Madonna Crucified

[Whaleboy]

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

Experience

Than these states have bad laws.

Why?

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.

'Twas a pleasure.

Why are they two separate matters? You seem to be delineating between a strictly philosophical, academic approach, and comedy, but are they not merely manifestations of the same thing... an exercise in examining a system or phenomenon in different contexts? If I write an essay that has a conclusion that is critical of religion, and my friend writes a play that mocks religion, is there any real difference between the two?

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.

If that cross was then planted in a Church or in the house of a known Christian then yes I'd agree with you. However, if displayed publically, or in the artists (sic) property etc, then I would disagree. As I have said, Christians have no monopoly over Christ, the cross, or any other symbol or mythology inherent to their faith. A religious person only has monopoly over the idiosyncracies of their belief.

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

You've missed the point. I'm wondering why people with a supposedly unshakeable faith consider those who mock religion, those who question/challenge religion, or those that simply take the piss out of religion, to be a threat? Sticks and stones, surely?

Should superman really be worried about a wasp that's about to sting him? Or do those people who are so quick and vocal to defend their faith from blasphemy and heracy have something to hide about the strength of their own convictions?

You should draw a line to hatred, not only to incitement of it.

While in principle I agree with you, if you think about it, what you're asking is incredibly difficult, both in terms of moral philosophy and legistlature. After all, we must first define "hatred" and considering that people far cleverer than either of us have been struggling to define it (along with love) for the best part of 3000 years, I don't think we're going to get very far.

If we take hatred to mean something specific, how would this be proved? After all, someone may spurt something in a moment of blind rage, that another man may say at the height of his rational prowess. While one is based on shakier foundations than another, their end logical value would be the same wouldn't they?

I think it makes far more sense to examine the content of what someone says, and not be too concerned with their motivations or background. Otherwise, we'll fall into the trap of ad hominem and red herrings.

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.

I suspect many in the congregations of paedophile priests in the US would disagree with you there.

If a lapsed catholic women, who could easily and rightly be considered a whore

Judge not, lest ye be judged...

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

Why? Can you objectively deduce the hateful act in there, as opposed to your own emotive reaction to that? If we decided that an act was an incitement to hatred based upon people's reactions, no-one could possibly say anything remotely outlandish for fear of offending people. That would be a bit **** really wouldn't it?

I guess some atheists may not understand it fully, for no great religion has such a central point, and atheism especially.

No its perfectly understandable, it's also slightly pathetic and something that Jesus himself would, according to my understanding of his life as it is in the Gospels, not approve of. To concentrate ones faith in symbolism and materialistic trinkets seems perhaps to deny its pretense for spiritual significance. Of course, the insincere symbolism and the cheap evangelism was one of the reasons that Christianity was so successful over Judaism et al in the first place, so while your sentiment is understandable, it's also hardly surprising .

[lord of the mark]

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

Seeing as traditional Judaism said you need to be 40 YO and married and leading an observant Jewish life BEFORE you study Kabbbalah, so that you dont get thrown off by some of the sexual imagery and the general intensity of mysticism, Im not sure her interest in Kaballah is entirely seperate from gratuitous sexual blasphemy.

Ever watch the Seinfeld episodes were George converts to Latvian Orthodox (sic) ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson

I guess some atheists may not understand it fully, for no great religion has such a central point, and atheism especially.

I guess some folks havent figured out that hatred is pretty much a fact of life, and that banning actual harm, and incitement to harm, is about all you can do about it.

[Nostromo]

Gilles Lipovesky suggested a while back that the so-called "return of the sacred" was all balloney: religious beliefs are just another way for people to differentiate themselves from others, just like the type of clothes you wear or the kind of music you listen to. I don't know if its true about everybody, but I'm willing to bet its true about that snotty biatch.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by nostromo
Gilles Lipovesky suggested a while back that the so-called "return of the sacred" was all balloney: religious beliefs are just another way for people to differentiate themselves from others, just like the type of clothes you wear or the kind of music you listen to. I don't know if its true about everybody, but I'm willing to bet its true about that snotty biatch.

So when you listen to music, the actual quality of the music means nothing to you? You dont relate to the music as music, instead of just as a fad or identifier? I dont know about Madonna and Kaballa - taking Kaballah without the rest of the package seems kinda shallow to me, but I know people who are pretty serious about spirituality.


But I must congratulate on you getting in a knock on blasphemous Madonna, while AT THE SAME TIME knocking religion. Deft, deft. Much better than my tempting Heresson to discourse on why CERTAIN religions deserve to be hated.

[Nostromo]

You read me wrong. I'm not knocking religion, I'm knocking Madonna. I wrote:

I don't know if its true about everybody, but I'm willing to bet its true about that snotty biatch.

So, I'm not saying I fully agree with the Lipovetsky. That said, if I had a dime for everyone who believes something not because they think its true, but because they think its weird, I'd be rich by now. And I wouldn't even say that Lipovesky is knocking religion in general, he's putting a different spin on the so-called "return of the sacred". They talked a lot about that in France in the 80s.

[Whaleboy]

But I must congratulate on you getting in a knock on blasphemous Madonna, while AT THE SAME TIME knocking religion. Deft, deft. Much better than my tempting Heresson to discourse on why CERTAIN religions deserve to be hated.

That was pretty slick . I'm not being directly critical of Madonna because I'd quite happily slip her a length for the team .

[Elok]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Seeing as traditional Judaism said you need to be 40 YO and married and leading an observant Jewish life BEFORE you study Kabbbalah, so that you dont get thrown off by some of the sexual imagery and the general intensity of mysticism, Im not sure her interest in Kaballah is entirely seperate from gratuitous sexual blasphemy.

Ever watch the Seinfeld episodes were George converts to Latvian Orthodox (sic) ?

No, I've only seen the smallest fraction of the many, many, many Seinfeld episodes. That one is not among them, but I can imagine why George would do it. A hot Latvian chick, a business opportunity, or maintaining a charade for friends-of-friends would be my first three guesses.

I don't know anything about Kabbalah, so I can't say for sure, but I mark it as fairly distinct because of her intentions towards it. I seriously doubt she actually understands what it's all about, but she appears to be sincerely interested in whatever she thinks it's about, and the offensiveness of it is due largely to her hamhandedness towards its ideas and disregard for standard procedure, correct? It's an interesting illustration of the modern world's simultaneous fascination with mysticism and near-total theological illiteracy.

Whereas this tepid mockery of Catholicism that she's been doing for decades now is just a cunning way to market herself to morons who think it's brilliant Swiftian satire to act like you're humping a religious figure or something.

[Lodi]

Hey, why is Madonna mocking my Attis mystery religion's rites?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Elok

No, I've only seen the smallest fraction of the many, many, many Seinfeld episodes. That one is not among them, but I can imagine why George would do it. A hot Latvian chick, a business opportunity, or maintaining a charade for friends-of-friends would be my first three guesses.

You got it. Hot chick. Who immediately goes off to spend a year in Latvia, after hes undergone a tedious conversion. Which he hadnt yet told her was for her. Hilarious.

"I don't know anything about Kabbalah, so I can't say for sure, but I mark it as fairly distinct because of her intentions towards it. I seriously doubt she actually understands what it's all about, but she appears to be sincerely interested in whatever she thinks it's about, and the offensiveness of it is due largely to her hamhandedness towards its ideas and disregard for standard procedure, correct? It's an interesting illustration of the modern world's simultaneous fascination with mysticism and near-total theological illiteracy.

Whereas this tepid mockery of Catholicism that she's been doing for decades now is just a cunning way to market herself to morons who think it's brilliant Swiftian satire to act like you're humping a religious figure or something. [/q]

Yeah, something like that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by nostromo
You read me wrong. I'm not knocking religion, I'm knocking Madonna. I wrote:



So, I'm not saying I fully agree with the Lipovetsky. That said, if I had a dime for everyone who believes something not because they think its true, but because they think its weird, I'd be rich by now. And I wouldn't even say that Lipovesky is knocking religion in general, he's putting a different spin on the so-called "return of the sacred". They talked a lot about that in France in the 80s.

Im not familiar with the discussion in France. It does sound to me like a derogation of genuine spiritual search, but who knows what goes on in France

[Terra Nullius]

Queen of Pap

fixed

[Spiffor]

Is it just me, or does her position seems to be very comfortable?

If she wanted to be crucified, she could at least have the "chic torture" style, instead of this oversized and tacky stage-prop.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Is it just me, or does her position seems to be very comfortable?

If she wanted to be crucified, she could at least have the "chic torture" style, instead of this oversized and tacky stage-prop.

You mean she shoulod have worn more vinyl and leather?
I´d absolutely support this

[Spiffor]

Nah. She should have her feet unsupported.

As it is, the patform ruins all symbolism, and makes the stunt cheap and tacky. Instead of looking like a martyr fighting for freedom of expression, Madonna just looks like an overprotected starlette who couldn't even imagine breaking a nail