Madonna Crucified

[Flip McWho]

Nope, everything's fair game for me.

[Provost Harrison]

Madonna Crucified

Oh if only, the publicity-seeking little b*tch...

[Colonâ„¢]

Madonna needs to grow up. Mocking religions is so 90's.

[Provost Harrison]

I've got nothing against mocking religions...but Madonna is just a cheap, attention-seeking wh0re...

[Whaleboy]

Intentious mocking of religion is a crime, though, sadly, it is not being punished when it should be.

No it isn't! It's perfectly legal in the UK, US and most of Europe with the exception of certain holocaust-denial laws, but then, those are specific on the grounds of incitement to religious hatred.

I fail to see how mocking, challenging or questioning religion should be a crime. Would you have me locked up if I decided to write an examination of the life of Jesus that didn't agree with the views of those who believed in him? Christians have no monopoly over the history of Jesus, nor do the religious have any monopoly over the concept of religion. To say otherwise is the inverse form of saying "if you don't believe XYZ, then you don't understand XYZ", which is plainly ridiculous.

I don't see what's so wrong with mocking a religion. Aren't you guys secure enough in your faith that you can't handle other people mocking you?

Then You surely have nothing against mocking and discrimination of Jews, blacks, Indians, gays etc?

If people are so insecure in their faith that the comedy and critical examination of that faith (which is something of a core tenet of Western intellectual traditions) threatens them, then there's something plainly wrong with them. I think it is possible to utterly refute the existence of God, and I consider that many people, myself possibly included, have successfully done so. The position "you'll never refute the existence of God" is based upon a premise of faith, and so, the idea of God is kept alive not by logic, but by faith. When then, do some members of the faithful consider those who challenge religion using non-faith (comedy, reason, philosophy, mocking etc) means, a threat?

Obviously, you should draw the line at incitement to hatred, but then that's something on the order of an explicit call to arms. By its very nature, such a call is dependant upon historical circumstances... in a climate of homophobia it is easy to say that a critical examination of homosexuality is homophobic. It requires a great deal of critical thought to tell the reasonable from the unreasonable in situations like that. In this day and age of faith-based politics and a drought of public debate, it is sad that people just aren't capable of that level of critical reasoning.

However, in answer to your question; no, I have nothing against the mocking of Jews, blacks, Indians, gays etc. I have nothing against the mocking of Christians, Muslims and Atheists. I have a problem with incitement to hatred towards any group, but we should be very careful about what we call an "incitement to hatred".

Madonna is just a cheap, attention-seeking wh0re

YOu wouldn't say no though, would you?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DanS
Figures that you would be the one to spend your two bits.

Actually I was paid to see it, and even then I only went out of curiosity.

All these people - so quick to jump to conclusions!

[Q Classic]

An update on the Queen of Pop's husband.

[Winston]

Queen of Pop

Elton John

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spec


Another sheep...


Let her do what she wants, who god damn cares about this religion crap...

Spec.

Another ass...

Just a few billion people worldwide. And she obviously got to do what she wants.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Another ass...

Are you calling me an ass?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
YOu wouldn't say no though, would you?

She's a bit of a granny now though, isn't she?

[MichaeltheGreat]

She could still outrun you, though.

[Elok]

The wannabe-jew part of her personality is considerably more interesting than the gratuitous sexualized blasphemy bit.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

No it isn't! It's perfectly legal in the UK, US and most of Europe with the exception of certain holocaust-denial laws, but then, those are specific on the grounds of incitement to religious hatred.

Than these states have bad laws.

I fail to see how mocking, challenging or questioning religion should be a crime. Would you have me locked up if I decided to write an examination of the life of Jesus that didn't agree with the views of those who believed in him? Christians have no monopoly over the history of Jesus, nor do the religious have any monopoly over the concept of religion. To say otherwise is the inverse form of saying "if you don't believe XYZ, then you don't understand XYZ", which is plainly ridiculous.

Your bias shows up. I see a huge difference between critical approach towards religion and intentional mocking its most sacred symbols to gain attention.
These are two separate matters. Your rant is unnecessary and unappropriate, thank You.

:

If people are so insecure in their faith that the comedy and critical examination of that faith (which is something of a core tenet of Western intellectual traditions) threatens them, then there's something plainly wrong with them.

We're not talking about comedy or critical examination. This is not the case of Madonna's behaviour.
When it comes to comedy, it depends on what it does, actually. But if someone in the west f.e. paints cross with **** and it is treaten as art, and honoured by some, I find it hard to believe that support for something like this doesn't come out of simple hatred towards religion.

I think it is possible to utterly refute the existence of God, and I consider that many people, myself possibly included, have successfully done so. The position "you'll never refute the existence of God" is based upon a premise of faith, and so, the idea of God is kept alive not by logic, but by faith. When then, do some members of the faithful consider those who challenge religion using non-faith (comedy, reason, philosophy, mocking etc) means, a threat?

Again, completely irrelevant to the discussed matter.
I do not deny someone the right to disbelief.

Obviously, you should draw the line at incitement to hatred,

You should draw a line to hatred, not only to incitement of it.
Cross is the symbol of self-sacrifice of God and human for the benefit of the entire mankind, the ultimate sacrifice. Christianity is, or used to be, and still is in its catholic version, a religion of purity, and par excellance sexual purity. If a lapsed catholic women, who could easily and rightly be considered a whore, re-stages the aforementioned sacrifice, and does it in Rome, the current capital of christianity, it is a deliberate act of religious hatred and attack on the very core of christian faith in its central place in the world. I guess some atheists may not understand it fully, for no great religion has such a central point, and atheism especially.

[Proteus_MST]

Thousands of BDSMlers get bound to crosses, too, every day.

So why shouldn´t Madonna be allowed to do so?