Patriotic Samuel Adams Beer Commercial Criticized for Not Giving Credit to ‘Our Creator’

This is the new commercial put out by the Samuel Adams beer folks. It shows a bartender trying to be all patriotic, explaining that the beer is named after Sam Adams because he signed the Declaration of Independence:

… Samuel Adams signed the Declaration of Independence. He believed there was a better way to live. All men are created equal. They are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Smooth. Flavorful. We bow to no kings. Samuel Adams Boston Lager. Declare your independence.

The proper reaction should be: That’s a pretty lame way to link beer and patriotism. I mean, c’mon, “Smooth. Flavorful. We bow to no kings”? That’s the best writing they could come up with?!

But that’s not what people are talking about. They’re upset that the commercial makers took liberties of their own, modifying the language from the actual Declaration. I’ve reprinted those words below, bold-facing the ones that were left out of the commercial:

… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Guess which omission people are flipping out about?

For some reason, none of these people seem very concerned that “that” and “that among these are” were left out, too… but to leave out “by their Creator”? That’s anti-Christian!

I guess they’ve never heard of “paraphrasing.”

Either way, it’s an overreaction to something that was probably done just to save time in a 30-second spot.

It reminds me of the time NBC aired a promo for the 2011 U.S. Open golf championship and left out the phrase “under God” from a shot of kids reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:

They also left out the word “indivisible” but no one cared about that. NBC was forced to apologize to viewers — and Congress! — for what they later called an “editing mistake.”

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Jim Hudlow

    Oddly a Black man is somehow celebrating that “all men are created equal’ written by a man who, in his lifetime owned more than 600 slaves and when he died released only a few to freedom, willing the rest of around 200 slaves to his family. All men are created equal indeed.

    • anniewhoo

      Oh pish posh! Details, details. It’s much more important that there was no mention of Jesus!

    • DougI

      At least Sam Adams wasn’t a slave owner, so Blacks can still drink Sam Adams beer.

    • Rich Rodgers

      Jesus said that didn’t matter any more.

  • Jim Hudlow

    If you doubt what I say read, from the Smithsonian magazine an article titled The Dark Side of Thomans Jefferson….here is the link….it is eye opening. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Little-Known-Dark-Side-of-Thomas-Jefferson-169780996.html

    • C Peterson

      It is only dark if viewed in a modern light. IMO, that is always a mistake.

      • 3lemenope

        Why?

        • C Peterson

          I don’t know of any way to judge ethics except by the standards of the community that produces them. I don’t think there was anything wrong with being a slave owner, or of viewing slaves as inferior, in 18th century America.

          • 3lemenope

            I don’t know of any way to judge ethics except by the standards of the community that produces them.

            Considering your disdain for philosophy, that is not exactly shocking.

            I don’t think there was anything wrong with being a slave owner, or of viewing slaves as inferior, in 18th century America.

            Reading the prodigious writings of 18th Century Americans, it becomes crystal clear they knew full well that owning human beings, forcing them to work for no wages, and occasionally beating them to death was wrong. Jefferson is among the figures of that time-period about which this is most obvious; there is no plausible argument whatsoever, given what Jefferson wrote on the topic, that he somehow didn’t know that slavery was a moral abomination.

            Even if they didn’t, the features I just mentioned along with a hundred others make it difficult to justify slavery as an ethical practice under any coherent system of ethics. Exactly what is with the desire to grade ancient assholes on a curve?

            • C Peterson

              Actually, I have no disdain at all for philosophy as a tool for understanding humanity, politics, social systems, and all manner of things surrounding how we, as people, operate. The philosophy I consider a joke is that which seeks to explain the natural world, or to play word games around essentially meaningless concepts like truth or reality.

              The 18th century was interesting, because that is when we start seeing the birth of a major shift in public opinion, ultimately leading to a consensus a century later that slavery is wrong. That consensus did not exist during the time of the American Revolution, which is why I don’t consider slavery at that time to be morally wrong.

              As I said, I know of no rational way to judge morals and behavior except by the standards of the society that creates them. If you are comfortable with some sort of absolute or universal moral code, great. I can’t make that work unless I accept the sort of religious dogma that I reject.

              • UWIR

                So, does this apply just to time, or also to space? That is, given that there are still societies in existence today, is slavery not wrong in those societies? Are mafiosos not immoral, as what they do is sanctioned by their society?

                Also, what if the Earth were invaded by 100 billions aliens who think it’s okay to kill and eat humans? The majority of Earth inhabitant would then think that killing and eating humans is okay, so does that mean it would be okay?

                • C Peterson

                  It goes to the question of what was distinguishes society, broadly, from individual subcultures. I don’t know that today’s world really allows such insularity between different cultures as to allow for radically different moral codes. Are there any societies today where slavery is broadly considered acceptable? Are there any where murder is?

                  If an entire alien civilization showed up and decided to use humans as food, I might not like that, but I don’t see it as a matter of ethics at all.

                • 3lemenope

                  Then you are very confused about what the word “ethics” means.

                • C Peterson

                  Then you are very confused about what the word “ethics” means.

                  I don’t think I’m confused about that at all. One thing is certain, however: you have not made any effort to provide a working definition or clarify things in the slightest.

                • 3lemenope

                  I have. I’ve seen others try, too. You have shown yourself to be scrupulously unteachable, and so why would I waste my time? When you write stuff like “If an entire alien civilization showed up and decided to use humans as food, I might not like that, but I don’t see it as a matter of ethics at all”, it means you do not know what the word ‘ethics’ means. It’s not a matter of interpretation or perspective, but simply what words mean.

                • C Peterson

                  Sorry, but gut feelings don’t translate to rational arguments.

                  You have not provided a definition of ethics to even start any sort of discussion around, and neither has anybody else that I recall… and certainly not in this particular thread.

                  In my book, ethics describes a set of principles, agreed upon by a society, which dictate right behavior from wrong, possibly right beliefs from wrong, and acceptable behavior from unacceptable. Nothing makes me think there are any “natural” (provided by nature in some way) rights or morals.

                • 3lemenope

                  So there can be no coherent sense, according to the implications that follow from your position, of “right” or “ethical” action between two different societies. When societies meet and decide to act upon one another (to trade goods, language, or culture, or to go to war, or to partner up to go beat on a third society), none of these falls within the domain of ethics? There is no moral relevance to the prosecution of war and the choices therein?

                  When one being wants to eat and another being wants to avoid being eaten, and the two are cognizant of each others’ desires, there is no moral dimension so long as one of the parties came from somewhere else?

                  Ugh. Seriously, I haven’t run into notions this poorly formed since I took this stuff in class.

                  The reason I’m not providing a definition of ethics is that you have a damn Internet and I didn’t go to school to learn this stuff to teach remedial online courses on the topic to a person who is simultaneously disdainful of the topic and arrogant enough to think you know something about it when you clearly don’t. There’s Wikipedia, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fucking Google. If you can find a definition in any well-attested source that mirrors your bizarre “within a society” restriction, it would be surprising indeed. Given that there is no way, really, to justify such a division. A theory of ethics that posits that any meeting between persons of two different societies is extra-ethical bends quite beyond cute and quirky to the realm of simply, stupidly wrong.

                  Much like when you say (as you have, amusingly, in the past) that moral realism is a “religious viewpoint, unsupported by reason” as I saw you once claim, I know you know very little about metaethics, and it is not my job to teach that very involved subject to you. I nonetheless think it proper to point out its wrongness, because perpetuation of mistakes leads to people adopting them as correct, and there is nothing worse than a layperson running around the lawn yelling his or her opinions about topics in which they lack any expert knowledge whatsoever to anyone who will listen.

                  That person told you, and I will tell you again for all the good it will do, that Divine Command Theory is classified as a Moral Anti-Realist position, because the assignment of salient value is achieved through the valuating act of some perceiving being (in this case, a God) rather than as a feature of the object or relationship itself at issue. I’ve seen folks point out to you that there are empirical reasons to believe in the existence of moral facts, such as the convergence of moral opinion of societies that had no contact with one another, or the limited plasticity of human nature. Or point out the fundamental dysfunctionality of your theories of ethics and their incapacity to address even basic ethical situations (such as members of different societies meeting, or the practice of comparative ethics in general, of separating ethics from aesthetics to properly).

                  You are simply impervious to any of this, and so any discussion on the topic going forward from me is certainly not for your benefit. You may certainly, foolishly continue to believe you actually know what you’re talking about, but if I can frame this in a way you might understand, that claim to me seems about as manifestly silly as an astrologer claiming to you that they know astronomy better than you because they know the names of the celestial objects, and so you should take their claims about what Mars being in retrograde entails for the birth of the third child in the next-door-neighbor’s family.

                • C Peterson

                  IMO, the reason you are not providing a definition is because you cannot.

                  There is no single definition of ethics or morality to be found- not in philosophy, and not on the Internet. The subject has been discussed for thousands of years, and there are many viewpoints, frequently conflicting. So if you want to talk about ethics, you must at least provide your own definition.

                  My view, that ethics are a social invention, is hardly unique. It is a widely held view, and represents one of the major schools of thought on the subject.

                • 3lemenope

                  My view, that ethics are a social invention, is hardly unique. It is a widely held view, and represents one of the major schools of thought on the subject.

                  Many ethicists argue that societies codify ethical codes. What none of them do is argue, as you do, that this leads to incommensurability between ethical systems, and they definitely don’t arbitrarily place hard cases outside the domain of ethics. Unsurprisingly, you see superficial agreement between your batshit position and that of well-attested ethicists and think you’re on solid ground.

                  You aren’t.

                • C Peterson

                  You completely misunderstand me. I don’t in the slightest argue that there is incommensurability between ethical systems. Indeed, I explicitly said the opposite, that moral viewpoints can be compared and ranked. Neither do I arbitrarily place “hard cases” outside the domain of ethics.

                  As I said, I can objectively argue for specific moral positions. What I said initially is that I can find no objective grounds for finding “immoral” something that is widely accepted as normal and moral by a given society. I can find no grounds for finding Jefferson somehow immoral as a slave holder when he was the product of a society that considered that a normal thing. And nobody here has even tried to offer reasoning to the contrary. Nothing but arguments from emotion.

                • 3lemenope

                  You completely misunderstand me. I don’t in the slightest argue that there is incommensurability between ethical systems. Indeed, I explicitly said the opposite, that moral viewpoints can be compared and ranked.

                  “As I said, I know of no rational way to judge morals and behavior except by the standards of the society that creates them.”

                  Neither do I arbitrarily place “hard cases” outside the domain of ethics.

                  “If an entire alien civilization showed up and decided to use humans as food, I might not like that, but I don’t see it as a matter of ethics at all.”

                  ——————-

                  Either you don’t understand the implications of your own positions, or you are perfectly comfortable endorsing a contradictory mess and calling it coherent.

                  And then you veer into pure nonsense with: “As I said, I can objectively argue for specific moral positions. What I said initially is that I can find no objective grounds for finding “immoral” something that is widely accepted as normal and moral by a given society.”

                  How does that work, exactly? You can argue for moral positions but not against them?

                • C Peterson

                  Two positions can both be ethical, despite the fact that objective comparisons can be made between them. As I said, a free society arguably results in a healthier, more stable society, and therefore represents a superior system. That doesn’t make slavery immoral in every society that chooses it, however. It simply makes it a poor choice. And it may not always be that.

                  I can assure you, the most ethical people we know today will be considered monsters by the ethical standards a few centuries from now. So is everybody alive today an immoral asshole? In judging people hundreds of years ago by our standards today, you are saying that most of humanity has been immoral. I think that’s a crazy and unsupportable view.

                  I would ask you what makes the behavior of a completely alien civilization something that can be remotely considered in terms of ethics, a human invention? A civilization that has existed for thousands of years, roaming the Universe and eating other intelligent species. A civilization that evolved to do just that… perhaps even requires that to survive. Sorry, but without a LOT more information, your example is absurd in the context of ethics.

                • 3lemenope

                  That doesn’t make slavery immoral in every society that chooses it, however. It simply makes it a poor choice.

                  The number one thing among the many, many things that don’t make sense about your ethical position is this construction, quoted just above. How do you arrive at some action in an ethical domain being a “poor choice” without endorsing that the choice, having been made, is unethical? That’s what is generally meant by the term “unethical”: the act is determined to be one that shouldn’t be chosen; it is a “poor choice” made among better available ones. If it is a “poor choice”, ethically speaking, for a society to include slavery in its way of doing business, then the society has behaved unethically. You seem to implicitly understand this weakness because then you immediately backtrack with:”And it may not always be [a poor choice].” This is not one of those things that can be had both ways. To call an option a poor ethical choice is to call that option unethical. If you do not wish to do that, then you must abandon the assumed ability to determine what is a poor choice.

                  I can assure you, the most ethical people we know today will be considered monsters by the ethical standards a few centuries from now. So is everybody alive today an immoral asshole? In judging people hundreds of years ago by our standards today, you are saying that most of humanity has been immoral.

                  No, I’m not. The missing element is one of availability of moral options. Jefferson was an asshole because he knew, by his own standards, that slavery was wrong, did it anyway even in the face of many plausible and available ways of living that did not include slavery. Many people across human history were not in a position to choose other than they did, or even be aware of other options. It would not be proper to call their behaviors unethical, because they were not making choices.

                  It’s really not my fault you picked what is possibly the worst example possible to defend your ideas in picking Jefferson, a guy whose decision-making processes are accessible to us because he wrote them down at length.

                  I would ask you what makes the behavior of a completely alien civilization something that can be remotely considered in terms of ethics, a human invention?

                  You managed to smuggle into this paragraph a real doozy of an error, with “a human invention”. All social creatures we have heretofore observed maintain social structures with *at least* act normativity; wolves punish members of the pack that eat out of turn by making them eat last, for example. This goes back to your stilted definition of ethics as a matter of human societies, whereas the rest of the discipline has moved on (about two centuries or so ago) to considering the ethical domain that of acts and relationships between any two or more experiencing creatures. If bonobo tribes and packs of wolves enforce normative standards of behavior, then your alien objection goes nowhere. If the aliens got here from wherever, then it is likely that they are a cooperate species, and so they too are very, very likely to have at least a concept of normativity relating to acts, if not rules and relationships of a higher order. And unless they are very bizarre aliens indeed, they probably have the capacity to understand that other thinking beings do not like to be consumed. So even if xenocidal obligate carnivorism is how they roll, that does not obviate ethical categories. Does getting food to survive magically empty all ethical categories for you or me? Then why would it for aliens?

                • C Peterson

                  You seem confused about what ethics are. A “poor choice” is not implicitly unethical or immoral. I can often compare two options objectively, based on some standard of outcome. The poorer choice need not be unethical.

                  If I believed that Jefferson actually considered slavery completely wrong, I might agree with you. But I’ve read Jefferson, and there is little evidence of that. In fact, he was highly conflicted. He was seeking resolution. Sometimes moral choices come into conflict. Slavery was the reality of his world; simply freeing ones slaves was not a viable option. It is no different than eating meat in today’s world; many of us might consider it morally objectionable to kill animals for food, but nevertheless do so out of a lack of viable alternatives. And certainly, regardless of personal viewpoint, our society does not consider it immoral to eat meat (although I expect that will not be the case in 100 years).

                  Again, I consider your alien example to be silly and unusable. I’m not going to make assumptions about how the minds of imaginary beings work. There are enough religionists doing that already.

                  If you want to change my view on the basis of ethics, all you need to do is answer one simple question, objectively. Why is a slaveholder in a society that accepts slavery as normal and ethical an immoral person?

      • NickDB

        I think you’re confusing morally accepted with morally right, by your logic all it takes for something to be right is enough people believing it to be so.

        • C Peterson

          Yes, that’s exactly what I think. It’s the only rational criterion I can come up with.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I simply cannot condone any philosophical position that argues that genocide is moral if 51% of the population thinks so.

            • 3lemenope

              To be fair to C Peterson’s position, I think he probably has a number higher than 51 in mind. That doesn’t make him right, just not quite so thoroughly wrong.

              • C Peterson

                To be fair to C Peterson’s position, I think he probably has a number higher than 51 in mind.

                You are correct. Some others here need to get themselves dictionaries and look up the difference between “majority” and “consensus” before they post.

                You consider me wrong, yet you are unable to provide an argument making that case. You present nothing different from any religious argument, coming from emotion and gut feeling. Tell me why I’m wrong. I’d welcome it. Slavery is as repugnant to me as to most people, but before I’m willing to brand most of the human race that has ever lived immoral, I’m going to need a good case to be made for why it is intrinsically unethical, or why anything is intrinsically unethical. I’d love it if somebody could demonstrate that… but nobody ever has.

                So all I get are examples of the ad hominem fallacy perfect enough to use in a textbook, examples of religious arguments, comments from people who I know are otherwise perfectly capable of making good, logical arguments but who simply fold when faced with moral questions that are sufficiently emotional to them.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  I’d argue that in almost all cases, a slave is inherently prevented from partaking in the dominant society, because the consensus does not consider their opinion at all. If it isn’t possible for someone to have a say in the dominant culture’s mores, then its ideas of morality can’t be applied to them.

                • C Peterson

                  I can’t think of any example where slaves didn’t participate heavily in the dominant society. Not being able to participate politically doesn’t mean they don’t participate.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  If you have no power whatsoever to change the way the system treats you, your participation is trivial. You’re livestock. Slaves nearly always develop their own microculture parallel to the dominant one. I’m sure in some such cases, the slave culture agrees with the morality of keeping slaves, but I’m also sure that that attitude derives from enforced ignorance, so their agreement is hardly credible. The fact that we STILL see the consequences of imposed ignorance demonstrates how little choice they had at the time to even consider whether they should be treated that way. Given how pliable human minds are, it’s often not significantly different from breeding animals for docility.

                  Cows may stand in the marketplace alongside shoppers, but that doesn’t mean that they have the ability to make others take their welfare into account.

                • C Peterson

                  Well, what’s wrong with breeding humans for docility? Again, you base your argument on cultural bias, on an example that on first presentation will raise the hackles of nearly anybody in our own society… but is not actually an argument at all.

                  Please understand, I do not consider all social systems equally good. Objectively, some work better than others. But I don’t equate a poorer quality society with an unethical society.

                  Slavery can work, and it can work very well. Hugely successful societies have incorporated slavery into their systems in a fundamental way, and considered it perfectly acceptable. I don’t think the people who made up those societies were unethical in any useful sense of the word.

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                Possibly. It could also be argued that a lower number would still allow something to be moral in his worldview, though; say a particular moral problem had three different positions taken on it and the population split on it equally. With each moral position having 33% of popular support, would he argue that all three positions were equally morally valid? I think he would, based on his prior posts.

                I thought I was being generous, assigning a majority and not a plurality to C Peterson’s position.

                • C Peterson

                  I don’t know what “equally morally valid” means as you are using the expression.

                  I do not consider all moral positions to be equally valid. That’s because, in comparing different moral positions, it is possible to objectively argue why one might be better than another. For example, I could argue that a society without slavery is better than one with it, because theoretical and empirical evidence supports the idea that free workers are more productive, and also act as consumers, both of which are important elements in a healthy, stable society.

                  That isn’t the same thing at all as suggesting that slavery is inherently immoral. I wouldn’t consider anything immoral inside a society if there wasn’t a substantial consensus of opinion about that- perhaps 95% or more. Given a population split evenly three ways on a moral question, one thing I’d ask is whether it’s actually a moral question. I might consider the matter morally neutral. But I wouldn’t consider any of the options immoral by the standards of that society, nor by any absolute standards (which I see no evidence of). I might personally consider any or all of the positions to be immoral, but that’s a different thing completely. I consider slavery to be immoral. But I have no grounds to judge a different society than my own by such a standard.

                  I can objectively argue against slavery, but not against its morality in any absolute sense.

          • NickDB

            So rape and murder is ok if 51% says it is? You’re repugnant!

      • UWIR

        And yet again, atheists insist on objective morality while the defenders of Christianity argue for moral relativism. Funny how Christians keep claiming it’s the other way around.

        • C Peterson

          I’m an atheist and a moral relativist. Christians are moral absolutists… as are some atheists, although I don’t consider that a very rational position.

  • corps_suk

    Odd… I was only upset they left my mom and dad out of their spot…you know our REAL creators.

    We do call them teabaggers for a reason…

    • Mackinz

      Because they deserve to be dunked in water? ;D

      • Ryan Jean

        Last time I checked, that’s only legal* if done by a conservative administration to prisoners at a U.S. facility kept safely off U.S. soil. Otherwise, it’s torture.

        * And by “legal,” I mean that of course it’s torture, and of course it’s globally prosecutable as a war crime, but they’ve got a really nifty secret memo saying it’s OK if they do it, because Jesus, or something…

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          I once smacked around a teabagger who claimed over and over again that waterboarding wasn’t torture and that people who opposed it “supported terrorism”. I linked where Japanese soldiers who waterboarded POW’s during WWII were convicted of war crimes and executed, and where a sheriff and his deputies in the U.S. were also convicted of torture in the 1980′s for waterboarding prisoners.

          His response, in full:

          Fine, waterboarding is torture.

          Liberal democrats who oppose torture are supporting the terrorists.

          Unshockingly, he later claimed to have not written that. Pity for him that I always took screenshots of people writing nasty things back when the browser addon I had worked right and made that easy. His meltdown when I posted pics was entertaining.

        • Mackinz

          Jokes are meant to be funny. You killed it by being too literal. :/

  • LesterBallard

    I thought the irony was you know, a black man was used in this commercial.

  • Baby_Raptor

    It really is above these people that some citizens don’t believe in a creator.

    It’s also beyond them that not having your views specifically mentioned is not opression.

  • TLibasci

    As always, putting the “divisible” in “indivisible” (them, not you). Sigh.

  • Mick

    NBC was forced to apologize to viewers — and Congress! — for what they later called an “editing mistake.”

    Land of the free and the home of the brave…

  • WallofSleep

    I doubt it was their intention to piss off all the idiot fundies out there, but they did. And for that, I will most definitely be buying more of their beer in the near future and beyond.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Ha! Indeed. Almost makes me wish I could stand beer.

      • WallofSleep

        “Almost makes me wish I could stand beer.”

        *narrows eyes* I don’t even know how to talk to you.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Can’t stand beer, only started listening to metal a few years ago, not prone to casual sex mostly cause everyone smart enough to interest me is already in a thing, knows a lot of roleplaying game facts, reads webcomics instead of going out on weekends, the last concert I went to was Country… I’m quite the wild atheist libertine, no?

          Actually I can’t stand beer because my uncle gave me one when I was about four years old. That’ll put ya right off the stuff.

          • duke_of_omnium

            They say that one of life’s great disappointments is tasting your first beer, after watching all those years of commercials.

            • 3lemenope

              For one’s first beer one could certainly go much wronger than Sam Adams.

              • onamission5

                No doubt. I’m thinking Miller High Life, circa 1976.

            • Miss_Beara

              This. Very much this. I thought beer was going to be this great drink because all grown ups drink it and drink a lot of it…

              BLECH!

          • allein

            I can’t stand it either but I have no such excuse …
            The details are different but your life sounds about as wild and crazy as mine.

          • Timothy R Alexander

            I’ve tried beer. It tastes terrible and smells and looks like piss. Its funny though, I actually get more odd looks when I tell people I dont drink than when I tell them I dont believe in god.

            • mac

              Then you’ve not tried good beer. You may still not like it, but your description sounds like you tried such swill as coors or bud.

              • Timothy R Alexander

                Pretty much, plus a brand called desperados. It was on a amry base in Germany and I was visiting my brother after I got out of highschool.

                • mac

                  Becks Dark
                  Negra Modello
                  Sam Smith’s Nut Brown Ale
                  Sam Smith’s Oatmeal Stout
                  Chimay Red
                  Chimay Blue
                  Abita Amber
                  Various Kona beers (Longboad, FireRock)
                  These are but a few of the good beers – there are many more.

                • mac

                  I forgot to list the various IPAs (India Pale Ales).
                  These have more hops, which I love.

                  Hops is a good preservative and allowed the beer in the kegs being shipped from England to India to not go bad during the long voyage.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  You like the dark beers :( Those are way too bitter for my taste.

                • mac

                  Yes I do, however, the Chimays aren’t dark. The IPAs I listed below aren’t dark, but they do all have flavor. The IPAs are hoppy. The Chimays are yeasty.

                  Longboard isn’t dark, nor is the Abita Amber, but they still have good flavor.

                  There are beers out there for all of us ;-)

              • allein

                Of the beers I’ve tasted, I can at least say I disliked Guinness much less than I disliked Bud or Coors.

                • Spuddie

                  All beer tastes better when you are really hot or had a lot of salty food.

                • ShoeUnited

                  Being pissed on feels refreshing after crawling through the desert, but I don’t recommend it.

                  Also, for those that may be thinking “Beer is an acquired taste.”:

                  If I don’t like it at first, and can only come to like it after copious amounts under peer pressure, then that isn’t something I actually enjoy. It’s Stockholm Syndrome.

                • allein

                  Yeah, I’ve never understood the point of “acquiring” a taste for something you can’t stand in the first place.

                • Spuddie

                  If we only ate the stuff we liked, the broccoli growers of the world would go bankrupt. =)

                • allein

                  True.. I actually thought about broccoli as I was typing that and considered adding some qualifications to my statement. It’ll never be my favorite vegetable but I will admit it has grown on me since I was a kid. ;)

                • Spuddie

                  I would think that feels kind of warm and not refreshing at all. =)

                  I don’t disagree with you on the “acquired taste” thing. I never got much enjoyment from beer until I discovered Malaysian, Indonesian and Korean food. Food which can be best described as napalm with rice on the side.

                  Also certain kinds of Japanese pub foods work well with beer. Of course Japanese beer is much easier to handle than American recycled urine beverage.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Mmm, salted edamame and Sapporo … trade bites with swigs. That sounds good.

                  I’d still probably go for a cider or something, but I can definitely see the appeal.

                • Spuddie

                  Love cider but its tough to find it in restaurants.

                • mac

                  And Guinness sucks – that should tell you how bad Bud and Coors really are.
                  Anyone who likes Guinness these days does it mostly because they think they’re supposed to. See my comment below for a list of a couple of good beers (there are more).

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  I genuinely *like* Guinness because it leaves me feeling a bit like I’ve had a good meal, you know? I want my beer to be a meal in a glass….

                • mac

                  Guiness is the flatest tasting and probably the most boring flavored beer I’ve ever had (well, american piss beers not withstanding). My understanding is that it actually used to be a good beer, but for some reason it was changed years ago for a more ‘international’ (read American) tastes. I never had the ‘good’ version.

                  Like I said elsewhere thought, there are beers out there for all of us ;-)

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  More importantly, it doesn’t leave me dealing with nasty GI issues.

                • mac

                  ;-)

                  I don’t have those issues from beer, however I can relate to the reasoning.

                • allein

                  Maybe I’ll pass ‘em along to my dad…he’s a beer guy. He and my mom’s brother occasionally pick up a couple different six-packs of beers they haven’t tried and split them.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  I don’t usually like beers- the hop aftertaste is just too bitter. I keep trying them- I’ve found I like lighter beers more than darker ones (shocking, I know, given how I feel about hops!), and there’s one that’s amazing. It’s a local Austin brew called Pecan Porter. I don’t usually like pecans, and I don’t usually like porters, but it’s delicious anyways.

                • 3lemenope

                  You might enjoy a shandy (lemon-peel flavored beer); they’ve become really popular amongst the “hates bitter hops” crowd around here and yet it doesn’t taste like dirty water.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  Hmm. I’ll have to try that next time I go to a bar or bar/restaurant. Thanks for the suggestion!

                • mac

                  You can also try the Belgian Kriek beers. They are generally sweeter, fruity beers (cherry, peach, raspberry). They taste like soda pop.

                • Mac

                  Adding Pecan Porter to my list of beers to try.
                  Thanks!

                  Lighter beers aren’t hoppier necesarily. IPAs are though.

            • 3lemenope
            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              Try a Guinness.

              • mac

                blech

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  More for me, then!

        • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ TBJ

          Beer gives me migraines, which explains the whole potato mash thing with me.

  • newenglandbob

    “their creator” is their mother, not some fictitious dead zombie.

  • lomifeh

    The no kings thing is a snide reference to Budweiser which is often advertised as the “King of Beers” I suspect. But anyone getting in a tizzy over this is looking for a reason.

    • Timothy R Alexander

      Thats prety much what I thought, though I cant remember the last time I heard them refer to it as the king of beers

      • Geoff Boulton

        Possibly because ‘The Beer of Kings’ was used to market the real Budweiser, the one from the Czech Republic, and they’re still miffed. Or perhaps they don’t want their name being confused with the name they took from the Czechs in the first place. They’ve spent a fortune using their money and influence to convince people they are the ‘original’ Budweiser.

        • EuropeanCommunist

          Ah yes, the original Budweiser from the city of Budweis. No, sorry, wrong one, that has to be sold as ‘Czechvar’ in the US. I, of course, mean the real original, the one from the city of St. Louis.

  • DougI

    Maybe I’ll buy some Sam Adams if somehow just doing that will piss some fundies off.

    • Tor

      Then they would be blowing off their heads the other way: How dare SA inject the deity into beer drinking?!?!?

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      All the fundies I know are pissed off that people drink beer (in public…it’s common for them to drink in secret).

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Why should you always bring two Baptists on your fishing trips?

        So they won’t drink all your beer.

  • http://www.nowhere-fast.net Tom

    I just hope that Sam Adams doesn’t backpedal from this so that I can keep drinking their beer.

  • Ian Reide

    You could ask the supreme court to reinterpret the law again and declare that the reference to “creator” is a reference to one’s parents. Would that make things simpler?

    • GubbaBumpkin

      The same document also refers to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” which really doesn’t sound like the Christian God.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I think Samuel Adams would be wondering why there is a negro on the magic flickering demon box that is try to sell him some beer instead of working the fields like his other slaves.

    • 3lemenope

      Samuel Adams did not own slaves.* His only moral failing with regards to the issue was that he was in private opposed to slavery but did not speak out on the issue for fear of screwing up the American experiment.

      *(He was once given a slave as a gift, which he then immediately manumitted.)

      [/nitpick]

      I LOL’d hard anyway.

  • sk3ptik0n

    Jesus Beer! How is it no one has come out with that brand yet? Think of all the different varieties they can sell too: Trinity Lager, Nativity Ale, there is almost no end to it.

    • smrnda

      There is actually a Jewish brewing company that puts out some Biblical themed beers. (Schmaltz brewing.) There is a Messiah Ale. I have tried the Hop Manna IPA and highly recommend it :-)

      • Tor

        I’ve seen HeBrew.

    • Bdole

      Beer? I dunno. Wine…definitely.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Hmmm. Original Sin Gin? Pillar of Salt Malt? Nail Ale?

      *facepalms at self*

      • Geoff Boulton

        How about Jesus Blood? Every bottle of cheap wine comes with a certificate proving it was magically transformed by a Catholic priest. Shouldn’t be difficult to get a ‘genuine’ priest to sign the certificates, they’ll do anything for money.

        • Ryan Jean

          Given the current situation, they’d probably want to be paid in underage altar boys…

          • Geoff Boulton

            I think you’re being a little unfair to all those ‘good’ priests who would only consider being paid with overage altar boys ;-)

      • randomfactor

        Well, there is religious precedent:

        http://www.shmaltzbrewing.com/HEBREW/

    • GubbaBumpkin
  • Rain

    If I was a drinker, I would definitely quit my job and pack up and move everyone to Boston to drink their beer. Congratulations to the beer people.

  • Paul (not the apostle)

    Most of the fundies I know are anti alcohol so Sam Adams has no need to cater to them. Now if Adams was in the communion wine business maybe they should be concerned, although many fundies use grape juice in their communion. So you can’t even get a shot of free wine with your cracker

  • Tor

    If there were a creator, he, she or it would have endowed me with the unalienable right to pursue beer. In fact, he, she or it actually did.

  • Jade

    “It reminds me of the time NBC aired a promo
    for the 2011 U.S. Open golf championship and left out the phrase “under
    God” from a shot of kids reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:”

    Guess they forgot about what it read pre 1954.

  • Rodney Chlebek

    You hear that? Did somebody call a whaambulance? I think we should take up a collection for boxes of tissue and have them staged for distribution for the next outcry.

  • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

    The real issue is what someone perceives “creator” to mean. In all of my experience, people are created by people. And the rights those people have… also decided upon and defended by people.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Funny how I haven’t seen Joe Klein protesting this egregious omission of the Creator from this rather silly, pretentious beer commercial.

    Imagine if “their Creator” was included in that narrative, along with the “smooth and flavorful” part. It would then be so very silly and pretentious it would be the laughing stock of the internet.

    • Carmelita Spats

      If not the internet, it would be the laughing stock of me. Their Creator is smooth and flavorful? They love to pimp their ride: Rico-Suave-Yahweh with a spray-on tan, a Mormon haircut and a shiny-shiny gold tooth. I would think Rico-Suave-Yahweh would taste like chilled cucumber soup: a delicious, minty, taste, cool and refreshing as if you are drinking something as well as eating it. I myself enjoyed it in Egypt while visiting a friend of mine who works as a snake charmer. However, eating Yahweh on a cold day, in a drafty room, is about as pleasant as a swarm of wasps at a bat mitzvah. Funny how I haven’t seen Joe Klein serving Creator soup.

  • Alice

    If it makes fundies feel any better, the beer company has never lost sleep over historical inaccuracies. Their picture of “Samuel Adams” is actually Paul Revere. :)

  • Mac

    How about we just boycot them for the horrible overacting.
    Nah, it’s good beer, I can forgive.

  • Deus Otiosus

    This sort of thing pops up every few months. Half of the time they don’t even need any real facts to back up their faux anger. I’ve received emails calling for a boycott on both Coca-Cola and Pepsi over some barely-concocted internet rumor. When I looked it up on Snopes, this is what I found. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/undergod.asp

  • SeekerLancer

    So they would rather have the commercial pimp beer in the name of God? I’m pretty sure Jesus would not have appreciated that.

  • Kenneth Polit

    The thing that really bothers me about this and every other”offense” out there is the timidity of the alleged offender(s). I’d love to see anyone just come out and say,”Go fuck yourself. We will say what we want.” I do it every day, and I do it as a proud American.

  • Pithecanthropus

    Hooray for the American Taliban! You must adhere to the tenets of their faith or suffer the consequences and face their wrath.

  • LutherW

    Its not like they are spying on every one and recording what they are drinking or turning over beer purchase records to the N.S.A.

  • Gabriel

    You have got to be fucking kidding. How can anyone be upset by this? The only way is if you are one of those little losers who sit on the internet looking for things to be upset over.

  • onamission5

    I know that when I take a sip of a freshly poured pint, my first thought is usually “You know what would make this crisp, refreshing, malty beverage even better? Moar Jesus.”

  • ldmccarty

    My creator was my mother. Just FYI.

  • Dusty

    As a Christian St. Louisian who happened to stumble across this while doing a google search for this commercial, I have to say that I absolutely love the commercial, despite the fact that it doesn’t mention the Creator and takes a shot at my beloved hometown’s brew. Made me damn proud to be American, which I suspect was the purpose of the commercial.

    Everything doesn’t have to be political. Cheers.

  • Muggle in Converse

    Oi vey.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X