Muslims Aren't the Only Ones ....

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:26 pm

Muslims aren't the only ones trying to suppress free expression! Look here+++

Madonna's Mock Crucifixion Causes Religious Groups To File Complaint

September 12, 2006 8:08 a.m. EST

Maira Oliveira - All Headline News Reporter

Holland, Netherlands (BANG) - Some believe that Madonna has taken a self-crucifixion scene that is part of her latest world tour concerts a little too far. The music icon has mostly recently infuriated young Christians in Holland who have decided to take legal action into their own hands and stop the singer from continuing her shows.

The youth wing of the protestant party SGP have filed a legal complaint against the "Material Girl" singer accusing her of "blasphemy" and "insulting a religious group."

The group - whose compliant has been supported by 50 different organizations - was incensed by a mock crucifixion scene during two sell-out concerts in Amsterdam earlier this month.

It's not the first time a religious group has been upset by Madonna's antics on her current "Confessions" world tour.

Last month, the Russian Orthodox Church attacked the singer for her mock crucifixion stunt, going so far as to urge Christians to boycott her Moscow show.

Spokesman Father Vsevolod Chaplin said, "This is not the first year that this lady has been mixing songs about human passion with Christian symbols - crosses, statues of the virgin, beads, and now it's self-crucifixion."

The outburst came just weeks after her performance in Rome prompted some Catholic leaders to call for her ex-communication from the church. Madonna was raised a Catholic but is now a devout follower of the Kabbalah, a mystical off-shoot of Judaism.

Meanwhile, a 63-year-old Dutch clergyman confessed last Friday to making a hoax bomb threat in an attempt to stop Madonna's concert because he objected to the crucifixion scene.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:55 am

Oh, gimme a break, LuLu. I noticed you didn't compare the Democrats (threatening to sue if ABC didn't cancel a miniseries that didn't glow about Clinton) with Muslims. Voicing displeasure with something that is blatantly disrespectful to someone's religion is not the same thing as blowing up school buses and you know it. Is your objecting to their objecting comparable to Islamofascism too?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:21 am

Not at all Adam. What I'm finding objectionable is a group trying to stop an event which is ticketed, not free on media.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:22 am

So we've got clergymen putting in fake bomb threats? That's disturbing.

I cannot believe that anyone is shocked or upset by what Madonna does anymore. She's old hat. I mean she's done everything except sex with sheep (gosh I hope that's still undone) and has lost the ability to shock anymore, IMO.

These people need to get upset by something that actually is worth getting upset about.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:50 am

"gosh I hope that's still undone"

(Thanks, Glitt! I just spit tea all over my desk!):wah:

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:05 pm

As hard as I looked, I couldn't see any mentions of anything or anyone being burned or bombed, of any decapitations, executions, violent rallies, threats, etc. I just read about law-suits and boycotts ... Sounds pretty civilized to me. The only connection I can think of is with the moderate Muslims in Canada, who proposed boycotting Danish cheese after the cartoons :wah:

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:28 pm

In any democratic country anyone is allowed to protest and even to try a court challenge.

On the other hand I think that making an issue of Madonna's stunt only gives her ideosyncrasies credibility. It will go away just like the others. The money wasted might be better spent looking after the oppressed and destitute. That would be a far better Christian response. Shock value works well for Madonna and makes her money. Smart move if you're interesting in expanding your bank account.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:35 pm

My issue with this is simple...Madonna is selling tickets to a concert which is optional and not mandatory. If the Catholics don't like what they HEAR about the possible program Madonna has prepared, they certainly aren't compelled to attend.

Therefore, the effort to shut her down reminds me very much of the Taliban!

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:36 pm

lulu:-6

I can go along with that.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:48 pm

I'm an advocate of freedom in art, so I don't agree with art being censored. But, at the same time, protesting something you don't agree with or suing is an expression of freedom of speech, just as Madonna's use of Christian symbols is one. Catholics have the same rights as Madonna does. Furthermore, I see absolutely no comparison with the Taliban - they didn't protest or sue, but executed and prohibited.

However, if the judge decided in their favour, now that would be tantamount to limiting freedom of speech. Since Catholics don't have the authority to stop anything from happening, I don't see the problem with them expressing disagreement. Or is the ability to disagree limited to causes we find acceptable?

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:18 am

Lulu2 wrote: Not at all Adam. What I'm finding objectionable is a group trying to stop an event which is ticketed, not free on media.

Yep Lulu, it made my blood boil. There was a similar incident not that long after whereby a play that showed domestic abuse within a Hindu family was stopped. This was in an obscure theatre in an inconspicuous part of northern England, they said it was a slur on their religion in some way.

With rehards to the church and state issue I agree. Personally I don't need a hereditary 'representative' who is in to way representational of my beliefs or way of life. Yes, maybe good for tourism and she throws a jolly good garden party but other than that.....

The powers that The Queen may hold with regards to parliament (other than being an intrinsic part of the 'ceremony' of it all) are nil really.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:03 am

Lulu2 wrote: Madonna was raised a Catholic but is now a devout follower of the Kabbalah, a mystical off-shoot of Judaism.The only altar at which Madonna worships 'devout'ly is the altar of self-promotion.Lulu2 wrote: If the Catholics don't like what they HEAR about the possible program Madonna has prepared, they certainly aren't compelled to attend.

Therefore, the effort to shut her down reminds me very much of the Taliban!Lu, as a Catholic I agree with you. I do not find in the posted material, however, any effort by Catholics to do that. The Churches cited are the Russian Orthodox and Dutch Reformed. Remember, both of these are, to the best of my knowledge, ESTABLISHMENT countries, where the churches mentioned are the official churches of that country and have at least some influence in those countries' political affairs, which is to say, such pronouncements are not out of line as they would be in the USA and other countries that are religiously neutral..

To most Catholics, Madonna is an enormous embarrassment. But we are not to judge such people, that authority belongs to God alone.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:24 am

Felinessa wrote: I don't see the problem with them expressing disagreement. Or is the ability to disagree limited to causes we find acceptable?

You have hit the nail on the head. I may not agree with the tactics chosen by the protesters but they have the right to protest and sue if they wish. Is there a day that goes by that some group isn't protesting something, liberals groups especially? Are they all the Taliban? Any American who compares free expression, religious or otherwise, with the Taliban doesn't really understand what the Taliban was all about. I'll paraphrase Barry Goldwater in order to sum up my friend's views on the matter. "I would remind you that extremism in the condemnation of religion is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the defense of Christianity is no virtue.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:29 am

I have no problem with them suing as long as they have to pay the court costs if they lose. The courts are the not place for relgious or political demonstrations...

I have a huge problem with frivolous lawsuits which are becoming an American way of life and this is one of the most frivolous I have ever heard of..

If they want to waste other peoples time and money in court they should have to pay for it.

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:02 am

They're Dutch, Zinky :wah: Maybe it's catching on?:p

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:13 am

Felinessa wrote: They're Dutch, Zinky :wah: Maybe it's catching on?:p

eh eh eh, oops:-5

Katy1 · Post by **Katy1** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:13 am

zinkyusa wrote: I have no problem with them suing as long as they have to pay the court costs if the lose. The courts are the not place for relgious or political demonstrations...

I have a huge problem with frivolous lawsuits which are becoming an American way of life and this is one of the most frivolous I have ever heard of..

If they want to waste other peoples time and money in court they should have to pay for it.

Yup, it's peoples greed and desire for something for nothing that has come back and bit us in the arse. You fall over in school and break your leg? Sue the school who is already in financial deficit and make a quick buck, so your kid hasn't got any books? Never mind, they've got an X Box 360 with the 'winnings' so it doesn't matter does it.....

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:38 am

BRONWEN

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lulu2

Madonna was raised a Catholic but is now a devout follower of the Kabbalah, a mystical off-shoot of Judaism.

+++++++++++ I'm not offended...but I didn't say this.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:57 am

Lulu2 wrote: If the Catholics don't like what they HEAR about the possible program Madonna has prepared, they certainly aren't compelled to attend.

Therefore, the effort to shut her down reminds me very much of the Taliban!

I think I detect a weakness in the argument . It is true that Catholics who find the thing offensive are not obliged to attend but it is equally true that those who do attend are going to be influenced by what they see at the show and this, in terms of mass behaviour, will effect a wider wider cross section of society than those who were present.

Personally I am not keen on censorship but I can understand that a great deal of this Madonna nonsense is performed as a form of social rebellion - and one that the woman herself ought to have grown out of some years ago.

I wouldn't be too concerned if during her crucifixion scene, an element of reality was injected.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:12 am

William Ess wrote: I think I detect a weakness in the argument . It is true that Catholics who find the thing offensive are not obliged to attend but it is equally true that those who do attend are going to be influenced by what they see at the show and this, in terms of mass behaviour, will effect a wider wider cross section of society than those who were present.

Personally I am not keen on censorship but I can understand that a great deal of this Madonna nonsense is performed as a form of social rebellion - and one that the woman herself ought to have grown out of some years ago.

I wouldn't be too concerned if during her crucifixion scene, an element of reality was injected.

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:29 pm

I'm not a Madonna fan, myself, but I think she's got as much right to make a fool of herself as some of those awful RAPPERS!

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:21 am

Lulu2 wrote: I'm not a Madonna fan, myself, but I think she's got as much right to make a fool of herself as some of those awful RAPPERS!

Rappers lie outside my sphere of experience but if people wish to exercise their right - assuming that right to exist - to make fools of themselves, is there any reason why they cannot do it in private.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:28 am

Adam Zapple wrote: I'll paraphrase Barry Goldwater in order to sum up my friend's views on the matter. "I would remind you that extremism in the condemnation of religion is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the defense of Christianity is no virtue.

That's very interesting, isn't it!

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:41 am

Lulu2 wrote: BRONWEN

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lulu2

Madonna was raised a Catholic but is now a devout follower of the Kabbalah, a mystical off-shoot of Judaism.

+++++++++++ I'm not offended...but I didn't say this.In case anyone is confused, I did not claim those were Lu's words, only that they were POSTED by her. They are, in fact, in a news item that she cited.

Blackjack · Post by **Blackjack** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:08 am

Lulu2 wrote: My issue with this is simple...Madonna is selling tickets to a concert which is optional and not mandatory. If the Catholics don't like what they HEAR about the possible program Madonna has prepared, they certainly aren't compelled to attend.
And if a Catholic priest stopped at telling Catholics they should not attend said concert based on what they've heard will happen there, enlightened, free-expression loving Westerners would still decry the Church's autocratic ways, putting the best face on anything muslims do and insisting that Islam isn't really all that bad all the while. I agree that muslims aren't the only people who oppose free speech and expression. In my experiences, just about everyone, whatever their religion or lack thereof, opposes free expression when certain topics arise. Muslims just seem to have to go to greater extremes to be rightly accused of it, and also get the most sympathy. Lately it's only been wrong to offend someone's religious sensibilities if they're muslim. Afraid of another attack, are we? Maybe Christians should plant more bombs if they want more respect in the civilized world.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:10 am

Well, nothing biased about THOSE remarks!:rolleyes:

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:41 am

Blackjack wrote: And if a Catholic priest stopped at telling Catholics they should not attend said concert based on what they've heard will happen there, enlightened, free-expression loving Westerners would still decry the Church's autocratic ways, putting the best face on anything muslims do and insisting that Islam isn't really all that bad all the while. I agree that muslims aren't the only people who oppose free speech and expression. In my experiences, just about everyone, whatever their religion or lack thereof, opposes free expression when certain topics arise. Muslims just seem to have to go to greater extremes to be rightly accused of it, and also get the most sympathy. Lately it's only been wrong to offend someone's religious sensibilities if they're muslim. Afraid of another attack, are we? Maybe Christians should plant more bombs if they want more respect in the civilized world.

The punctuation in this is such that it is difficult, of not impossible, to extract the point that is being made.

To the best of my understanding, Catholic priests do not forbid their congregations from attending functions of the type in question. They have neither the power not the authority to do so. At best they might strongly advise against attending and give their reasons. It would not however be binding.

In any case, for every priest who would advise against attendance, there might be ten who see it as completely unimportant.

Blackjack · Post by **Blackjack** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:43 am

William Ess wrote: At best they might strongly advise against attending and give their reasons. It would not however be binding.
If (hypothetical scenario) they did just that - no threats, no calls for violent protests, just advice and the reasons why they felt they way they did - they would still be compared to muslim extremists. Except western intellectuals would feel more inclined to sympathize with the muslim extremists. That is the point I was trying to make.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:58 am

Blackjack wrote: If (hypothetical scenario) they did just that - no threats, no calls for violent protests, just advice and the reasons why they felt they way they did - they would still be compared to muslim extremists. Except western intellectuals would feel more inclined to sympathize with the muslim extremists. That is the point I was trying to make.

If I follow your argument correctly, you are not equating like with like. It is one thing for a priest to advise his parishioners - that, indeed, is one of the things that he is there for - but it is quite another for him to advise them to plot against the state and encourage them to plant bombs. There is no connection between the two.

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:09 am

William Ess wrote: If I follow your argument correctly, you are not equating like with like. It is one thing for a priest to advise his parishioners - that, indeed, is one of the things that he is there for - but it is quite another for him to advise them to plot against the state and encourage them to plant bombs. There is no connection between the two.

*devil's advocate*

but if catholism enjoyed the standing it once did what action would they take? the church has been given a muzzle, to the public's benefit.

Blackjack · Post by **Blackjack** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:12 am

William Ess wrote: It is one thing for a priest to advise his parishioners - that, indeed, is one of the things that he is there for - but it is quite another for him to advise them to plot against the state and encourage them to plant bombs. There is no connection between the two.
I could not possibly agree more.

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:17 am

ARgi wrote: *devil's advocate*

but if catholism enjoyed the standing it once did what action would they take? the church has been given a muzzle, to the public's benefit.

But you can't base an argument on supposition!

ARgi · Post by **ARgi** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:21 am

William Ess wrote: But you can't base an argument on supposition!

i just did :sneaky:

there might be more beheadings of heretics if it were legal.