Without being vulgar I can write that that would be a great draw to men in prison, who care greatly about that sort of thing.

I propose that this is a better idea than protesting outside of brothels. Many of those men don’t want to hear the truth.

8. c matt - January 13, 2015

They have no idea what they do.

On the contrary, I think they know exactly what they do.

Tantumblogo - January 13, 2015

On one level, yes, they are willfully pursuing the secular agenda and taking cheap swipes at Christianity – the safe religion to pick on – but their very atheism means they are ignorant of, or at least blind to, the awful reality that will face them at their particular judgment. That’s what I mean by they know not what they do, these atheists/modernists/leftists pretend God is dead, but He is not, and they will find that out to their severe cost at one point or another.

9. maggycast - January 13, 2015

Yes, Our Lord said to turn the other cheek…but He also took whips to people selling at the temple and hauled off verbally against the Pharisees, Saducees, Scribes, Lawyers, Jerusalem and the Lake Towns. Context…turning the other cheek was meant to point out the wrong doing of the person doing the hitting…not to be treated as a doormat. I am all for returning to the sanity of antiquity where people didn’t have the “right” to spew evil. I pray for the end of the demonic inspired “endarkenment” junk…”free this…free that”…pffft…that’s not freedom but license. God bless~


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: