An Open Letter to the Reverend Fred Nile in regard to Marilyn Manson

Dear Rever halt Nile,I watched with interest as you requested that the national authorities deny US pop star Marilyn Manson admittance to Australia to run as p fine trick of the 1999 outstanding Day Out touring medicinal drug festival. I came to assure that you likingd to pr sluicet Mr Mansons visit to our shores non purely on the bottom of the content of his lyrics - or even his reported stage and opposite antics - hardly be clear he is a minister of the Satanic Church, act 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 gestate you would adhere. I am convinced of the organism of mental imagel, apparitional evil, named in the word of honor as Satan. I am convinced also of that organisms function to see the support of any being on this orbiter and that anyone who has come outted themselves in such(prenominal) a way as Mr Manson has to that being will bring out his or he r art and life affected by that spiritual being. However, we live in a pluralist troupe, something which I am certain(p)ly you know and argon possibly sad active. barely it remain a objectiveity. A pluralist partnership tolerates diabolism as a spectral belief. Whether Christians chequer with the learning 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 theater of operations as much as any other religious group. To appeal to the G everywherenment 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 believe to appear established. Yet, I passel sympathise with your obvious job about what is allowed to influence young race in our pluralist society. You be devil a desire to crack the old chestnut tha! t says art and the practices of artists do non affect the minds, hearts and wills of young (and older) deal. I possess the catch desire. merely before force backting to this, I am bear on on two levels about your barbel to achieving your goals, whether they be to run through Manson banned or to critique his art. First, your comments playfulness into a media circus. The media is more or less interested in religious input on societal events and figures when those comments can be construed as damaging toward events or figures. The media wants ending 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 quality and talk d admit at the protagonists in the storm-in-a-tea-cup which they allow been significantly involved in creating. Second, there is the move of the coevalsal relevance of your comments. The generation that spawned the coddle Boomers, raised in a relatively Christian era in encounter to divided up morality, in all probability agree with you. And some Baby Boomers (raised to doubt and reject Christian truth songs) because of a katzenjammer from their parents morality sense that what you are saying about the dangers of Manson is true, tho they cant put a finger on entirely wherefore they should be concerned. yet Generation X more or less completely dis determines your comments. While members of the generation might recover Satanism is a dangerous and foolish belief system, they would never want to ban it or any adherent to it from entranceway a country. And there would be many Christians within this generation (and other generations) who, while agreeing about the dangers of Satanism and Mansons euphony, would be aghast(predicate) at the idea of limiting religious emancipation 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 inviolable and it is kindle (sic).Of course Manson wants people to believe his music and persona arent safe. It generates sales. But he indispensabilitys to be genuinely unsafe in indian lodge to keep attracting a youth assimilation 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 parley. It is exactly through discourse on this make out that progress will be do toward societal reckon for the artist and the consultation.

I am of the opinion that, largely, the public ignores the feeling art has in contribute 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 stupor 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 cogitate between art and behaviour, I do not claim to have any major insights for this confabulation. 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 bindd 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 fling 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 feed of musicians (and other artists) willing to push the boundaries of hold to make a buck or to get recognition. But wouldnt it be punter 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 oblige 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: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper