She said “Fight the real enemy!” And no, no one was confused.
um, I think the powers that be at SNL were confused enough that they decided to never let back on SNL again and apologized for her actions. I don’t think they did that because they want to hide child molesters.
They did that because they didn’t want to get any negative attention from people who thought that the pope was above criticism even on a subject as severe as child abuse.
Then I assume you think SNL cowardly.
In that instance, of course.
Ok then.
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.
It isn’t.
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?
many people.
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.
So then why dumb down the protest to spare the feelings of people who refuse to believe that the Vatican was capable of such horror?
I don’t know that protesting without tearing up a pic of the Pope means you have to dumb it down.
It would have because her point was that the whole scandal was deeper than just a few evil priests.
I think that point could have been made without doing what she did.
How? By saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please reflect on the potential guilt of the Holy Father in the cover up of the child sex abuse scandals?”
There are other ways.
She only had a couple seconds after singing her song to do it anyway.
So SNL was the only place one could protest back then?
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.
Something tells me that he couldn’t, because I don’t believe that simply because other people worship somebody then that means we should turn a blind eye, or even go easier on them when they commit atrocities.
I never said we should turn a blind eye to child abuse.
I know. I wasn’t referring to turning a blind eye to child abuse but rather turning a blind eye to the role that supposedly sacred people played in the child abuse.
I never said we should turn a blind eye to that either.
It certainly seems that way. Shouldn’t anyone who played a role in a child sex abuse coverup be criticized incredibly harshly?
Yes, I suppose.
I would also hope you first find out exactly what role the Pope had in this scandal(what did/didn’t he do, what did he know, when did he know it. Those sorts of things).
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.
Apparently since one can be criticized more harshly than the other, but why?
They can both be criticized. But one is just the President. The other is to Catholics the successor to Peter the Apostle and is given the Keys of Heaven and the powers of “binding and loosing”. More sensitivity is required when dealing with such an entity.
That’s a copout.
It is?
Of course. He’s holy, so you can’t be quite so hard on him. He’s divine. Fuck that, and fuck him.
*sigh*
I don’t care if you’ve got the keys to heaven if you’re, even just tacitly, permitting what he permitted to happen under his tenure.
Again, I am not saying that the Pope shouldn’t be criticized for his role in the scandal.
You’re just saying that he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly.
nope.
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
I know what they believe about the pope, I’m just saying that I don’t care.
Just because you don’t care about something, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t matter.
You realize that attitudes like this are what allow these things to happen?
wanting people to be respectful of other’s religion allowed children to be molested?
Saying that we can’t harshly criticize the covering up and refusal to report child molesters because the people involved are worshiped is horrifying to me.
When did I say you couldn’t harshly criticize them?
You said that you couldn’t criticize them too harshly so as not to offend devout Catholics.
No, I said you needed to be a little more sensitive about it. But I no problem giving the Pope harsh criticism when it is desearved.
How harsh is it allowed to be?
Pretty harsh, especially considering that we are talking about a child abuse scandal and cover up. But somehow tearing up a pic of the Pope on live TV like that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I don’t see why him being respected as a religious figure makes him special. Does Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church deserve to be handled sensitively? People in his sect have a pretty high opinion of him. What about Jim Bakker, noted conman and religious preacher?
When the churches Fred Phelps and Jim Bakker obtain the status the Catholic Church has, has as many followers as the Catholic Church, has been around as long as the Catholic Church, then get back to me on this.
Also, if someone is involved in a child sex abuse coverup, why should they be handled sensitively? Joe Paterno was in a similar situation, and people treat football like a religion so should they have been a little less hard on him?
While they may sometimes treat football like a religion, it is not a religion.