Proud Sponsor of . . .

August 29, 2007 | 62 comments

The Parents TV Council has studied TV ad buys over the last year and has published a list of the worst companies for sponsoring or advertising on raunchy, violent, and profane programs in preference to clean programs, along with a list of those companies that best take the opposite approach.

The Worst

Toyota Motor Sales Inc.
General Motors Corp.
Limited Brands, Inc.
Payless Shoe Source
Vonage Marketing, Inc.
Volkswagen of America
Dunkin Brands
Reckitt Benckiser PLC
[Products include: Clearasil, Lysol, Spray and Wash, Air Wick, Woolite, Jet Dry, Glass Plus, Electrasol, Easy Off]
Bayer Corp.

The Best

Procter & Gamble
Walt Disney Co.
Ford Motor Company
Unilever United States
Viacom, Inc.
McDonald’s Corporation
Johnson & Johnson
Schering-Plough Corporation
[Products include: Afrin, Claritin, Nasonex, Dr. Scholls, Lotrimin]
Coca-Cola Company
General Mills, Inc.

Of the Worst, we only patronize Vonage. Its service is better than we expected but still not great. We were thinking of switching to another internet phone service anyway, so maybe this will be the final straw.

If this is the sort of thing that interests you, remember that emailing or writing is probably more effective than switching products and that positive reinforcement for well-behaving corporations is as important as negative messages to the corporations that fund filth.

62 Responses to Proud Sponsor of . . .

  1. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Interesting list. I don’t own a television, but I do watch TV when I work out, and I am probably guilty of watching shows that violate LDS standards. What would be enlightening is more information on what shows are considered “bad.”

  2. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    Also, I watched the last episode of “Lost” on the Internet last Spring.

  3. mmiles on August 29, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    The fact that McDonald’s and General Mills and others made the ‘good’ list is not impressive. Naturally, they market their artery clogging, sugar laden, obesity making trash on kids shows–which, IMO, is much, much worse.
    I must watch shows on the bad list. I see a lot of the Geico caveman commercials, and I like them. I also use Geico, and I’m not switching because I like their commercials:)

  4. Adam Greenwood on August 29, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.

  5. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 12:48 pm


    Let’s give credit where credit is due. McDonald’s now has healthy salads on their menu. And as long as you are feeding your children healthy home-cooked LDS-style meals, an occasional Happy Meal as a reward is not going to give any one as a heart attack. General Mills makes Cheerios (which is what I ate for breakfast this morning), which contain whole grain. Not exactly “artery clogging.”

    I think we could all take an inventory of our viewing habits and improve them.

  6. mmiles on August 29, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    And whoso shall offend one of these little ones… and dude! your body is a temple! Not taking care of your body indeed kills the soul. Seducing little children to lust after material goods made by Disney and Viacom and trash their bodies for a profit is worse than sponsoring my two favorite sitcoms.

  7. Russell Arben Fox on August 29, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.

    I thought Joseph Smith taught that the soul was the body and spirit combined. In which case, actually, patronizing McDonald’s actually does contribute to the death of one’s soul. (Dunkin Brand donuts are probably even worse, though.)

    Also, just in case there’s anyone out there not up on their early 80s Satanic conspiracy theories, don’t let Proctor & Gamble’s appearance on the “best” list fool you. It’s owned and operated by witches. A seminary teacher told me so.

  8. Brian D. on August 29, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    Let me be the first to call for provident living, beards (with no moustaches), barn raising parties (with dinner included), bonnets for the women, dairy cows to produce our own milk, etc., etc., etc. In short, we need to become like the Amish!



    FREE RONALD (No more Happy Meals!!!)

    Get me a horse and buggy!! It’s Amish time!!

  9. Peter LLC on August 29, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    Gosh, being an ethical consumer isn’t getting any easier. Here I thought I was doing my part to save the world by purchasing Toyota hybrids, but it turns out I’m but a patron of debauchery.

  10. Peter LLC on August 29, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    Wasn’t it Ned’s Atomic Dustbin that first advised to “Kill Your Television” on the blasphemously named “God Fodder” album? Do you really want to go there, Brian D, to tread those paths of sin?

  11. mmiles on August 29, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    California Condor,
    I don’t watch much TV. I am wayyy too busy. I’d have to give up my blogging time:) My kids don’t watch any commercial TV. We also don’t boycott McDonalds. We do get Happy Meals once in awhile complete with apples and milk. However, I draw the line a marketing to kids. The way it is done is completely unethical.

  12. Adam Greenwood on August 29, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Peter, LLC: Doing good in your purchasing is pretty complicated. That’s just one reason that writing a letter or an email or calling an ombudsman can be more effective.

  13. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 1:18 pm


    Fair enough. The last thing we need is a generation of kids afraid of enjoying a hamburger every once in a while. And I think it’s commendable to avoid television. I mean, is there really much on there that is redeeming (besides anything non-military-airplane-dogfight on the History channel, some decent movies on AMC, and maybe some stuff on the Discovery channel)? Do we really need to invest our attention in third-rate melodramas?

  14. Adam Greenwood on August 29, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    I thought Joseph Smith taught that the soul was the body and spirit combined.

    R. Fox, assuming that you’re not just making a joke at my expense (in which case I’ll hunt you to the ends of the earth) I think its pretty unlikely that the verse in Matthew was defining ‘soul’ the way Joseph Smith defined it. In fact, the very next sentence after the one I quoted refers to “body and soul.” That said, its quite possible that McDonalds and General Mills are on the list because they push their products on childrens’ programs, which doesn’t strike me as particularly commendable. I’m more ambivalent about advertising than most here probably are (I assume that most here see marketing and advertising as one of the 7 deadly sins) but on childrens’ programs advertising is at its most malign.

    While we’re on the subject, I’d laugh myself silly if Ford Motor started sponsoring childrens cartoons. “Peter Planet is tough. Ford tough.” They’d have my goodwill in gallons.

  15. m&m on August 29, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    Thanks for this, Adam.

  16. Pesach Chummitz on August 29, 2007 at 2:12 pm
  17. Kaimi Wenger on August 29, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    I don’t know, Adam. I’m all for lists, but this one seems oversimplified.

    I took a look at the categorizations, which are at .

    Basically, this means that group A advertises more on ER or Heroes than on Power of 10. And group B is the opposite. On network television, the limitations are such that even the website’s Red-Light programs aren’t really all that shocking. I’ve only seen ER a handful of times, but it’s never struck me as a pit of depravity.

  18. Adam Greenwood on August 29, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    If you don’t think there’s anything objectionable on network TV, KW, then this list isn’t for you.

    That’s a really shocking link, PC. Nihilistic anomic violence in the service of consumerism. Grand.

  19. Xena on August 29, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    What really gets me is that McDonald’s is a “sponsor” of Sesame Street. Is nothing sacred???

  20. mmiles on August 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    Certainly Sesame Street is not sacred.

  21. marcus on August 29, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    “raunchy, violent, and profane” sounds like every news program I’ve ever seen.

  22. Soren on August 29, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    I guess it would be too difficult to come up with the more meaningful list of companies whose advertisements feature material they find objectionable. Really what this looks like is a list of companies who cater to the young single adult demographic, and a list of companies who cater to the children-and-their-parents demographic.

  23. Adam Greenwood on August 29, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    Because Ford products contain healthful vitamins while Toyota products make your more attractive to the opposite sex?

  24. Mark IV on August 29, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    The church is spending a lot of money now on a media campaign where I live, and I’ve been a little surprised at the places where the church is spending it ad $$$. You can hear ads for the church on radio stations all across the spectrum, from hiphop to classic rock to sports talk to Rush. Yesterday on the classic rock station, the DJs were doing their usual tasteless “morning zoo” schtick and had just come back from a commercial break where people wondering about the great questions of life were referred to mormon dot org. They yucked it up, and wondered if the website could help them “get more booty”, since that was the only question they really cared about.

    I’ve concluded that 1)the gospel is for everyone, and 2)therefore, the church has decided to cast a wide net.

  25. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Mark IV,

    Your comment brings to mind the uncomfortable fact that the LDS Church owns Bonneville International Corporation, a broadcasting company that owns 30 radio stations and Salt Lake City’s NBC affiliate. A lot of filth is transmitted via these Church-owned stations.

  26. Xena on August 29, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    Granted, Sesame Street is not sacred, but McDonald’s is marketing to very young children, which I don’t appreciate for my 2 year old. According to this article:, even healthy foods packaged in McDonald’s packaging “tasted better.”

  27. MikeInWeHo on August 29, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    re: 24 What region are you in, Mark? I’ve never seen one piece of LDS advertising in any media here in the L.A. area for the eight years I’ve lived here. Not one billboard, not one radio or TV ad, nada.

  28. Mark IV on August 29, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Mike, I’m in Kansas City, T.O.T.A.L Zion. We’ve been told that the church is testing and fine-tuning its media approach here, in Rochester, NY, and in Las Vegas.

    It really has been very noticable, from the first week it started – ads on TV and radio, billboards on the interstates and downtown, etc., and it is slated to last for six months. We’ve also been given cards to hand out to friends and co-workers. The idea is to get people to visit the new and revised mormon dot org. You can request a KJ bible, which I thought was a new wrinkle. Usually they send you a book of Mormon.

  29. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    California Condor,

    I made this point last year when the church put out a press release specifically denouncing the polygamy drama “Big Love” on HBO. They called it indulgent and lazy:

    Despite its popularity with some, much of today’s television entertainment shows an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, coarse humor and foul language. Big Love, like so much other television programming, is essentially lazy and indulgent entertainment that does nothing for our society and will never nourish great minds. Parents who are casual about their viewing habits ought not to be surprised if teaching moral choices and civic values to their children becomes harder as a result.

    For that reason and others, Church leaders have consistently cautioned against such entertainment, joining with other religious, education and government leaders in inviting individuals and families to follow a higher road of decency, self-discipline and integrity. (“Church Responds to Questions on HBO’s Big Love”, 6 March 2006)

    So I decided to look up the program schedule on and found that the church itself is a purveyor of all sorts of mindless, indulgent, lazy entertainment that shows a preoccupation with sex and foul language, such as the daytime soaps, Law and Order SVU, and many more.

    I had a hard time reconciling the church profiting from this sort of base entertainment, and their statement above in which church leaders “caution against such entertainment”. How do they expect the members to “follow a higher road of decency [and] self-discipline” when the church itself, through its TV station and radio properties, floods the airwaves with this crap? Perhaps we ought to boycott all KSL advertisers. Maybe we should boycott all church-owned media? Maybe we should write to Pres. Hinckley. Oh wait, I tried that already and got called in by my SP who was severely offended that I should take issue with the church owning and profiting from the sorts of entertainment we are told to avoid. I wonder if my SP was also a Marriott stockholder…..

    (Some of the stuff KSL shows is far baser, coarser, and mindless than “Big Love”, by the way.)

  30. Ugly Mahana on August 29, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Re: “A new wrinkle”

    The Church has been offering bibles at least since I went on my mission in the late 90s. I don’t know if they have increased the prominence of such ads, but they have been around for a while now.

  31. marcus on August 29, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    I know a few people who have requested Books of Mormon from the Television Commercials, and all of them felt deceived when the Missionaries showed up to deliver it. As retaliation, one of them started signing up everyone he knew for free Bibles and Books of Mormon.

  32. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    28 Mark IV:

    The church has been sending out KJV Bibles through TV ads since at least 1996. I used to deliver them with the missionaries. It was really funny because the Church contracted with Evangelical Christian publisher Thomas Nelson Inc. to print the Bibles for the give-away missionary use. They even had Thomas Nelson’s logo on the inside, which incorporated a cross.

  33. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    27 MikeinWeHo: This is because the LORD has given California over to Satan as He is done with that modern day Sodom. I know this because I heard this in fast and testimony meeting from someone in my ward who had moved from California and knew that the Lord was preparing CA for imminent destruction.

  34. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Ben There,

    Maybe the Church should stop distributing NBC programming. Here’s the schedule for KSL this coming Friday:

    “Las Vegas” 8:00 pm
    “Law & Order SVU” 9:00 pm
    “The Tonight Show” 10:35 pm
    “Late Night” 11:37 pm
    “Last Call” 11:30 pm
    “Extra” 2:30 am (Saturday)

  35. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    Ben There,

    What did your stake president say when you told him you didn’t like KSL’s programming?

  36. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    CC: I got pretty much the usual “follow the brethren” pep rally/fall-in-line-now speech. Oh yeah, along with an assurance that the church’s business enterprises are separate from tithing funds. Whew. As if that makes it all better and as if I didn’t already know that (seriously, who writes to Pres. Hinckley about something without having SOME idea what he is talking about?).

    I don’t see how Law and Order SVU cannot be included in a list of possibly the most offensive broadcast TV programs. Every type of sexual deviancy–depicted visually and described in the coarsest of terms that could make a sailor blush–and grotesque murder complete with graphic detail has been shown on there. I used to watch it in its earlier days before it got out of hand; now it is just disgusting.

  37. Bonjo on August 29, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    I don’t own stock in Marriott (#29), but I do own P&G (#7). Witches?! Looks like I”m going to have to read that annual report a little more carefully.

  38. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Ben There,

    So it’s okay for the Church to make money off of “Law & Order SVU” as long as tithing dollars aren’t involved?

  39. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    CC: Yes, according to SLC it is. This is the same sort of logic that dictates it is okay for the Marriots to make millions from selling in-room porn, as long as they tithe on those millions, perhaps?

    I wonder if President Hinckley, after a long day of directing the Lord’s work on earth in the end times, likes to go home and relax by popping open a diet decaf coke and watching L&O SVU? Nothing to take your mind off work like some blood, guts, and sexual deviants. Perhaps during his lunch break he likes to sneak in some daytime soap operas; it’s always nice to enjoy a litte televised adultery with that salad and bottled water. Ah yes, thank heavens for church-owned TV!

    Bonjo: the P&G urban legend persists to this day, nearly three decades after it was introduced. See

    Interestingly, Amway has been implicated in spreading the rumor that P&G is run by Satanists (in March 2007 P&G was awarded $12.5 million in a lawsuit against Amway MLMers who defamed P&G to bolster their own soap sales). Oh no! The reputation of our favorite MLM company soiled! Woe is us.

  40. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    I want to clarify that I mean no disrespect to Pres. Hinckley in my comment above. But am I the only one who wonders why he apparently thinks this situation is OK?

  41. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Maybe it’s time for the Church to hold a “liquidity event” and divest itself of KSL.

  42. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    One would think, California Condor. However, over the last several decades the church actually sold its worldwide proselyting radio station (to a group of fundamentalist Christians), thereby ridding itself of its only “churchy” media outlet and has been acquiring more mainstream media outlets, primarily high-power major AM & FM stations in strategic markets. I don’t get it.

  43. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    Who is making these decisions?

  44. Ray on August 29, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Ben There, You are equating in-room porn with network television? I don’t like a lot of what’s offered on the Big 4, but it’s not Playboy – or even Showtime or HBO. To even hint that they are one and the same thing is just a tad disingenuous – to me, at least. I like L&O SVU – and very, very rarely would I say it even approximates even soft core porn. Now, if the Church owned the distribution rights to Girls G*** W*** or something similar, I would say you have something worth discussing. That’s my opinion, anyway.

    Also, I’m sure you meant no disrespect, but there are much better ways to make your point than the way you did in #39. Again, just my opinion – although I think #40 shows a recognition of that point.

  45. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    OK, Ray, you have a point. But do you still think it’s okay for the Church to distribute NBC’s content?

  46. MikeInWeHo on August 29, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    re: 33 Oh dear, thanks for warning me. Earthquake?

  47. Adam Greenwood on August 29, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    These comments have crossed the line into unacceptable criticism, in my opinion. I’m sure there was no ill intent, but I am no longer going to tolerate this side discussion on KSL, etc.

  48. California Condor on August 29, 2007 at 7:54 pm


    I didn’t say anything disrespectable about any GAs. What do you think about the content on KSL? Some of it violates LDS standards.

  49. Ray on August 29, 2007 at 8:05 pm

    #45 – Short answer: Yes.

    Longer answer (rare for me, I know): The better question, IMO, would be whether or not the Church should keep one (financial) leg in the world but strive to remain not of the world – or if it should divorce itself completely from the world and generate revenue only from the contributions of its members. If the former, I see no way to avoid this type of discussion, since nearly any ownership of or investment in any corporation carries with it complaints and objections of some people. If the latter, much of the work of the Church that is accomplished by its non-contribution assets would grind to a halt. For me, this is one with which I don’t struggle, not at all.

    Personally, I accept the former option as a necessary compromise of living in the world and trying to accomplish global good – and owning a communications company that distributes content supplied by one of the Big 4 is perfectly acceptable to me. Now, if it were Fox . . .

  50. Ray on August 29, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    Sorry, Adam. I was typing and didn’t see your comment. I won’t address it further.

  51. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    The title of the blog post is “Proud Sponsor of….” and discusses business who sponsor smutty TV programs. I don’t see the discussion about church sponsorship of smut as being a “side conversation” at all; it’s directly relevant to your post!

    I gather from your comment in 47, Adam, that it is okay for the Church to sponsor (by its distribution of) smutty TV and that even though other companies are fair game for criticism, if the church-owned media engage in similar behavors they ought to be shielded from criticism?


  52. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Ray: I am not going to argue that you should or should not watch SVU. Or R-rated movies for that matter. Or anything else. I was merely comparing how church-owned media distribute programming that runs contrary to the pontificating the church does about media standards through its own press releases. I said before I used to watch SVU, until it got too gross for me. If I am going to issue press releases encouraging people to avoid lazy, indulgent entertainment, then I don’t think I would feel very good if I then distributed the very content I warn people against. It is hypocritical no matter who does it. I never equated SVU with p*rn. I equated it with a possible violation of church standards for entertainment.

  53. Sarah on August 29, 2007 at 8:50 pm

    I was sort of under the impression that advertisers buy blocks of advertising in various demographic/ratings divisions — you know, “5 30-second spots in top 5/women 18-49 prime time Sunday-Thursday evenings,” “10 45-second spots in top 20/14-25 9pm-11pm Sunday-Thursday nights, half of which are repeats on associated cable networks” and so forth. Isn’t it only really, you know, important shows where they actually pick the things? Because if not, it’s impossible to understand why they’d ever get such huge companies advertising on 3am “Law & Order: CI” repeats on Bravo. Or 11pm reruns of “house” on USA, or almost any sports event, other than the Superbowl and pro wrestling.

    Anyway, the very first thing I thought when I saw the “bad” list is that they’re targeting the 14-35 year old bracket, hard core: Clearasil, Victoria’s Secret, VoIP, cheap cars, “manly” cars, cheap car insurance with goofy ads… it’s sort of weird that the big beer sellers and condom makers aren’t on there, honestly; it’s probably because they’re actually not that big compared to these other people (in terms of spots purchased, at least.)

    Meanwhile, the “good” list is firmly marketing to the 25-49 “mommy” market: allergy relievers, cereals, soaps, stuff their little kids will ask for, cures for things like foot pain? Come on! These advertisers aren’t counting swear words, and with a few exceptions (Disney, Limited) probably aren’t actively concerned with violent or sexual content — Disney is image-obsessed, and you probably won’t sell many bras (and WILL get a lot of complaint letters) if you advertise that kind of thing on Nickelodeon. It’s only when they get a lot of letters that they do pay attention to particular shows, and even then, if it’s Geico and they mostly get letters from people they think are likely to buy home-life-auto from All State on the grounds that “they seem really trustworthy,” the letters won’t carry much weight.

    Bottom line: convince typical 25-year-old men to either stop buying things or stop liking violence and sex, and typical 18-year-old women to stop being fascinated with the disgusting lives of starlets and pop stars, and your problem with these advertisers will go away. Or, alternately, find a way to get a lot more “Desperate Housewives” type programming (in terms of demographic reach and content) on the air, and then you can get annoyed at all the advertisers simultaneously.

  54. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    Sarah: Advertisers work through brokers, ad agencies, that do buys on behalf of the advertiser, indeed, just as you say. But, they also do target certain programs, and can ask their agency to place $x or x minutes on Show A, or Show B. Advertisers can also buy time “upfront” with the networks: large advance orders for certain programs in the coming year. They can even specif that they want a certain ad to run a certain time on a certain show, as well as have ads in “rotation”, that play during broad timeframes on given channels.

    Of course you are absolutely correct about the demographics of the advertisers and the programs. You won’t see many ads for Depends or Fleet products during WWE Main Event. :)

  55. Ben There on August 29, 2007 at 10:21 pm

    Sarah: I forgot to address your comment on “3am repeats on Bravo”. Don’t forget DVRs, TiVo, and such. Time shifting of programming has made the hour of the program’s original airing less relevant than it used to be. I might well record that 3am airing of Law and Order:CI (but not the 4am rerun of SVU, Ray…wink) and watch it the following night at 7pm. Of course I might also skip thru some of the commercials, or I might not. Depends on if they are Victoria’s Secret ads.

  56. Jonathan Green on August 30, 2007 at 3:27 am

    Ben There, whatever your intent, your speculation about Pres. Hinckley relaxing by watching deviant TV was profoundly offensive, which you seem to recognize in your follow-up comment. Corporate ownership and institutional responsibility are tricky issues requiring a thoughtful response, but after you introduce gratuitous insult to the discussion, why would anyone make the effort to engage your questions seriously? You get one chance not to offend your partners in conversation and, unfortunately, for this round, you’ve blown yours. That’s just the way it works.

    As I see it, there are three options for feigned outrage, only one of which we’ve covered so far:
    1. “I am outraged that the church distributes objectionable NBC shows by owning KSL!”
    2. “I am outraged that the church chills free speech by censoring the NBC content that it refuses to show on KSL!”
    3. “I am outraged that the church makes no effort to exercise any kind of influence on the media marketplace by not owning TV stations, now that it’s sold KSL!”

  57. Adam Greenwood on August 30, 2007 at 8:12 am


    Ford makes trucks and sport cars, Toyota and GMC make minivans.

  58. Kyle R on August 30, 2007 at 8:46 am

    It would be interesting to have the same list of companies arranged into Best and Worst groups according to their relationship with environmental – as opposed to moral – pollution, and see how much correlation there is.

  59. George Elliot on August 30, 2007 at 8:51 am

    My brother drives a Toyota truck…

    Sarah is absolutely right. The advertisers on the “good list” are not making “moral” decisions when they choose which shows to sponsor. They are making, instead, smart business decisions that only make sense given the products they pedal. With all due respect, it’s hard to see how any intelligent and minimally informed adult can conclude otherwise.

  60. George Elliot on August 30, 2007 at 8:52 am

    I have no excuse for my misspelling, but it is not even 6 AM here.

  61. Adam Greenwood on August 30, 2007 at 9:42 am

    With all due respect, it’s hard to see how any intelligent and minimally informed adult can conclude otherwise.

    Consider that your inability to comprehend a point of view does not perforce make the point of view incomprehensible.

    The idea behind pressuring companies to stop furthering moral pollution is not that they deliberately want moral pollution to occur, any more than the idea behind pressuring companies to stop environmental pollution is that the companies want environmental pollution to occur. Its the pollution, not the corporation’s motive, that is the concern.

  62. Adam Greenwood on August 30, 2007 at 9:45 am

    This thread has gone pretty far south. If you have a thoughtful comment, you may email it to me at adam at times and seasons dot org for posting.


Times and Seasons is a place to gather and discuss ideas of interest to faithful Latter-day Saints.