TV’s Frink said:
TV’s Frink said:
The point is that you think it’s getting worse and worse. Which is funny. Because black people would probably say what is getting worse and worse is the police killing them. But you know, protesting during the anthem is the real problem.
I think both are a problem. Obviously the wrongful killing of African Americans is a more serious problem. This does not mean that people protesting the anthem is not a problem.
In your opinion.
I hate to sound like someone we all can’t stand, but you’re denying the truth here.
agree to disagree
I’d be interested in hearing ric_olie_2’s take on the incident.
He might think that SNL is an inappropriate venue for such a statement. I personally think it’s one of the most beautiful and stunning protests ever done by a musician.
I don’t think I’d call it beautiful.
It was a bold, brave, and beautiful action by a bold, brave, and beautiful woman. She timed and planned it all perfectly so that the producers wouldn’t expect it and would be unable to cut it because it was live, and she pulled out the picture as she sang the final lyric, “Evil”. And who could forget, “Fight the real enemy!” It gives me the chills every time I see it. She was so ahead of her time with it too.
agree to disagree.
I would ask why you object to her but I think that would be a can of worms not worth opening.
Somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live tv without any explanation given doesn’t seem like a good way of protesting. It also seems to offensive to Catholics that had nothing to do with the scandal. Do you think it would be ok to protest 911 by tearing up a pic of Muhammad on live tv without giving any explanation?
There was an explanation given.
She took the pic, tore it up, said nothing. That is not an explanation.
She changed the lyrics of the Marley song to refer to child abuse before she tore up the picture.
Do you honestly think people really had an idea why she tore up the pic? There is reason why people disliked her for awhile after that pic and it is not because people approve of the Catholic Church covering for child molesters.
Who cares if it’s offensive?
Well, I’m sure the victims of the priests that got away with rape and abuse have it a little worse than being offended by an SNL stunt.
I would agree. In fact I would say the victims of the priests have it a lot worse.
If the person whose picture you’re tearing up was, at least tacitly, involved in the cover up of the scandals, then you shouldn’t fear offending people that respect him.
We are talking about Religion here, its complicated.
I don’t agree.
well we will just have to disagree then. because I don’t think I have the ability to explain it to you. Perhaps RicOlie_2 could, I don’t know.
I don’t see why it’s okay to talk about how evil people like Trump are when we all know plenty of people worship him, but it’s not okay to do the same to the pope or people in positions like his.
President and Pope are two very different things.
Why does religion get a pass?
I did not say it gets a pass, I said it was complicated.
Especially when we’re talking about a man that is a religious figure. She didn’t tear up a picture of Jesus Christ or anything like that. I would get people’s complaints a little more if that were the case.
She tore up picture of the guy that Catholics believe is the successor to Peter the Apostle, who Catholics believe “Jesus is said to have given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”, naming him as the “rock” upon which the church would be built” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
Hell, I think it’d all be okay even without cause and explanation honestly. They’re men, not gods. That said, in the context of protest, it’s fair, effective, intense, and powerful. In the case of Sinéad’s performance, beautiful.
agree to disagree
Nope. I don’t agree to disagree. If you don’t want to talk about this then you’ll just have to admit that you’re walking away from the discussion. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but agreeing to disagree tends to be a mutual decision.