Do not buy from ...

Reading time 5 minutes

Updated - March 27, 2025

Many people still remember the admonition 'Don't buy from ...' from the Second World War. The younger generations hardly remember it, perhaps from their history lessons.

This was based on political interests, the enforcement of which resulted in paternalism, discrimination, defamation, persecution, business damage and worse.
'Never again' is often said on this intellectual background and yet history repeats itself, unfortunately without humanity having learned from it.

There are many examples of this on a secular level, including in the area of churches, which have not covered themselves in glory, including witch hunts, in order to protect their own interests.
This is another reason why, over the centuries, a wide variety of denominations and so-called free communities have emerged from many different splinter groups.

Each took its own direction with an individual focus, which ultimately became characteristic of the denomination.

Now it is one thing to have a different opinion about salvation and how to attain it. Those who agree with it and feel comfortable in the community will also identify with it for the most part and express this conviction to the outside world. But as we all know, the freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another begins.

Even the justification that the products purchased from the company in question are sold by someone with a different religious orientation, which is not tolerated here, is neither biblical nor compatible with secular law - regardless of the truth of the claim.

As a Christian, for example, you are not allowed to buy products from countries of non-Christian faith or even spend a vacation there.

Fundamental to this view and justification of those who issue such prohibitions or recommendations to their church members is often a quote, such as from Hebrews 13, 9 "Do not be carried away with various and strange teachings, for it is a precious thing for the heart to be established, which happens through grace".

You can beat people to death with the Bible, especially if you take quotes out of context or quote them incompletely. Because the whole verse continues " ... not by food, of which those who handle it have no use."

This was about the complaint of the Pharisees, who, as in Luke 11, 38..41 is described "When the Pharisee saw this, he marveled that he had not washed before eating ..." were aimed at the commandment that one should cleanse oneself before taking food and saw this omission as a violation.

Matthew 15, 11 clarifies "What goes into the mouth does not defile a man, but what comes out of the mouth defiles a man." or, in Matthew 12:34 formulated somewhat more drastically "You viper-breeders, how can you speak good things while you are evil?"which emphasizes the actual meaning more clearly.

But how should a Christian deal with such church leaders, leaders, preachers, pastors, elders, etc.?

One option is to ignore them. Another is to try to convince them with arguments. Another, probably the smarter option: you ask them to explain how they came to their view that a ban should be imposed, what evidence they have for their claims - because you simply want to understand their point of view.

Again, different scenarios arise as an answer. It could be "Because I say so! I'm not arguing!" Or "I have my reasons, after all, I'm responsible for you and I know what I'm talking about!" A supposedly sympathetic one could be "I'm glad that you're worried about it too. You can believe my judgment, I've done a lot of research and I'm very concerned about your salvation, so it's only for your own good!"

It is essential to base a ban or a recommendation not to buy products from this or that person on facts that stand up to scrutiny. Not supporting someone by purchasing goods is legitimate if, from an objective point of view, it removes the financially supportive basis for the continued dissemination of facts that are undoubtedly recognized as false.

An - unfortunately - rather unlikely answer could result in the release of the underlying information that confirms his statements and actually gives the other party the opportunity to review and, if necessary, change his conviction based on better knowledge.

Why is the latter, desirable, development the less likely? Because those who pronounce a blanket ban without naming any verifiable bases are usually based on information taken out of context or incomplete, or deliberately selective and subjectively colored information that best corresponds to their personal concerns or convictions, their dogma - but not necessarily the truth. Preconceived opinions, hearsay, research that has not been carried out consistently or research results that have been deliberately ignored, run counter to one's own opinion and are subsequently suppressed are also among the variants of possible (mis)formation of opinion.

If questioning is unwanted, blocked or even expressly forbidden, then, as history has taught us - and hopefully we want to be seen as beings capable of learning and thinking - all alarm bells should be ringing.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in the well-being of their counterpart will welcome any questioning and find it an opportunity for sincere, objective clarification. Likewise, he will use demonstrably accurate information from his counterpart to adjust his own prevailing opinion in order to make corrections if necessary. True to the motto 'constructive criticism is expressly welcome'!

If he then stands before his congregation and makes the essence of the debate, as well as any corrections to his convictions, available to his parishioners on the basis of the additional facts now available, he withdraws his "ban" and, trusting in the appropriate decision-making ability of each individual, leaves the final judgment to each individual, one could almost speak of exemplary behavior.

Apart from the interpersonal aspects, anyone who pronounces such "prohibitions" is operating on legally dubious ground, both from a biblical and secular point of view.

Galatians 5, 13 says "But you, brethren, have been called to freedom; only do not use freedom as an excuse for the flesh, but through love serve one another."
The pronouncement of such a prohibition thus contradicts the principle that every believer is granted the freedom to make his own decisions in accordance with his conscience and his relationship with God.

Romans 14, 5 - 6 actuated "One person considers one day to be more important than another, while another considers all days to be the same. Let each one be fully convinced in his opinion. He who observes the day does it to the Lord, and he who does not observe the day does not observe it to the Lord."that believers are free to make certain decisions for reasons of conscience as long as they honor God in their actions.

Mark 12, 31 supplemented "You shall love your neighbor as yourself. No other commandment is greater than this." Loving others means leaving your fellow human beings the freedom to decide for themselves what is best for them, without judging or discriminating against them if they differ from your own opinion.

2 Corinthians 5:10 teaches: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what he has accomplished through the body, whether good or bad."namely that every believer is responsible before God for their own decisions and actions.

In 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 Paul writes: "Everything is permitted, but not everything is useful. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's" and thus shows that it is also necessary to weigh up whether the measure is useful, edifying, not according to one's own judgment, but from the other person's point of view.

Matthew 7:1-2 warns "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what measure you measure, it will be measured to you again." and thus advises us not to act against Jesus' model and make false judgments.

In Germany, secular case law includes, for example, Art. 2 GG, Art. 5 GG, Art. 12 GG, § 19 GWB, § 1 UWG, § 3 UWG, § 1 AGG, § 823 BGB and § 1004 BGB.

In short: anyone who publicly disseminates untrue claims and/or causes someone not to buy a company's products is guilty of violating a number of laws and may be liable to pay damages and retract their false claims.

Criminal law aspects must also be taken into account, such as Section 186 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) (reputational damage caused by the statement, even without the existence of a false allegation) and Section 187 StGB (knowingly making a false allegation).

So it makes perfect sense to do thorough research BEFORE spreading frivolous claims in order to fulfill one's responsibility towards one's fellow human beings and the cause itself, if one does not want to lose credibility afterwards and find oneself confronted with divine and secular jurisdiction.