Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Egad, that infernal Starbucks has even more thoughts on coffee cups! When will it end! The Worldnutdaily is in the middle of one of its frequent pointless hissy fits over this after yet another drooling halfwit found another objectionable quote on a Starbucks cup. And this one is clearly just a pithy and satirical comment:
Heaven is totally overrated. It seems boring. Clouds, listening to people play the harp. It should be somewhere you can't wait to go, like a luxury hotel. Maybe blue skies and soft music were enough to keep people in line in the 17th century, but Heaven has to step it up a bit. They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than Hell. -- Joel Stein, columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
How long before these idiots declare that Starbucks has declared War on Heaven? Oh wait, they're already calling for a boycott. As I said, I've never been to a Starbucks and I don't drink coffee. But half of me wants to start just to counter the obscurantism of these mental midgets.
Comments
I think Starbucks could stand to get taken down a notch or two, but not because of this. This is stupid. Its beyond stupid. Why boycott? Who cares?
Posted by: Brian Thompson | May 11, 2007 9:46 AM
Heh, that's one of the good quotes, at least it's funny.
It's not new, of course. My parents had a little book called The Book of Spice about 50 years ago (no idea who wrote it) that had this poem (as best as I recall):
I'd hate to be an angel
And never do a thing,
But play that damned old harp all day
And sing and sing and sing.
I'd rather be a devil,
I'd quite enjoy my doom,
Playing poker with the boys,
Down in the smoking room.
One might be tempted to pity these self-righteous prigs for not having a sense of humour, but on second thought, fuck 'em.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | May 11, 2007 10:03 AM
Where previously have I heard talk of boycotting Starbucks over their quotes? Hmmmm....
Posted by: Macht | May 11, 2007 10:51 AM
I had to laugh, because when I was kid, being raised by fundamentalist Christians, I distinctly recall asking my mother what heaven would be like. She gave the stock answers, and I followed up with, "But what are we going to DO for all eternity?" She said something about, you know, giving praise and serving god. I was aghast: "You mean it would be like CHURCH?!?" I hated church. The services bored me out of my mind. I was a little apostate, even back then. :)
But really, heaven is supposed to be a reward, right? I think Klein's observations are dead on. People have to WANT to go there...
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | May 11, 2007 10:56 AM
Maybe the fundies should start protesting libraries and book stores that stock Mark Twain's Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven as well. Creatures from other planets and non-Christian humans in heaven, what happens when you get non-musicians trying to play different tunes on harps at the same time, how boring the pulpit view of heaven would be - this story has a lot in it that they would find objectionable.
Posted by: Salad Is Slaughter | May 11, 2007 11:38 AM
I guess Starbucks could balance out that quote by including another one that explains why it is perfect justice to send dead non-Christian preteens, who have done nothing worse than disobey their parents occasionally and maybe swipe an apple or candy bar from their little sister, to Hell for an eternity of torture, anguish and unimaginable suffering.
And they should not forget to include the bit where mass murderers and rapists get to go to Heaven if they happen to repent and say they're sorry before they die (and really mean it, of course).
Who wants snotty little kids in Heaven anyway?
Posted by: tacitus | May 11, 2007 11:59 AM
I guess Starbucks could balance out that quote by including another one that explains why it is perfect justice to send dead non-Christian preteens, who have done nothing worse than disobey their parents occasionally and maybe swipe an apple or candy bar from their little sister, to Hell for an eternity of torture, anguish and unimaginable suffering.
And they should not forget to include the bit where mass murderers and rapists get to go to Heaven if they happen to repent and say they're sorry before they die (and really mean it, of course).
Who wants snotty little kids in Heaven anyway?
Posted by: tacitus | May 11, 2007 12:13 PM
Nitpick: it's not "another drooling halfwit found another objectionable quote on a Starbucks cup," but rather "another drooling halfwit found another quote on a Starbucks cup objectionable," unless, of course, you agree that the quote *is* objectionable :).
Posted by: Blake | May 11, 2007 1:14 PM
Nitpick: it's not "another drooling halfwit found another objectionable quote on a Starbucks cup," but rather "another drooling halfwit found another quote on a Starbucks cup objectionable," unless, of course, you agree that the quote *is* objectionable :).
Posted by: Blake | May 11, 2007 1:15 PM
Macht wrote:
And I consider that just as ridiculous. I'll happily condemn both sides on this one.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 11, 2007 1:19 PM
Even as a good little Lutheran girl, I never could figure out what was so great about heaven. It really did sound like a drag and I had to take it on faith (like a good little Lutheran girl) that it's better than hell because of the not getting tortured for all eternity thing. Nowadays, I think heaven would suck because of the people who're going there.
Ellen DeGeneris' version of heaven at least paints god as a perfect hostess who is witty and probably throws fabulous parties. Better, but the guest list still sucks, by and large.
Posted by: twincats | May 11, 2007 1:27 PM
Even as a good little Lutheran girl, I never could figure out what was so great about heaven. It really did sound like a drag and I had to take it on faith (like a good little Lutheran girl) that it's better than hell because of the not getting tortured for all eternity thing. Nowadays, I think heaven would suck because of the people who're going there.
Ellen DeGeneris' version of heaven at least paints god as a perfect hostess who is witty and probably throws fabulous parties. Better, but the guest list still sucks, by and large.
Posted by: twincats | May 11, 2007 1:32 PM
Screw heaven, what a bore. I'm so going to hell, at least maybe I'll get lucky and Lucifer will finally win his war on heaven. That would pretty much rock, all the pious religious people will then have to watch as their paradise is destroyed and they are subjected to the same fate as the sinners. What a complete rip off, that would be the most hilarious thing ever. Too bad none of it is real, oh well it's always fun to fantasize.
Posted by: Whatever | May 11, 2007 2:22 PM
Since I've never been in a Starbuck's I've never seen any of these cups. All I can say is that if messages such as those are written on a Starbuck's cup, they are ASKING FOR controversy. Maybe that's what they are doing---because controversy sells! But I think to attack someone's religion is of poor taste and any trouble they get into is well deserved, especially since religion is a "BELIEF" and doesn't need to have any logic to it. There are plenty of very thoughtful comments that have nothing at all to do with religion but would be of general philosophical interest to us ALL. Why not use those instead of creating this sort of brouhaha, which I believe is deliberate on their part.
Posted by: roseindigo | May 11, 2007 4:29 PM
My father was a mainline Protestant(Lutheran) preacher. He enjoyed this sort of humor, and of course didn't think the clouds and the harps were anything more than a dumb cliche.
Posted by: Invigilator | May 11, 2007 4:57 PM
roseindigo wrote:
This is absolutely ridiculous. Why are religious ideas, out of all the types of ideas in the world, insulated from criticism? Every idea you think is true is a "belief", and all are equally open to logical analysis. If you exempt your religious beliefs from the requirements of logic, you certainly have no legitimate complaint when others point out the logical errors in them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 11, 2007 5:34 PM
Ed, I just don't think I can take you seriously anymore knowing that you don't drink coffee.
Posted by: Brian | May 11, 2007 6:04 PM
I'm a bit surprised that they're so up in arms about the quotes given Starschmucks rather liberal policy concerning partners, partner benefits, and same sex couples.
I've never set foot in a starschmucks, I haven't had a cup of coffee since 1993, and don't plan to change that any time soon, so honestly I couldn't care less about their quotes (either way), the boycott, etc. I agree with Ed though, boycott a business because they put customer quotes on cups that seem to cover both sides of issues and they plainly state that they are the opinions solely of their customers? Ridiculous.
Posted by: dogmeat IB | May 11, 2007 8:00 PM
Ed,
Ya know, I'm kind of with Brian on this one. I mean first I find out that you were not drunk in the photo, as I had suspected, and not I find out that you don't drink coffee. I losing respect by the post.
Posted by: mess | May 12, 2007 11:21 AM
Grammar be damned. Coffee good. I losing respect.
Posted by: pough | May 12, 2007 11:49 AM
Hey Brayton, your comment of: "This is absolutely ridiculous. Why are religious ideas, out of all the types of ideas in the world, insulated from criticism?" was totally out of line and ridiculous. First of all, there is nothing wrong with religious ideas being criticized. I never said there was. In fact, I believe criticism of religious ideas is very worthwhile. However, there is a HUGE difference between legitimate debate and someone just using criticism to cause controversy without any sort of solution being given, or when criticism is used to "sell" a product. I would say that is not only ill-mannered, but doesn't serve any sort of purpose.
Your comment doesn't serve the purpose of debate any better, and I note already, after just one try, that debate with someone who is in his particular groove is not debate at all and serves no purpose except to fill the world with more empty words and sound without much meaning---which is exactly what Starbucks has done with these quotes.
Posted by: roseindigo | May 12, 2007 1:05 PM
I think invigilator's comments were right to the point. The comment was a cliche, made by someone who has no clue what religious belief is really all about because of pre-conceived, superficial, silly notions. In that sense it is quite funny and can't be taken seriously.
However, I still think it was ill-mannered and serves no real purpose except to deliberately create controversy without purpose, except to be policically correct and "sell" a product.
Posted by: roseindigo | May 12, 2007 1:12 PM
roseindigo-
Yes, you did say that religious beliefs shouldn't be criticized. Let me quote you:
This was aimed at a quote from someone criticizing a religious belief. What else could it possibly mean except that you don't think anyone should criticize religious beliefs? Not only do you say that, you say that any "trouble" they get into is "well deserved" - and that's not for criticizing religion, it's just for quoting someone else who does (while also quoting others who disagree, I might add). Sorry, your position is idiotic and I called it so. If that bothers you, I suggest you stop saying idiotic things.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 12, 2007 2:16 PM
Pough,
I was in a real rush when I typed that.
Posted by: mess | May 12, 2007 4:10 PM
mess -
I was in a real rush when I typed that.
Probably soem coffee needed too!?!
Posted by: DuWayne | May 12, 2007 4:54 PM
Yep - Or a scotch
Posted by: mess | May 12, 2007 5:51 PM
roseindigo wrote:
Well, technically... wouldn't um, selling the product be the purpose?
Frankly, I like the Starbucks quotes. I couldn't care less about the ones I disagree with and the ones I agree with have the added benefit of frightening off the churchies. The fewer of them I have to deal with the better. I knew there was a reason I liked frappacinos so much.
Now if we are just get them add Scotch... ;)
Posted by: Leni | May 12, 2007 6:10 PM
I resent the quote on the side of McDonald's coffee cups referring to me as a 'Dollar Menunaire'. Do they really have to rub it in that I am broke?
Posted by: Hepatitis_B_Good | May 12, 2007 11:55 PM
However, I still think it was ill-mannered and serves no real purpose except to deliberately create controversy without purpose, except to be policically correct and "sell" a product.
If this isn't just a typo, I think this is about the best example I've ever seen of how "politically correct" now just means "speech certain kinds of conservatives don't like".
Posted by: Coin | May 13, 2007 1:44 AM
Isn't that what "politically correct" really stands for?
It's just words, for crying out loud. I don't put much stock in political correctness, be it the kind meant to prevent anyone from taking offense, or the kind meant to offend Christians. I say what I want, and if people take offense, that's their problem, not mine.
I find the threat of a boycott of Starbucks laughable though. I mean think about it, everything that "mainstream Christians" rail against end up doing spectacular during and post-boycott. The Harry Potter movies, for example. Nobody gave a damn until the Christians made a stink over it. The boycott of French-made products? I think French exports to the US went up during that. The Starbucks boycott will serve the same purpose, and it's exactly the kind of thing Starbucks wants to foster, as coffee houses have traditionally been places of intellectual discourse. Really, if you want turn a new and largely unknown product or service into a gold mine, there's a tried and true means of getting the word out.
I on the other hand have been "boycutting" Starbucks for years because their coffees cost too damn much. :)
Posted by: Pyrion | May 13, 2007 12:29 PM
I know there's been talk of pro-ID thoughts on Starbucks cups, but I just got one that is from David Quammen:
Posted by: mollishka | June 10, 2007 11:21 AM