An anti-Wal-Mart union group is asking if Jesus would shop at Wal-Mart.
Of course he wouldn’t!
Jesus lived in first-century Judea. They didn’t have Wal-Marts back then.
It’s a stupid question. For one, Jesus wasn’t above dining with sinners (Mark 2-13-17) and tax collectors (Luke 19:1-10), which suggests that he wouldn’t have any qualms about going into a Wal-Mart. Secondly, arguing that shopping at Wal-Mart is somehow a grave sin is simply stupid. One can make a political argument that Wal-Mart should pay more, but the fact remains that dragging the name of Jesus into the discussion adds nothing other than provocation.
For all the talk about how bad the religious right is, there’s no shortage of moralizing coming from the left these days, and it’s no less subtle than the brayings of a Falwell or Robertson.
To answer the question: what would Jesus do? He’d take the money that was spent buying ad time and give to the poor. The money spent on a 43-state ad campaign could have bought plenty of toys for needy children, provided warm meals to thousands of homeless people, or built dozens of shelters for battered women. It could have saved thousands of lives in Africa or Latin America, where children frequently die of dehydration that could have been prevented with a 67 cent packet of oral rehydration salts. It could have gone to a scholarship fund that would ensure that the children of the Wal-Mart employees that are apparently so abused could afford a college education.
As someone quite wise once said, “let he without sin cast the first stone.”