# Sam Adams Beer Ad Omits ‘God’ Reference From Declaration Of Independence



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

> BOSTON (CBS) - A controversy is brewing over the latest Samuel Adams beer commercial.
> 
> The ad asks, "Why name a beer after Samuel Adams?"
> 
> ...


If they don't want to include any religious reference in their ads for whatever reason, that's fine. My problem is you don't screw with the Declaration of Independence! Greater men than the ones that work for Sam Adams' marketing firm wrote that document carefully and deliberately. If they don't want to quote it in it's original form; then, don't use it.


----------



## Joel98 (Mar 2, 2011)

Agreed! There is already too much of 'history revisionism' going on.


----------



## HuskyH-2 (Nov 16, 2008)

Who cares, it's marketing.


----------



## Joel98 (Mar 2, 2011)

HuskyH-2 said:


> Who cares, it's marketing.


That's exactly the mentality that liberals hope Americans have, as they fundamentally change America.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

It's marketing, you are correct. However, you have to remember that in marketing terms one angry or annoyed customer translates into thousands of angry or annoyed customers. I'm the person that's annoyed that they would mess with the Declaration of Independence so my chosen reaction was to post the story and see if a discussion started. There are others who will either for that reason or because they object to the removal of God from the text choose to speak with their wallets and purchase a competing brand. Generally speaking I like Sam Adams (except for that nasty bonfire beer they put in the multi-pack a while back), but that doesn't mean I wouldn't stop buying it if they annoyed me enough. As I wrote above, if they didn't want to use the text the way it was written; then, they shouldn't have chosen to use the Declaration of Independence in the ad. IMO that is one document that isn't open to re-writes.


----------



## HuskyH-2 (Nov 16, 2008)

They didn't rewrite anything. they selectively quoted the declaration, which is done to millions of material for marketing, speeches, entertainment every day. (Including the bible)

The Declaration of Independence isn't special in this regard. Sometimes seems like people just want something to be mad over. 

As far as being annoyed enough to not buy the beer. The reason they chose to do that was because, it was better business for them to leave it out then to leave it in.


----------



## niteowl1970 (Jul 7, 2009)

Ditched Sam Adams years ago... Now it's Berkshire Brewing Company Steel Rail or Alchemist Heady Topper for me.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Ok maybe I chose the wrong word with my internal edit button being on overdrive so I didn't come off like a bitch. The Declaration of Independence should never be edited, revised, or subject of satire! Better? As for some people needing something to be mad over, I'm not mad. I'm annoyed, not mad. There is a huge difference. I very rarely get mad, but when I do you'll know.

As I noted above, I don't have a problem with them not using God to pimp beer. Honestly, I find that concept distasteful. My problem is that they altered, edited, revised or subjected to satire a document that was very carefully and deliberately crafted by the founders of this country. If they didn't want to use the text in it's original and complete form; then, they should not have used it all. We live in a time when the principles and values that this country was founded on are under constant attack. They don't get a pass because it's a marketing campaign. All it takes is a few seemingly small (to some) alterations to the Declaration of Independence and eventually we will see much larger, much more obvious attempts to alter not only the Declaration of Independence, but also the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now before you jump all over me, I know that an advertising campaign is not going to shake the foundation of this country. However, when we have kids graduating high school who don't know the first thing about history, can't give you the gist of the first 2 sentences of the Declaration of Independence, can't recite the preamble to the Constitution or list the Bill of Rights (among all the other things they don't teach anymore) a marketing campaign can add to the weakening of the values represented in those documents. I'm sure there were plenty of people who didn't even notice there was something missing. Oh and while it's not terribly relevant to my argument because it really doesn't bother me that they don't use God to sell beer, I just want to point out that it is a stupid omission even if I were ok with them altering the Declaration of Independence. They want to use the concept that all men have been "endowed" with certain unalienable rights, but chose to omit who gave those rights to all men. So tell me, who did the endowing?

With respect to other documents like the Bible being open to revision, edits and satire. I don't have an issue with that. First off, I don't believe the Bible was dictated by God or even a first hand account of events. Second, the Bible is and always has been open to interpretation and has been revised. You need to look no further than the fact that there are different versions of the Bible currently in use such as Hebrew or Christian, a myriad of translations (KJV, NKJV, CEB, NIV, ASV, etc), lost gospels and gnostic gospels to see that.

By the way, the _History of the World Part I_ is satire. This ad is nothing more than some twenty-something taking a red pen to the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## HuskyH-2 (Nov 16, 2008)

HistoryHound said:


> Ok maybe I chose the wrong word with my internal edit button being on overdrive so I didn't come off like a bitch. The Declaration of Independence should never be edited, revised, or subject of satire! Better? As for some people needing something to be mad over, I'm not mad. I'm annoyed, not mad. There is a huge difference. I very rarely get mad, but when I do you'll know.
> 
> As I noted above, I don't have a problem with them not using God to pimp beer. Honestly, I find that concept distasteful. My problem is that they altered, edited, revised or subjected to satire a document that was very carefully and deliberately crafted by the founders of this country. If they didn't want to use the text in it's original and complete form; then, they should not have used it all. We live in a time when the principles and values that this country was founded on are under constant attack. They don't get a pass because it's a marketing campaign. All it takes is a few seemingly small (to some) alterations to the Declaration of Independence and eventually we will see much larger, much more obvious attempts to alter not only the Declaration of Independence, but also the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Now before you jump all over me, I know that an advertising campaign is not going to shake the foundation of this country. However, when we have kids graduating high school who don't know the first thing about history, can't give you the gist of the first 2 sentences of the Declaration of Independence, can't recite the preamble to the Constitution or list the Bill of Rights (among all the other things they don't teach anymore) a marketing campaign can add to the weakening of the values represented in those documents. I'm sure there were plenty of people who didn't even notice there was something missing. Oh and while it's not terribly relevant to my argument because it really doesn't bother me that they don't use God to sell beer, I just want to point out that it is a stupid omission even if I were ok with them altering the Declaration of Independence. They want to use the concept that all men have been "endowed" with certain unalienable rights, but chose to omit who gave those rights to all men. So tell me, who did the endowing?
> 
> ...


I wasn't referring to you when I made the "mad" comment, that was directed towards those who were making this into the controversy, that we're now discussing. I understand that your annoyed, in fact it didn't seem that you'd stop drinking Sam Adams because of this alone, as I understood it.

I agree with most of what you said. I don't agree with the made up rule that your only allowed to reference the constitution in its entirety or not at all, whether its in marketing or any other medium.

I also think if your concerned that most people won't know the difference, which is probably true, then the real controversy is the school system, not Sam Adams marketing strategy.

I do doubt that a multimillion dollar organization left there marketing campaign, purely to the whims of a 20 something.

I'd also bet that the political leanings of the hierarchy of the corporation are more consersative then liberal leaning. It was a "revision" to be all inclusive, in an ever growing politically polarized back drop.

I do see where your coming from


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

I'm torn. Both sides make good arguments, but I'm still going to buy the beer. I love S.A. and I'm not sure they'll notice if I boycott. There are things I get enraged about, other things that I blow off. No real set of guidelines or subject matter. I'm annoyed as well, but not that much, it could fall under poetic license and I'm not sure if the DOI is even copyrighted.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2013)

Our liberty is dying the death of a thousand cuts.

I have 7 Sam Summers in my fridge, and when they're gone, that's it for me with Sam Adams. Plenty of craft beers out there to choose from, I don't need their PC bullshit.


----------



## Dan Stark (Aug 2, 2005)

After finding this: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/3/7 in Portsmouth this weekend...

I have my new summertime beer. I don't even care if it's gay.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

HuskyH-2 said:


> Who cares, it's marketing.


I care. They do not get my money from this point forward.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

To think, I thought this was pretty much a dead thread with HuskyH-2 and I just arguing back and forth repeating the same points which is why I was going to let it go. Guess that's my one mistake for the year. 



HuskyH-2 said:


> I also think if your concerned that most people won't know the difference, which is probably true, then the real controversy is the school system, not Sam Adams marketing strategy.


We all know the school system is failing our kids. That's not my point.



> I do doubt that a multimillion dollar organization left there marketing campaign, purely to the whims of a 20 something.


Yes, I do think that a multimillion dollar organization would use or have in house an ad agency that would put their money behind the creative whims of a 20 something. Unless something has changed since I got my BS in Marketing (yes I get the irony of a BS in Marketing) that is one area in business that tends to put a lot of stock in the "fresh" ideas of young graduates with "their finger on the pulse of America" (or some bullshit like that). Sadly in this super PC society we live in, I can see where those with the power to approve or disapprove of these ideas would think that it's a good idea.



HuskyH-2 said:


> I'd also bet that the political leanings of the hierarchy of the corporation are more consersative then liberal leaning. It was a "revision" to be all inclusive, in an ever growing politically polarized back drop.


They're so conservative that they changed the line "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one because until any of us have the ability to write something that changes the course of history I will stand by my opinion that no one should alter, revise, edit, or otherwise "fix" the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

I've been mulling this over ever since I first read and then chimed in on the thread. I've come to the conclusion that, this is a non-issue for me. FOR ME. I'm not blowing off the anger many of you have and I'm not endorsing those who are poo-pooing it, I'm speaking for ME only.

1) It's advertising. Advertising is simply a way to make people take notice of and want to purchase your product. (I never took marketing, but it seems simple enough). Sometimes you want to entertain, sometimes you just want to inform, sometimes you want to annoy. No publicity is bad publicity as they say. (Ring around the collar, need I say MORE?)

2) I do like the product and they employ loads of local people. I want to drink the beer and I want them to work, support their families and pay their taxes so, I do not want to do anything that might even for one sliver of a chance put them out of work.

3) I prefer to think that, for one, they are not using the Declaration of Independence but using the spirit of it to sell their beer. Thomas Jefferson used the concept that everyone believes in. It's a concept. He put it in writing, but something tells me he wasn't the first to ever consider the rights of mankind. This is a paraphrasing of said concept.

4) I don't think that God should be used to sell beer.

5) I don't think the Declaration of Independence should be used to sell beer.

6) If either one was actually used, I would be annoyed, but I'd accept that it's advertising and that's how things go. And, since the quote is NOT a direct quote, and God is NOT used, I'm ok with it.

7) I DO have an inalienable right to DRINK beer (or whiskey, or vodka or wine, like now) and regardless of who wrote it down one way or another over 200 years ago, it's still true and I enjoy exercising that right.

8) Music is constantly used and reused. Often times those bits and pieces of songs are not considered THAT song. This is similar in my opinion. I would like to think that the concept of rights is not limited to the Declaration of Independence and hence, this is just a revision of those ideals.

9) I don't see this a mocking anything. It's using a sentence SIMILAR to the one in the D.O.I. and obviously BASED on it, but since the omission is evident, it's NOT the D.O.I.

10) Treyvon Martin was out of line in trying to Kill George Zimmerman even if George Zimmerman was following him. Oh wait, this is the wrong thread.

11) I don't see how, if this is an actual use of the D.O.I. (which, yeah, ok, it is to some degree-see #3) it's nothing at all like burning a flag or spitting on a soldier. There is nothing malicious about this. It's tongue in cheek humor to sell a product. There's no attempt to SPIT on the D.O.I., just have some fun with it. Right or wrong, it's one of the things that a later and much more important document protects. The D.O.I., as amazing as it is, is really just a "Dear John" letter to the King after almost 2 years of demonstrating that we already were, essentially, an independent nation. The Constitution is a far more important document and even that is at times, played with. That's one of the things that makes this nation as wonderful as it is. You won't be shot by the government for a joke someone else doesn't like. (though we're all questioning if Muslim jokes might get us in trouble in the near future.)

Boycott if you will, I fully respect your stand. Be filled with righteous indignation, I won't argue against it and I will applaud your ideals. I stated how I feel and only how I feel about the matter and I stand by it.

And frankly, anyone who made it through the whole thing, What, you got nothing else to do?


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Nope, nothing else better to do.


----------



## USM C-2 (Oct 27, 2010)

Droits de l'homme. Will Sam make wine next?


----------

