For me sfamylou says it all:

"When you go into a restaurant, you have the expectation that you're going to order food, they'll cook it and serve it, and you'll eat it and pay."

beachbum - how would I know in what spirit the mint is being given??? And even with the most well-intentioned "spirits", people can STILL be offended nonetheless - they are not mutually exclusive concepts...

I would have felt the same as margot55, and I probably would not go back to that restaurant.

From those of you who expressed support for the restauranteur's practice, would you respond to Patrick's comment - what if the mint contained a message that you don't agree with? How about if it said, "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet"?

Margot - how strong can those feelings be if you are going to give that restaurant owner more of your hard earned dollars to support an agenda you find so horribly offensive? Damn the food must be good there. The broth of the devil indeed :-)


I think it's rather pathetic that society has come to a place where any of the world's great religious traditions are so repulsive to so many. Organized religion which has done so much for so many - even if one just considers the humanitarian efforts of feeding, clothing, and educating the poor (setting aside any talk of God or gods or things spiritual) is not the same as a racist or hate-group such as the KKK and doesn't deserve to be painted with the same brush.

If I had been at that restaurant and found myself on the receiving end of some Buddhist, or Islamic, or Hebrew religious printed commentary, I probably would have rolled my eyes, said "whatever" and ate the mint. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm not sure it's a good business practice, but it is not offensive. And if I were in India, Iraq, or Israel (respectively) when I received it, I wouldn't have given it a second thought - "when in Rome" you know.

Since when did the Christian principles upon which this country was founded become so disgusting to you all?

A little history of the Testamint -

Tom Waits: "My father-in-law has been trying to get me involved in this other business. He's got these little lozenges that come in different flavours and they have a cross on one side and a Bible passage on the other. He calls them 'testamints.' The idea is that if you can't make the church service, you meditate on the testamint passage, then pop it in your mouth. We took the idea one step further with Chocolate Jesus." (Source: "Wily Tom Waits' Barnyard Breakthrough" Now magazine, by Tim Perlich. Date: April 22-28, 1999)

Biographic info on Tom Waits: http://www.anti.com/artist.php?id=1

Interesting topic. Margot, thanks for the information about Kauai Pasta. When I began to read your post, I was thinking, "Oh cool, a good place to note for pasta when we are on Kauai."

Glad I know though that we should not patronize that establishment. It's one thing to be aware in the first place that a restaurant proselytizes and still eat there (as some people have mentioned, restaurants that proclaim their faith on outdoor signs or have altars to their gods set up near the entrace). The customer is then given the choice initially, prior to spending their money.

It's great that the restaurant owner feels that way and it's great that he is able to express himself. But as sfamylou said: "There is a time and a place. When you go into a restaurant, you have the expectation that you're going to order food, they'll cook it and serve it, and you'll eat it and pay."

I *am* of a minority religion, and this would have made me uncomfortable because it seems, well, I can't think of the right word. Underhanded in a way, but that's really more harsh than what I mean. If they are all gung ho Christian, then why not have a cross or some other symbol on the walls so people are aware of it as soon as they walk in? Why hide it until you have their money?

-Sandra

margot, The mints were presented with your bill. No one said anything to you, or forced you to read the scripture on the back. It was your choice to unwrap and eat them. Truly, I wonder why you're uncomfortable with that.

Beachbum, to answer your argument I'd refer you back to Anonymous's comment about hospitality and respect. Yes, a person who is on their own private property has the right to tell you whatever they like. But that's certainly not what it takes to make them a good host. And, personally, I think there are much better ways to reflect Jesus's teachings than to try to ram your religion down someone else's throat. Also, I really don't see being put off by the mint as being intolerant. It's certainly possible to be tolerant of another's views while, at the same time, not wanting them to impose those views on you.

I was responding to Beachbum's previous posting!

Beachbum - when the mints were presented in their little blue wrappers, I truly would have no way of knowing what the "testamints" label would bring with it. I think it is only natural that one would then turn the wrapper over (before opening it) to see if there was more info, and indeed, there was (the Bible quotation). Still, I then would have had no way of knowing that when I unwrapped the mint there would be a cross on it. I think your suggestions run counter to natural human behavior ("no one forced you to rea the scripture on the back") - the saying was THERE, what else am I supposed to do?!

Yikes, jasmine, I don't think anyone has remotely suggested that the practice of testaminting should be prohibited, and nobody but you has used words like offensive and repulsive. That's whole different experience than the margot's description of feeling uncomfortable at the surprise she found wth her bill.

"You see[m] to be saying "it's OK, because I agree with what he was saying"." And you seem to be saying, "It's not okay because I disagree or am uncomfortable with what's being said."

Oh NO, Beachbum. You are reading me TOTALLY wrong, because in fact I am a Christian and I do believe in what they are saying and agree with it! What I DISAGREE with is not what they are saying, but rather that they are imposing their views on others who may or may not agree with it, but even that is beside the point. No one needs to be confronted with owners' personal religious or political feelings when all they were doing was going to eat a meal!


My point was that it isn't an issue of whether you agree with it or not, but why should it be presented to begin with? On the other hand, please answer my question. Would you be so defensive of it's being OK, if in fact the mints had been devils and the message was "God is dead"? I strongly suspect you wouldn't be sitting her telling us that wouldn't be offensive to you. Yet although I believe in God, I happen to find either message equally out of place in an after dinner mint in a restaurant that I've chosen.

It would freak me out and I wouldn't go back. I do not want someone selling me God with my dinner.

I do like to go to In and Out Burger however and they have bible quotes on their packaging.

wow ! I was curious why there were so many responses to a thread about dinner mints in just 3 hours..awesome conversations here, I enjoy reading these..I do not believe in the bible personally and would of thought these were a funny novelty, like those "Jesus is my homeboy" t-shirts places like urban Outfitters sell...I would of probably seeked out the others like the Buddhist ones for example which is more my beliefs....It's a creative idea...however, I agree with Patrick in respect to wanting to go about my daily business without being solicited, that really bugs me...If I was in a restaurant that was clearly influenced by any religion than I would be prepared and know that up front...this was a sneak attack....if they were by the door and there for you to grab like a menu or ad flyer, that's one thing I think, but they gave it to them with the bill which means they were specifically making sure you got one, should you think you want a mint....yeah, probably wouldn't of liked that myself, and I don't think I would go back.

How does someone claiming to be a Christian, (a "follower of Christ") reconcile the above "imposing their views on others who may or may not agree with it" with Christ's direct instructions to "go and make disciples of all nations" Matt28:19 and "I will make you fishers of men" Matt4:19?

OK - I'm back from lunch - and I must share with you that when I went out to my car, on my windshield was a little booklet from none other than (I swear I'm not lying)..."The Pocket Testamint League"!!! Too ironic and funny for words!!!

Anyhow...WHEW - I'm kind of feeling, and you'll pardon the expression under the circumstances, damned if I do and damned if I don't. What I mean by this is that one one hand, it seems as though there are a number of people implying that I'm being intolerant because of my reacion to these now infamous mints; yet on the other hand, others are wondering why I plan to go back to this restaurant. So, here's the deal - I'm going back because I am not a single issue restaurant diner, political animal, or in any other role I happen to play in my life. The food and service were enjoyable enough that at this point, it outweighs the discomfort factor of the mints - doesn't that make me, uh, TOLERANT to the situation, despite my misgivings?! Naturally, I will be curious if they still have the mints, but I won't be surprised next time if they do. Does this work for most of you? ;)

"I am not a single issue restaurant diner"

LOL! But you might want to go prepared with some sort of brochure to leave along with the tip . . . .

Yes, Patrick, I would be offended to read a mint stating "God is dead". And I'd never go back to that place. But I wouldn't deny the right to give me the mint in the first place. My uncomfortability with it would be my issue.

What you said, Maggi. Christ's example though, I think, was that His kingdom would be developed through (His kind of) loving relationships rather than preaching. Personally, judging by the responses here, I think Kauai Pasta's owner's practice is ineffective. Or, maybe not!!

Did you eat the mint?

Patrick,

There are lots of acts deemed 'freedom of expression' that I don't particularly like. Take tee-shirts emblazoned with this or that slogan - I don't consider the wearing of a tee-shirt to be a fair forum in which all parties can freely exchange ideas. The wearer of said tee-shirt to me seems to be SHOUTING his views, as indeed do those who burn flags seem to be shouting their views. But..... heaven help the country, especially a democracy, that tries to guarantee its citizens freedom from being offended, or to be presented only with things that one likes or with which one agrees. Unless that dinner mint is used to deliberately choke someone to death (deprivation of life), glue one to the floor (deprivation of liberty) or by virtue of gluing someone to the floor, prevent said person from dating (deprivation of pursuit of happiness) I daresay the American courts, at least, would protect said mint distribution, just as they have protected flag-burning.

In any case, religion by its very nature isn't about equal time for all views. I refer those interested to this highly amusing sketch, 'Worshipers-R-Us' by the
Franticks.

http://f2.org/humour/frantics-worshippers.html

BTW, my cousin did some volunteer service in Ghana, where it is common to name businesses along the lines of 'Praise the Lord Car Wash' and (my favourite) "Rest and Be Thankful Hairdressing."

Grasshopper - I was WAITING for that question!!! The answer is...no, I did not.

Could someone please point out even one instance in this thread, anywhere, where anyone suggested that the restaurant owner should not be allowed to hand out mints in this way?

Not liking it, or even being offended by it, is not equivalent to wishing it banned, which many here seem to be implying.

Very good point, jlm_mi!

Yes, thank you, jlm_mi - I too have been puzzled by this inference. Although I personally would prefer not to be served these mints, I recognize that it is ultimately the choice of the restauanteur as to whether or not to serve them, and then my choice as to whether or not to go back there. For me, it really is that simple.

If I'd be of the same faith, I'd be offended as this is definitely sacriligeious. If I'd be of a different faith or an atheist I'd be offended by the management trying to force me to accept it. In any case I wouldn't just walk away.

There is a difference between seeing somebody in a public place wearing a t-shirt with a slogan you don't like and being unexpectedly proselytzed by the proprietors of a place of public accomodation. How would you feel checking into a hotel only to find a sign over your bed proclaiming that Allah is God and Christians are infidels?

Restaurants,hotels, and similar businesses are places of public accomodation, and as such are forbidden by law from refusing to serve people based on race or religion. The explanation "It's my restaurant and I can do what I want" doesn't work. (Am I the only one here who's old enough to remember the lunch counter sit-ins?)

In this case, the proprietors haven't done anything illegal, but they have acted in a way that could make customers justifiably feel uncomfortable and unwelcome based on their religious beliefs. Can they legally do it? Yes. Should they do it? That's a different question.

<<There is a difference between seeing somebody in a public place wearing a t-shirt with a slogan you don't like and being unexpectedly proselytzed by the proprietors of a place of public accomodation.>>

Yes, there is. I have no argument with those trying to remove religious symbols from publicly owned spaces/places. And is it France that now disallows wearing a cross or religion associated clothing to school? It's not too far a stretch that the ban will be applied to all publicly owned spaces/places, so maybe we should expect it.

While I may disagree with Kauai Pasta's owner's methods, I have to admire him. In the face of increasing political and potential economic pressures, he's chosen to practice his faith. Unlike many of the rest of us, he's trying to be more than a Sunday morning Christian.

Thanks for the chuckle, Sue.

Yes, jlm mi, it's true that nobody actually suggested the mints be banned, but on the other hand to draw a corollary between a dinner mint wrapper and Nazi or racist propaganda (either or both of which are banned in some countries) is to make a strong inference that the mints are more than just "inappropriate" as was suggested in the original post.

I suppose the reason I wouldn't take the mint amiss is because in the situation described, I wouldn't be a captive audience. Had I paid in advance for a meal, or boarded a train that wouldn't stop for 3 hours, etc., and then been required to sit through a religious lecture before I could either eat or escape, I would definitely feel coerced. I might even feel the same way had I found myself in a hotel room as KT describes (a banner over the bed, unlike a Gideon's bible, would be a bit hard to just chuck in a drawer). But a candy wrapper, not to mention candy, that I am free to throw away or refuse altogether I don't see as quite the same thing as proselytizing. I do acknowledge that a similar reasoning applies to tee-shirt wearers, i.e., my opinion is dependent on the degree to which one could avoid the tee shirt wearers.

KT does raise an interesting point about the content of the message; a religious tract that attacked a specific group I would probably find jarring, just as a tee-shirt with barely disguised (or not at all disguised) profanity is jarring to me. That said, I understood margot55 to be asking me if I would find the quotations inappropriate not because of the content of same, but simply because of their source per se, i.e., because they came from a religious document.

Well, I just went on the internet to look further into testamints - go to www.formar.com/testamints/products.html and you'll see why after all this discussion, it may be a moot point now... :-?

"Unlike many of the rest of us, he's trying to be more than a Sunday morning Christian."

Sorry, but I just don't equate proselytizing or spreading the word or whatever you want to call it with adhering to the morality of one's faith. You can be the worst Christian in the world despite handing out tracts, and you can put your Christianity into practice by acting morally without trying to convert others. Not all religions or sects consider proselytizing a moral duty, of course.

Can't we all just get along?? Shades of Rodney King!

Where's Dr. Fodor Kevorkian when we need him? :-?

Now I'm becoming uncomfortable.

No wait. It's my gym shorts riding up on me.
Sorry.

Gym shorts riding up on ya, Kal??? Yikes, a little too much info there!!! ;)

Actually, we are all getting along. We're just not all agreeing. I think this has been a surprisingly civil thread, though I admit it's not really travel-related.

I'd rather eat a religious mint than have things ride up on me.

KT - travel-related, in that this took place at a new restaurant on our vacation in Kauai, no? ((?))

I copied and pasted the link, margot, but disappeared somewhere into cybernoman'sland.

<<Not all religions or sects consider proselytizing a moral duty, of course.>> But then, some do KT. Further, see Maggi's comment upthread.

Kal, unless I have a rag handy, I'll need to learn to stand further away from the monitor before reading your posts. Thanks.

<<Can't we all just get along??>> What??? We're not??? You should be at some of my family gatherings, bounty.

Well, margot55, tangentially travel-related. I realize that's why you posted it, but the ensuing discussion did venture a bit far afield. I didn't mean that comment as a criticism of you.

Of course, not everything that happens on a trip is travel related. Shall we disccuss the bronchitis I had while in London? :-)

1. He certainly had a legal right to do use the mints to spread his faith. It wasn't on public property. In fact, it was at his privately owned establishment.

2. Here's the big question. How many of those who objected to what this person did would want to make it ILLEGAL to do such things even on PRIVATE property?

My feeling is that those who claim separation of church and state, if they were honest about it, would rather it be separation of church and EVERYTHING. Make it illegal to display, talk, demonatrate your faith in anyway except in church or your home, and only if noone could see or hear you.

Hi beachbum - sorry you lost that link, but here's what now comes up on that website:
"Unfortunately, Testamints are no longer available. From what we can gather, the compnay is currently closed and the product is not available anymore".

KT - no, because if we talk about your bronchitis in London, we'd have to talk about my bronchitis in Kauai a few years ago! ;)

travelinandgolfin - at no point on this thread, at least as far as I can see, has anyone suggested that this action on the restautanteur's part have been illegal!!! If you can find a post that said that, please let me know, but I can't find it.

To everyone - I really have appreciated the lively and thought-provoking discussion that has come from my initial question, and I especially am grateful for the generally civil tone on a hot-button issue! Thanks!

Speaking of Kauai and travel.......
You can't touch me now.
I'm listening to one of my all time radio stations:
www.kkcr.org/live/live.html

And I just got done listening to the clip L'Italy sent me of that kid singing.
Laff out Loud Funny!!

B'bum,
My computer seems to be on the rag most of the time, too.
BTW, we are seriously thinking of a Portland trip in maybe June-July....so you are warned! ;)

Margot, ridin' up 'cuz I got my Jockey's on! #-O