[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Luxury (no OtR)


--- Matthew Mesina <soberman_69 at hotmail_com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: E Geist <i_scoobysnak at yahoo_com>
> 
> Matt said:
> > > The fact that Marilyn Manson can be quoted in a
> > > recent Rolling Stone about
> > > how a certain church group that doesn't want him
> > > anywhere near Columbine is
> > > being "disrespectful" and be taken seriously, in
> > > light of the things he has
> > > said and done in the name of "harmless
> > > entertainment" to profane what many
> > > in that church group and beyond hold dear and
> > > sacred, is just the most
> > > recent bit of evidence to pass under my
> world-weary
> > > eyes.  Talk about
> > > one-sided.
> >
> And I parried:
> 
> (hmmm, a subaltern/hegemony/pop culture question...)
> >
> >who exactly has marilyn manson been vilifying?  to
> >what "other social/racial groups" are you
> suggesting
> >as self-righteous enough pander to m.m.'s "art"?

To which Matt responded:
 
> Okay, the kids that did the shooting at Columbine
> were big MM fans, iirc.  
> He's alread publicly apologized for any culpability
> he may have had.  
> (Personally, I think that was a nice gesture.)  The
> reason the church group 
> is protesting him is that he wants to stage a show
> in the area.  They want 
> him to stay away.  He wants to put it all behind
> him, and they can't.  It is 
> really that simple, and has nothing to do with being
> "self-righteous".  
> Please don't assume that all churches are "self
> righteous".

  MM 
> should do the responsible thing too, rather than try
> to make more money, 
> don't you think?  (Admittedly, attacking him is akin
> to attacking the 
> symptom rather than the disease, but still...)
> 
> Anyway, my real point was that Rolling Stone
> presented the story in a biased 
> manner, favoring Manson.  His accusation that the
> church's reaction to him 
> is "disrespectful" is ludicrous in light of the
> mockery he has attempted to 
> make of Christianity, yet that comment was presented
> unchallenged.  This is 
> not a free-speech issue.

Matt, you write really well and really passionately,
but I think you missed my point.  I spent enough time
in Catholic school to know that "we're not supposed to
show up to protest kkk meetings b/c that is a form of
acknowledging them."  why on earth is m.m.'s music to
be any different?  the pragmatist's view: very little
can be gained fiscally from a catholic outrage against
a hate group like the kkk; however, think of the
emotional/psychological chord that the Catholic Church
can pluck here with respect to columbine.  think there
are people in need of faith/want proselytizing
intuitively?  of COURSE.  is  m.m. even interesting
enough if there isn't a buck to be made?  and i don't
designate just catholicism and the protestant sects as
being the harbingers of this mindset, nor is it
necessarily a dig: all churches need to make money
somehow, the catholics (jesuits) just happen to be
really good at it.  and it's not to say that there is
not good intent behind it, just that implicating
m.m.'s music, to my mind, is roughly the same as
blaming the atmosphere for providing those kids oxygen
that morning.

so it's not a free speech issue, as you said.  and
never was.      

last of the pragmatic realists,

eric


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
References: