So according to some people, the Archbishop of the Catholic Church is not allowed to tell
his own flock not to attend a concert in which bikini clad nuns gyrate around crucifix stripper poles. Seriously. Are these people even hearing themselves as they say this?
Basically, what some people are saying is, you are different from us. And you're not allowed to think this way. So shut up. Your views are invalid. Madonna is allowed freedom of expression. You are not. Shut up, shut up, shut up.
The intolerance is astounding, the hypocrisy is towering, the double standards glaring. I appeal to anyone sitting on the fence - think about this. Can it truly be sensible that Madonna is allowed to hold her event (her concert), and express herself, but the church is not allowed to hold its event (its sermon) and express itself?
And I want to go further than this. Some people will say, reading this, that well, I guess it's OK if the Archbishop is only talking to his own flock in his own sermon. No. He ought to be allowed to say this to anyone he likes. That is what freedom of expression means. He does not have to hold his opinions in secret, fearing that he will be flamed just because he disagrees with the intolerant liberal. Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to what he says, in the same way that people argue that no one is forcing Catholics to attend the concert.
Some people say, well, the concert promoter did say that Madonna would (probably) not use that offensive part of her show. So hey, everything's OK right? Of course not. It doesn't matter whether Madonna performs that segment - you know what she stands for. To pretend otherwise would be duplicitous. Would the Bosnians invite Ratko Mladic to their National Day and say, "It's OK he's not going to talk about the genocide"? Would Tim Cook invite Jong-Kyun Shin to his company offsite and say, "It's OK he's not going to talk about the Galaxy"? Would Liverpool invite Alex Ferguson and say, "It's OK he's not going to talk about knocking us off our perch"???
Be afraid. Be very afraid. The intolerant liberal is on the march. He is allowed to offend you. But you are not allowed to offend him. You must agree with his world view, or you are a backward neanderthal. You must not voice your differing opinion to others. You must not even voice your opinion among your own community. You must accept that you are just wrong and shut up. Shut up, shut up, shut up.
I appeal to you, dear reader, think about this intolerance. And speak up. Speak up. Speak up.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me...
Martin Niemoller
Comments
Did you think he just expected the government to say "Ok noted. However we are not taking this as evidence that you would like us to do anything. We will file this information away somewhere and never look at it or consider it in our policymaking"
If a lobbyist for the sugar industry writes to the government to "communicate" his "grave concerns" about a sugar tax, while writing a memo to his company to tell them of his stance, would you say he wasn't trying to influence policy?
You might say that he was just expressing his opinion.
But is it the same if he publishes his views online (to the whole world and not targeted at anyone in particular) and if he specifically writes to the government?
Is it the same if he publishes his views in his capacity as Archbishop and if he publishes them in his private capacity?
Lee Kuan Yew said at a Singapore 21 forum in 1999, presumably in his capacity as Senior Minister, that "If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who's very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine-gun unit, that's a very tricky business".
Would it be the same if he had published that line in his memoirs?
Lee Hsien Loong told MPs that if they were company directors, "Ensure that the company understands that you are doing so strictly in your private capacity, and will not use your public position to champion the interests of the company, or lobby the government on its behalf".
Would it be the same if a company understood that the MPs were directors in their capacities as MPs, and that they would use your public position to champion the interests of the company, or lobby the government on its behalf?
In a civil society, everyone has the right to communicate its views to the government. It is the government's job to consider the arguments, and consider which ones to give more weight to than others.
You can't put a gag order on any group in society. If an atheist group were denied its right to communicate with the government, for example, it would be screaming blue murder.
False analogy - the Archbishop is not an MP, and he's not using any official government position to advocate any view. He is speaking as the leader of a religious group about the concerns of his group - which is his right and indeed, his duty.
But the Intolerant 'Liberals' don't like that - they want to crush the freedom of speech of anyone who disagrees with them. That's how dictatorships and tyrannies begin.