Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

I think there could be something more nuanced going on here than the concerns the writers addressed.* It's one thing to say that buying just about any music is going to support a lifestyle that is at variance with our religious beliefs. Or movies, for that matter. But some people live a particular lifestyle and others advocate it. Some singers do drugs; others do drugs and want them legalized. So in the first case you're only supporting their lifestyle by purchasing their music; in the second you're supporting their lifestyle and their political ambitions. In the first case one man (or one band) perishes; in the the second you risk a whole nation dwindling and perishing in unbelief.

Now I don't know much about Clay Aiken, so I'm not being judgmental. But I'm inclined to say that if he's campaigning (either directly through his music, or on the side) for something that you find morally objectionable, then you're perfectly right to not purchase his product. On the other hand, if his lifestyle isn't in keeping with your personal standards, but he's not actively promoting said lifestyle either, I don't think the Lord will be upset with you for buying his music.

*I think the writers answered the question, as stated, adequately. This is just me digging into some deeper implications of the question.

The problem becomes that we would be intent on understanding the lifestyles, advocacies, and every aspect of every singer/artist/company that we patronize. I hope this doesn't sound overly cynical, but if we did not patronize any company or artist we found to be promoting something we found as morally objectionable, we would find that we had almost no material possessions (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing, just most of us in this consumer driven society would consider it so.)

Damasta, I think you're right about the difference between someone having a certain lifestyle and advocating a certain lifestyle. I used to be on this vegan email list back in the day when I was a vegetarian, and there was this one girl on there who was pretty extreme and she wouldn't listen to any musicians that weren't vegetarians. She also wouldn't use crayons or chalk because they came from animals that died millions of years ago. If she had identified certain musicians who went around promoting the wanton slaughter of animals, then I could understand boycotting those people. But lots of musicians eat meat. Lots of musicians use drugs, and probably every single person in the world does a lot of things that other people find objectionable. So I think a good place to draw the line is at people who go around promoting something that you have a moral objection to.

As to clay Aiken, I don't see what problem his "lifestyle" poses anyway. Supposedly the church is ok with gay people, as long as they obey the law of chastity, as described by the church. Clay isn't out there whoring himself around... he's a single father who has adopted a child.

Also - Tchaikovsky was gay! I don't think we're going to stop listening to the Nutcracker suite because of it.

I support marijuana legalization so stop buying jelly filled donuts.

Whistler wrote:Also - Tchaikovsky was gay! I don't think we're going to stop listening to the Nutcracker suite because of it.

I have the same birthday as him! And Brahms.

Marduk wrote:The problem becomes that we would be intent on understanding the lifestyles, advocacies, and every aspect of every singer/artist/company that we patronize. I hope this doesn't sound overly cynical, but if we did not patronize any company or artist we found to be promoting something we found as morally objectionable, we would find that we had almost no material possessions (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing, just most of us in this consumer driven society would consider it so.)

Great point, Marduk.

bismark wrote:I support marijuana legalization so stop buying jelly filled donuts.

Aw, man! What am I going to eat for breakfast, now? Actually, my father-in-law, who is a pharmacist (and a Republican), supports it, too.

Damasta wrote:But some people live a particular lifestyle and others advocate it.

You're not buying their interview with Rolling Stone—you're buying their music. I see that as a huge difference. If the music promotes an objectionable lifestyle that's a different story.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:You're not buying their interview with Rolling Stone—you're buying their music. I see that as a huge difference. If the music promotes an objectionable lifestyle that's a different story.

And even if you were, should we not consider opinions that are different from our own? To point out a very obvious and close to home example, we've talked about the searches that are advertised on the top of this very board. Should we remove ourselves from this message board because others on different boards hosted here have different opinions? The world is, ideally, a marketplace of ideas. We have to accept that people will have different ideas than our own. I think it is possible to enjoy certain aspects of something, while disagreeing with other aspects of it, and still use it/listen to it/enjoy it.

Now, there are certain things that are destructive innately. There is no redeeming value whatsoever in pornography, for example. And certainly there is music out there that is the audio equivalent. However, just about every Hollywood actor out there, if you look hard enough, will have at some point advocated something that you disagree with. And while there is much out of Hollywood that is absolute garbage, there are things of redeeming value.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:

Damasta wrote:But some people live a particular lifestyle and others advocate it.

You're not buying their interview with Rolling Stone—you're buying their music. I see that as a huge difference. If the music promotes an objectionable lifestyle that's a different story.

But if they use the money they made from your purchase to advocate something, aren't you then supporting (financially, albeit in a small way) said advocacy?

Marduk wrote:And even if you were, should we not consider opinions that are different from our own?

Consider them? Yes. Support them financially? Not necessarily. And if they're blatantly contrary to your particular moral persuasion, then, No.

Marduk wrote: The world is, ideally, a marketplace of ideas. We have to accept that people will have different ideas than our own.

No. Ideally the world is a marketplace for truth. There are lots of false ideas out there; we're only interested in the true ones. Ideas don't have an inherent right to exist; false ones should be eliminated. But since we can't (currently) achieve the ideal (universal acceptance of universal truths), we strive for a more viable alternative (the exchange and evaluation of conflicting ideas). So my point isn't that we shouldn't listen to or acknowledge other people's ideas; my point is that we should consider carefully before giving them money so they can go propound ideas that are contrary to or even destructive of our own.

Marduk wrote:I think it is possible to enjoy certain aspects of something, while disagreeing with other aspects of it, and still use it/listen to it/enjoy it.

So either I'm a hypocrite or I'm less dogmatic about this than my arguments actually convey (I haven't decided which, yet), but I actually do listen to music and watch television shows and movies that contain elements that I disapprove of, or that are produced by people whose ideas/morals I disagree with.

Using Google search/Gmail/Blogspot gives Google money, Google donates to anti-Prop 8 groups, thus using Google means supporting gay marriage. Bam.

Marduk wrote: And even if you were, should we not consider opinions that are different from our own? To point out a very obvious and close to home example, we've talked about the searches that are advertised on the top of this very board.

You're absolutely right: most of us are obsessed with our own opinions to the extent that we feel this urge to reward those who agree with us and punish those who don't, no matter what the issue. Consider this: out of the millions of issues out there, how statistically likely is it that you'll be right about every single one of them, or even most of them? And yet, many times we hear an opposite viewpoint, our knee-jerk reaction is to shut them up.

Charity fundamentally requires we learn to see the world from another perspective outside our own. So in that respect, opposing voices are not our enemies, they should be our most valued resource. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them. But I find it baffling that, for instance, people who subscribe to certain political ideologies rarely read material from the opposing political ideology. Conservatives need to read (and understand) more Marx, and liberals need to read more Friedman.

But that's a tangential issue...

Yeah, I don't see anything hypocritical or wrong about listening to a musician who has a different lifestyle that we may not approve of or different political beliefs or different opinions. Where I would draw the line would be if a musician supported something that I found to be really morally disturbing, like child prostitution or white supremacy. I haven't ever encountered a situation where I found out that a musician I liked supported something like that, though.

NerdGirl wrote:Yeah, I don't see anything hypocritical or wrong about listening to a musician who has a different lifestyle that we may not approve of or different political beliefs or different opinions. Where I would draw the line would be if a musician supported something that I found to be really morally disturbing, like child prostitution or white supremacy. I haven't ever encountered a situation where I found out that a musician I liked supported something like that, though.

You need to jam out to some Prussian Blue, then. It's like Taylor Swift for people who hate brown people.

Cognoscente wrote: You need to jam out to some Prussian Blue, then. It's like Taylor Swift for people who hate brown people.

I saw them on 20/20 once. They were wearing T-shirts that had little smiley Hitler faces on them. It was very disturbing.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:You're absolutely right: most of us are obsessed with our own opinions to the extent that we feel this urge to reward those who agree with us and punish those who don't, no matter what the issue.... And yet, many times we hear an opposite viewpoint, our knee-jerk reaction is to shut them up.

Should I decline to buy music from an artist because of their political advocacy, it's not to punish them or to shut them up. I'm just withholding my financial support. They still have their freedom of speech; they just don't have my money helping them say it. They may choose to express themselves through their music, in Rolling Stone interviews, on E!, &c. I may choose to express myself by not buying their music. Rejecting an idea doesn't necessarily mean you're deaf to it. I've read Marx, Hitler, Shaw, Huxley, King, Dawkins, &c. There were falsehoods in all of their writings, but that hasn't prevented me from reading them. But on the same note, I'm not going to put money in Dawkins' pocket to use in his crusade against religious belief by buying The God Delusion.