A right to an opinion
This morning it seems that the papers are more interested in talking about the Oscars as they relate to the war rather than the war itself. Mike Moore in his acceptance speech for his Oscar for best documentary said in part:
we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.
Depending on who you read, “cheers, jeers and the band started to drown him out”. At the cricket world cup in South Africa, Zimbabwean players Andy Flower and Henry Olanga risked their playing futures and even the safety of themselves and their families by wearing black arm-bands during Zimbabwe’s world cup opener. They defied their tyrannical president Robert Mugabe, by stating that the armbands indicated that they were “mourning the death of democracy”. World cup organisers said that the protest was inappropriate.
Australian band Silverchair in their current concert tour have performed their song “Anthem for the Year 2000″ including anti-war statements, prior to the opening line We are the youth, we’ll take your fascism away.
AFL footballers have been warned not to make political statements on the field. This follows a furore after Western Bulldogs player, Robert Murphy posed for his official team photograph with the words “NO WAR” written on his arm.
Bloggedyblog shares reasons to support celebrities opposed to war. But how bizarre is this controversy? I don’t know if anyone else agrees, but it seems that post S11, there has been a continuing restriction on what can and cannot be said. Activists are now cast in the light of potential terrorists. Tolerance for protests against the war seems to be diminishing at the same time that attendances at protests are increasing.
There seems to be increasingly the idea that the ends justifies the means in the “war against terrorism”, that there is one rule for one group of people and a totally different rules for people that are not the same as us. And in the midst of it all, we suddenly have people saying that people who have the opportunity to do so should not express their viewpoints on political issues because it would be inappropriate. Phil posted yesterday about the growing feeling that even expressing those viewpoints from the pulpit or in denominational papers might be seen as inappropriate.
Since when is the primary concern of people of conviction (whether it be a conviction about peace, justice, war or whatever) what is appropriate? Since when are statements which are not otherwise offensive (eg racist) not permitted in the public arena, simply because we might disagree with them or because they might rock the boat?
The story of Jesus is one of a man who had no concern for what was considered appropriate by the ruling structures, and continued to make uncomfortable and challenging statements to all who would listen until he was put to death. More, he used the times that he was accused, his capture, his arrest, his trial as a convenient soapbox to push his own views and statements.
I pray that I never have to justify to my God why it was that I chose to be appropriate rather than true to what I believe.