Though  your point is apparent, it is still a tad foggy.  

Although the average reader would easily agree with the injustice of the federal aid abuse examples, they may have a problem tieing that to an overall statement on religion and lifestyle choices.  The negative connection is the Television which most American's own and have for three generations now.  IMHO, using that paticular item is not wise in the message you are trying get over for it immediately puts the reader with a TV on defensive.  After the TV I have one connection the average non-religious reader would dispel the entire work as being preached at.  

You're going after what we use to refer to as the fur coat example.  Everyone had a coat but didn't fur.  The distinction between fur and coat is far better to understand than TV and Plasma TV.  There are simply too many TVs out there of all different types.  Not everyone will relate to the fact that a plasma TV cost so much more than the average TV unless they have priced them.  

The $800 purse and the stripper are excellent choices but I'd look for something a tad less obvious that many don't need but maybe could have to tie the two points together.  Though plasma TVs are often looked at as an extravagance, its the TV aspect that is negative to your point.  You want to seek commonality with your reader to bring them to follow your conclusion not alienate them subconciously.   This could be as easy as tacking the price on the TV in your story.

If you are a minister, its the same as pointing a finger in church and everyone in the pews thinks the finger is pointed at them.  That's very negative to church growth.  Instead you want the finger to point at nobody in paticular but the meaning strike home in the heart of all.  That's good for growth and draws the new person into the pew.

Its a good message and my crique is only intended on helping you reach outside the person already in the pew.

Hope you take this in spirit is offered.

Tj

Quoted: I really wish I'd had your comments before I posted that last column.  I think it would have been better with your suggestions.  That said, here is the column I will be sending in for next week.  Please feel free to comment, edit etc.                                At Least They Are Consistent Jehovah’s Witnesses have often drawn fire for their belief that receiving blood transfusions is wrong.  So it comes as no surprise that they typically do not donate blood either.  While we can disagree with their beliefs, at least they are consistent.   The rest of us who have no moral objections to receiving blood transfusions are staggeringly inconsistent.  The vast majority of us are more than willing to accept a blood transfusion if we need it.  The vast majority of us are more than willing for our loved ones to receive a blood transfusion if they need one.  Yet, the vast majority of us, 95% according to the Red Cross, do not donate blood.  This bothers me. This bothers me because I believe it is wrong to benefit from a service and not do anything to support that service.  I know those that receive blood transfusions usually have to pay for those transfusions.  That covers the cost of processing and transport.  The blood itself is freely given by neighbors. This bothers me because I believe one of the main reasons people do not donate is fear.  We should never allow fear to keep us from doing what we believe is right.  It has been said that courage is not a virtue, but all virtues at the testing point.  How firmly do we hold any of our beliefs, if the fear of the prick of a needle can keep us from acting on one of them? This bothers me because I believe “greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his friend.”  We rightly honor our military, police and fire-fighters for risking their lives for us.  This paper rightly honored one of our area ministers for donating a kidney.  From this, one might conclude that we value sacrifice.  However, when we fail to back up our words with our actions, when we are unwilling to sacrifice a single hour and a pint of blood; then our true values are revealed.

Reads well, however if my intent was to make the point about changing ones overall lifestyle, I'd draw the target a little larger.  You have to assume the average reader is going to be a little dim.  If its just to get someone to donate blood, you've done about as good as anyone can.

Nice short good reads both of them.  

BTW, just so you know my career field is marketing.

That helps on critque.

You hit your target without coming off as condemning.  Instead the impression is encouragement in being consistant in ones expectations of themself.  

BTW, secondary issue on blood drives,  I often feel people put this type thing out of their mind not as much out of fear but denial.  Donating is like admitting it could happen to them and people tend to not want to think outside their comfort zone.  Sadly shock tactics actually work on fewer people than logical persuasion.  I say sadly cause shock tactics are easy.  

This comfort zone is why there are so many easy no reason to say no drive techniques such as bloodmobiles etc.  

Tj

What's the point of taking the jab at the JW's in the start?  Couldn't you make your point without it?

Quoted: The vast majority of the people in our town probably look down on JW's for their stance on blood transfusion.

I would say that the vast majority of the people in my town probably have no idea of JW's stance on blood transfusions, I being one of them.

Perhaps the religious people do though.