Dear Rever halt Nile,I watched with interest as you requested that the Federal authorities deny US pop star Marilyn Manson entry to Australia to run as p fine art of the 1999 Big Day Out touring medicinal drug festival. I came to understand that you likingd to pr sluicet Mr Mansons visit to our shores not purely on the basis of the content of his lyrics - or even his reported stage and otherwise antics - but because he is a minister of the Satanic Church, committed to propagating the Churchs message through his art.
allow me state from the outset that I sh ar the basic Christian beliefs to which I believe you would adhere. I am convinced of the organism of personal, apparitional evil, named in the Bible as Satan. I am convinced also of that beings power to influence the life of any being on this planet and that anyone who has committed themselves in such(prenominal) a way as Mr Manson has to that being will bring out his or her art and life affected by that spiritual being.
However, we live in a pluralist troupe, something which I am certainly you know and argon perhaps sad active. barely it remain a objectiveity.
A pluralist society tolerates diabolism as a religious belief. Whether Christians agree with the wisdom of that, it is a fundamental of the society in which we live. All religions, at least in harm of our laws, are given a right to exist and to granting immunity and tolerance. It is a right which Christians study as much as any other religious group. To appeal to the Government to cast aside Marilyn Manson from Australia on the basis of his religion, rather than for his politics or any other reason, is to call for a precarious case law which no Christian anywhere in the world would desire to see established.
Yet, I passel sympathise with your obvious job about what is allowed to influence young race in our pluralist society. You bedevil a desire to crack the old chestnut that says art and the practices of artists do not affect the minds, hearts and wills of young (and older) people. I possess the equal desire.
merely before getting to this, I am concerned on two levels about your barbel to achieving your goals, whether they be to have Manson banned or to critique his art.
First, your comments playfulness into a media circus. The media is most interested in religious input on social events and figures when those comments can be construed as damaging toward events or figures. The media wants remainder and can obtain it through you. Your views can then be described in caricature, along with the words and actions of such figures as Manson. The media can then milk the meshing for sales and, when it is over or while it is going, assume a condescending tone and talk d admit at the protagonists in the storm-in-a-tea-cup which they have been significantly involved in creating.
Second, there is the move of the generational relevance of your comments. The generation that spawned the Baby Boomers, raised in a relatively Christian era in encounter to shared morality, in all probability agree with you. And some Baby Boomers (raised to doubt and reject Christian truth claims) because of a hangover from their parents morality sense that what you are saying about the dangers of Manson is true, but they cant put a finger on entirely why they should be concerned.
yet Generation X more or less completely dis determines your comments. While members of the generation might think Satanism is a dangerous and foolish belief system, they would never want to ban it or any adherent to it from entering a country. And there would be many Christians within this generation (and other generations) who, while agreeing about the dangers of Satanism and Mansons music, would be aghast at the idea of limiting religious freedom in Australia.
But what of Mansons art? In regard to how people should react to his art, Manson has said, I think they should be concerned, because what I do isnt safe and it is kindle (sic).Of course Manson wants people to believe his music and persona arent safe. It generates sales. But he needs to be genuinely unsafe in indian lodge to keep attracting a youth culture adept at spotting a fake. Or at least espial a persons genuineness; whether or not they are for real.
The argument about artistic freedom and responsibility is a circular one, with carte blanche freedom advocated on one end and totalitarian censorship on the other. In the middle are those who wish to dialogue. It is only through dialogue on this make out that progress will be do toward societal reckon for the artist and the audience.
I am of the opinion that, largely, the public ignores the feeling art has in contributing to human character and will. I am amazed that people are happy to write out a cause/effect relationship in regard to the Australian TAC shock ad campaign and lowered passageway death statistics, but will not accept the same when people commit anti-social behaviour influenced, often at their let admitting, by certain music. Still, beyond my desire to highlight the need to examine the links between art and behaviour, I do not claim to have any major insights for this dialogue.
What I am concerned about is that your desire to alert people to the dangers inherent to Marilyn Mansons music actually stymies real dialogue on the issue of art and responsibility. The hyperbolic dialogue in which you generate engaged in the mainstream Australian media allows the media to seemingly cover the issue. However, the conflict both allows the audience to stereotype Christian views as outmoded, reactionary and extreme and allows it to walk away with its basic prejudice in place: its only music, its only teenage rebellion, its never go against anyone.
I agree with you that Satanism is dangerous. I agree with Manson himself when he says his music is not safe. I am with you in your desire to stem the tide of musicians (and other artists) willing to push the boundaries of hold to make a buck or to get recognition. But wouldnt it be better if less young people entrap the need to engage with the kind of art which is potentially dangerous?I believe the way forward for powerful Christian individuals such as yourself, concerned with the lives of young people in a post-Christian age, is to throw your influence, money and support behind individuals, churches and organisations who are willing to dialogue with young people who buy the Cds made by the likes of Manson. Who dialogue with them in a way that regard their tastes and freedoms, but shows them the need for responsibility within art and their own lives.
http://www.shootthemessenger.com.au/u_jan_99/m_mansn.htm
If you want to get a full essay, collection it on our website: OrderessayIf you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment