One irritating feature of the contemporary media is the credence they give to the views of celebrities. There is often a kind of unwritten assumption that because a person is a good actor or singer, his or her views on politics, morality and ethics somehow carry more weight.
Case in point is the enthusiastic reporting of the Dixie Chicks at the Grammy awards. The ODT triumphantly records them as saying, "I think people are using their freedom of speech with these awards. We get the message."

A few years ago, the Dixie Chicks made critical comments about George W Bush. As a result numerous radio stations and other people decided to stop playing and listening to their records. At that time, the complaint was made that this violated the Dixie Chicks right to freedom of speech.

The reference to ‘freedom of speech’ is of course an allusion to this complaint. In reality, the Dixie Chicks rights were not violated. The clause, ‘freedom’ in freedom of speech at most refers to freedom from coercion either from the state or from individuals. It forbids people being prevented by force and coercion from expressing their opinion. It does not mean that everyone has a duty to buy your tapes or play your records when you ask them to. To require this would, in fact, be forcing people to express the Dixie Chicks opinions either in their homes or on their privately owned radio stations. It would be coerced speech.

Suppose one puts this to the side, suppose one grants that the Dixie chicks won a Grammy because now more people agree with their ‘message’ than previously. So what exactly? If a statement I make is true, then it is true even if every other person disagrees with me. If its false, it does not become true because other people start believing in it.

Victoria University recently ran an ad claiming that in the 14th century people believed the world was flat. This claim is false, medieval scholars almost unanimously taught that the world was round. However, suppose that Victoria University were correct and 14th century people did widely believe this does that mean that the world was in fact flat in the 14 century and if later the consensus changed and people believed the world was round. Did the world suddenly change shape? Of course not.

Now if the Dixie Chicks or anyone for that matter, had a well thought out case against the invasion of Iraq then by all means report it so ethicists like myself can consider it. However, simply telling me that this country singer thinks this, her music sells well when a few years ago it did not tells me nothing. One suspects some left wing media commentators never grew out of their teenage years. "Hey you should hold these opinions because these three attractive chicks hold it and they are really popular right now."

When peoples support for life and death decisions (like war) are based on banalities like this there is good reason to be concerned.

The founding statement of liberal political theory, John Locke’s Two Treaties of Civil Government, opens with the following statement:

Reader, thou hast here the beginning and end of a discourse concerning
government; what fate has otherwise disposed of the papers that should have
filled up the middle, and were more than all the rest, it is not worth while to
tell thee. These, which remain, I hope are sufficient to establish the throne of
our great restorer, our present King William; to make good his title, in the
consent of the people, which being the only one of all lawful governments, he
has more fully and clearly, than any prince in Christendom; and to justify to
the world the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights,
with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the very
brink of slavery and ruin.

Locke states his purpose in writing is to defend a military coup. Locke goes on to argue that a government derives its powers from the consent of the government for the purpose of protecting the rights of its citizens. Specifically a citizen’s right to life, liberty and property. He argues that if a government turns against these rights the people can justly overthrow it.
The US declaration of independence reiterates this claim.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes
destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their safety and happiness.

Two of the founding documents for liberal democracy maintain that a government can be legitimately overthrown if it uses its powers to infringe, as opposed to protect, the rights of its citizens. In some instances, the military have a duty to do this; often the military have sworn duty to defend the rights of its citizens with force. If the government begins to threaten these rights then this duty means the military have a duty to resist the government with force. This is not some crackpot, novel idea, it is part of our liberal heritage, it is also incidentally part of our Christian heritage. Aquinas argued in a similar vein, as did numerous Puritan writers such as Mornay, Rutherford, Milton, Buchanan.

I say this because at 7:30 PM tonight on Campbell live a military coup was announced in Fiji. The immediate reaction from every commentator I saw was one of disgust because a democratically elected government had been overthrown. Now I am not saying I agree with the coup, I am quite willing to concede that the Military are acting unjustly. However, the mere fact that the government of Fiji was democratically elected does not mean its wrong to over throw them with a coup. If the government uses its power to punish the guilty with proportionate and humane punishments and they defend the rights of the innocent against aggression then I agree it is unjust to over throw them. But if the government of Fiji has used its power to deprive innocent people of there rights and to acquit those guilty of crimes then in certain circumstances the military are within their rights in staging a coup. The fact that the government was lawfully elected is irrelevant.

When commentators in the media claim that a coup is wrong because the government is elected. They are in essence promoting the tyranny of the majority. They are suggesting that we have a duty of unqualified obedience to any leader which 51% of our peers support on election day, regardless of what this government does or orders us to do. They are deifying the majority and placing a democratic government in the place of God.

A state’s legitimacy depends on what it does, not on how many people support it or how popular it is the year of an election. If upholds the law of God and the rights this law confers upon us it is worthy of support. If it turns against these, it is not. God and God alone is the only person worthy of unqualified obedience.