Owen,

I'm behind in posts but wanted to comment further.  The premise you raised
had me mulling this all over the past few days.  I did originally interpret
Tax Free to be criticizing the crass opportunism of the TV evangelists.  I
previously thought the Rod Steiger bit at the end seemed out of place in the
theme, except that it was an well-done artistic device, almost farcical,
used to portray a type of narrow-minded, fire and brimstone, tent revival
style preacher.

I see now from Joni's remarks that her point was more about separation of
church and state.  I read a few articles about Robertson the other night
(tried my best to not pay any attention to him in the 80s) and apparently he
may well have been crossing the line in a big way by getting involved in
political situations in Central and South America at the time through his
missionary operations.  When others have to pay for airtime to put forth
their political beliefs, it is unfair that another group can put forth their
opinions for free - tax free.  So Joni is right either way on this
principle.

On the other hand, by making the point by somehow implying that those who
railed against the actions of Castro, Khomeni and Kaddafi are somehow wrong
or bad is a whole other, perplexing to me, question.  I just can't see that
those preachers or politicians would be motivated to think they would have
to convince their congregations that those guys are not so cool.  They would
probably already be preaching to the choir.  I think a lot of people have
short memories (myself included since I had to refresh mine on this) but
Khomeni and Kaddafi were some of the principal brokers of terrorist attacks
against Americans in the '80s. From 1979 to 1989 they or their collaborators
were behind around 20 terrorist acts (bombings of embassies, military
barracks, ships, hijackings) against Americans and others abroad.  They were
the Bin Ladens of their day.

This brings me back to what Bobsart posted in his critique of the song a few
days ago.  The song is great in many ways and the sentiment in general was
right, but the way she expressed it in part did apparently show her biases
and it does not give a more universal assessment of the topics she raises.
It ultimately falls short in that regard.

Kakki

Reply via email to