 |
 |
Here's my two cents worth on the subject. Celebrities do indeed have a moral imperative to speak out on the issues which are important to them. Especially when speaking out might influence policy and bring about a cure thus reducing suffering for so many of us. Being too busy to speak out is an absurd explanation. How long would it really take him to record a couple of public service announcements and lend his name to a publicity campaign? A couple of hours? A day? Now, should he be forced to talk? Of course not. But if Billy Graham has the right to tell people what they should or shouldn't do, don't we have that same right to say what Rev. Graham should do? Has god died and left the Reverand in charge, or do we all have the right (acutally the responsability) to make moral judgements about what we and others should say and do? Keep it up Walter. On another topic- I smoke a cigar once in a while. It masks my symptoms (somewhat). Quitting smoking might well lead someone in the early stages to discover their problem. >Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 04:06:40 -0400 >From: Kathy Kunz <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Celebrity & PD > >Walter-- >You asked for responses. It's hard to follow Barb on the bill, but >I'd >like to add a few comments, questions and a correction. Billy Graham >has spent decades preaching and still manages to keep a managerial hand >on his evangelical association. He literally has his hands full (of >reports, schedules, sermon notes, etc.) with his life's work and he's >not getting any younger--or healthier. He is the best judge of where >his waning energies will be most effective. It seems arrogant in the >extreme to tell him to drop what he's involved in and instead >concentrate--even for just an interview--on being a spokesperson for PD. >As Barb says, the interview was about his religion and preaching >career; >he didn't mention his favorite baseball team, his ideas on the next >presidential eledction or numerous other aspects of his life because >they also were not a propos. >For some, it is extremely stressful to talk about their PD in the >early >stages. They are not in denial but neither do they choose to dwell on >it, preferring to take smaller nibbles of the "reality apple" as their >psyches can handle it. When they become more comfortable, they are able >to speak of it without choking up (and heaven knows PWP do enough of >that). Others deliberately choose to keep quiet because they are just >too darn busy and determined to not let it affect their lives until >forced to. Again, they don't deny it; they know people are aware of it, >but they choose to ignore it. >Are you actually saying that he has a moral imperative to speak out on >PD? That he is morally wrong for keeping quiet? When did God die and >put you in charge of such decisions? It smacks of that old Nazi saying >that we used to quote jokingly, not realizing that it was deadly >serious: "We haf vays of making you talk!" Are you in favor of >thumbscrews or the rack? >Finally, Andrew Greeley is a priest of the Chicago diocese, a professor >of sociology and an author, but definitely not a Jesuit. >I'll echo Barb in emphasizing that the golden silence you heard was our >way of saying "Give it a rest and let Rev. Graham be--and also the Pope >and Janet Reno while you're at it." >Kathy Kunz --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------