Why didn't we listen to Sinead O'Connor in 1992?

[Coventina]

In a 1992 appearance on Saturday Night Live, Sinead O'Connor sang an a cappella version of the Bob Marley song "War," but substituted the word "racism" with "child abuse" in protest of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. What she did at the end of the song shocked viewers: She held up a picture of Pope John Paul II and ripped it in two.

Eighteen years later, amid continuing revelations of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, O'Connor's anger is matched by the public worldwide. A Facebook page has even been started called "Apologize to Sinead O'Connor NOW."

O'Connor spoke recently with NPR's Guy Raz about ripping up the photo and how she feels about the church today.

"I'm an intelligent woman. I knew how people would react," she says. "I considered myself a spiritually, intellectually developed woman. ... I was perfectly willing to deal with the consequences, the main one of which was people saying I'm a nutcase, which I agree with anyway."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127956314

************************************************************************

I remember that appearance well. I was a huge fan of hers, so I watched SNL specifically to watch her. I remember I was totally stunned and confused by her actions. I am not a Catholic, but I thought of JPII as a good man.

What she did pretty much killed her career in America. She was absolutely vilified for it.

Why didn't anyone believe her at the time?

Because of her shaved head? Because she was so young at the time? Because she was controversial for some of her other opinions?

on edit: I realize that this is probably going to get zero attention due to the stuff about DU's new rules and the General!
I picked a bad day to post this!

[Blue_Tires]

1. yeah, she was right all along

i was in HS at the time, and i remember the media avalanche that crushed her...IIRC, even "controversy-hungry" MTV kept its distance...

it didn't help her at all that JPII was a pretty popular pope and well-recognized even by non-catholics like myself...

[DirkGently]

17. I thought it was great at the time

Cause I'm just that hip. John Paul II was not the worst Pope in the world, however. This new Hitler Youth graduate on the other hand ... ?

[AnArmyVeteran]

29. The sex scandals have been known for years, but not in the US media.

The US media is the worst in the world. They just report sensationalist stories and if there isn't a conflict, they create one. The BBC is better than all the US media combined. They were reporting on disastrous Bush actions all through his presidency. If the White House Press Corp was 1/1000th of what the BBC is we wouldn't have gone to war.

[roguevalley]

38. I love her. she's good folks

[RainDog]

2. She is one of many who have been right about abuses of power

whether in the Catholic church, financial institutions or government offices.

those who criticized her then are better, at least, than those who continue to criticize those who find this institution appalling and entirely lacking in any moral reason for existence. those who continue to attack people who vilify the abuse of the church are beyond hope, it seems.

they are willing to defend an institution that protects pedophiles and punishes children for telling the truth. that's their moral core, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

but that's the result of organized religion that attempts to act as a dictatorship in the lives of others. they always have their toadies, no matter what. fear makes people do stupid things.

it's not easy to be brave in the face of power.

[LoZoccolo]

3. Because no one understood what she was really trying to say.

And instead of realizing that, she came back harder, causing even more confusion.

[RainDog]

4. she was very clear in her statement that the pope and the church are entirely corrupt

there was no mistake in her actions.

the problem was those who rush to defend the indefensible.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Right, right....

One mention in the middle of the song about child abuse (two if you count the fact that she repeated it right after), a song which was mostly about racism and war, and ripping up the picture of the Pope at the end, and people understood it clearly and instantly. No mistake there.

[RainDog]

28. if someone tears up a picture of a powerful public figure...

there's some question?

if someone burns a dummy in effigy - there's a question?

honestly - there was a question about her stance that the pope, and thus the church, was utterly corrupt? The outrage that came from defenders of the pope was based upon their misunderstanding of her contempt?

right, right.

[fishwax]

55. her contempt was clear -- the precise reasons, not so much

I was aware of the issue of sexual abuse by priests at the time, but didn't connect her version of the song (which, aside from two small changes, remained substantially about racial injustice) to a critique of the abuse scandals. I didn't find out until later about how much she had already spoken out against child abuse in the church.

Still, it certainly remains an iconic moment in my growing up years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYw8JR1N90o

[Hissyspit]

35. I understood it perfectly at the time. I was 28 years old.

I understood the hypocrisy of booing her a BOB DYLAN celebration concert, too. It was pretty clear as day to me at the time.

[LoZoccolo]

40. Right: people booed because they liked child abuse and thought priests should get away with it.

Those were crazy times, but it's good that people suddenly changed their tune and started getting outraged about it nine years later when it started getting noticed in the US.

[Cleobulus]

59. No, people booed because they have a reflexive need to defend religions, regardless of...

what they or their leaders do. Its mindless.

[LoZoccolo]

60. duplicate

[LoZoccolo]

62. duplicate

[LoZoccolo]

61. Because that's the kind of reaction that you want to trigger if you wish to be understood.

It's not like it will distract from the real message or anything. Sinéad shouldn't be expected to let abused children distract from making people angry about something else.

[Cleobulus]

63. The fact is, it didn't matter, religions are one of those issues that require...

people to really have an overwhelming evidence of scandal or criminal activity before they even think about criticizing it or holding it accountable. Hell, even DUers become apologists for advocating the Catholic Church itself remains relatively immune from criticism or accountability from the current scandals.

[D23MIURG23]

86. I think there is often a false equivalency made between religion and things like race.

People who haven't given adequate thought to what religion actually is will reflexively consider criticisms of religion to be bigoted, even if they aren't a part of the religion being criticized.

Religion is a choice, and a set of ideas. It isn't inherently deserving of exemption from criticism, and neither are its practitioners and proponents.

[KonaKane]

92. Religion is different. It goes to the very heart of a person.

When you attack it, remember that you attack the religious. The religious are not all "over there" in the rightwing aisle. Many are your fellow Democrats, Liberals, Progressives. Many are DUers.

Groping to find excuses to excoriate people of faith is pretty pathetic. That's what Reaganism did. It sought to "make people comfortable with their prejudices again". I hate to see it here on DU. There is a reason that one of our virtues as Democrats/Liberals is respect for all regardless of their race, color, CREED or sexual orientation.

Think about it.

[RainDog]

100. a religion that seeks to enslave and murder others who are different

does not deserve respect.

a religion that, like the Pharisees, panders to the powerful to cover for the corrupt - pedophiles, for instance, does not deserve respect. Jesus set this example himself when he overturned the money changers tables and excoriated them for taken advantage of the stupidity of the population - the selling of sacrifices.

I can think of several religions that fit this description - they are not all monotheistic, of course, but they are all fundamentalist. Fundamentalist religion is ahistorical and does not deserve respect.

To compare this to Reagan is really reaching - it's so invalid as a comparison it is laughable. Thomas Paine, however, does provide a good role model - he and the other founders who sought to remove the stain of superstition from national policy.

If someone opposed sex slavery and states this - is that also making the "comfortable with their predjudices" too? No, it's not. It is noting the wrongness of the action and the belief that undergirds it.

Maybe those who embrace fundamentalism should examine the basis of their beliefs.

That's what the public square is all about - can your opinions stand up to the light of reality? If not, are they worth having?

[KonaKane]

109. No religion I know "seeks" to do any of that today. Those who misuse it do.

Religions are not people. They are concepts. When bad things are done, they are done by people. Resist the urge to slime someone's entire faith because of the misdeeds of a few.

[RainDog]

114. look at the statement of belief of various fundamentalists

how can you claim they do not seek to deny human rights to homosexuals?!?!? this is blatantly false. look at what you must agree to believe to hold a position of power in the southern baptist convention.

look at what you must agree to believe to hold a position in the catholic hierarchy.

look at what you must agree to believe to be an orthodox jew.

look at the BULLSHIT that is taught in literalist churches - surely you know about the brain dead creationist museum in KY, right? Those people DESERVE to be called out for their beliefs because we do a disservice to children, for instance, who must SUFFER, yes, SUFFER under their tutelage.

If you no of no religious belief that seeks to murder homosexuals, you should read about The Family and their support for Ugandan laws to make failure to report a known homosexual a crime. You should look at the fucking TX gop platform, a platform that is totally the work of the putrid religious right to see what they support.

Literalism and fundamentalism are creeds that religions claim. These are not the misdeeds of a few. These are codified systems of belief. If those who claim allegiance to those religions do not hold those beliefs, they should leave those churches that proclaim them.

Don't try to lie about the truth of the hatred that forms the basis of fundamentalisms. They don't.

[KonaKane]

117. I see fundamentalists of all types as counterproductive. Even anti-religious ones.

Fundamnetalism and its one dimensional dogmatism is not what I expect to see valued in a place like this.

[RainDog]

122. Those are the beliefs I address when I talk about religion

which is clear if you are familiar with my views here.

[KonaKane]

124. We agree about fundamentalism. We don't if you are simply fishing around

to find ways comfortably to smear good people who happen to have a religious faith.

[RainDog]

126. what makes you think you are here to decide my motives

or to comment that they are correct or not when you obviously have wasted a large part of your time disagreeing with someone you agree with?

who do you think you are to affirm or deny what I say?

what hubris.

[KonaKane]

127. Motives become plenty clear, the more someone expresses themselves.

All humans do that. Even you. If it's hubris to let you know this basic fact of humanity, then so be it.

[RainDog]

135. ah, so what should I infer your motives were when you told another duer to suck a bag of dicks?

religious piety?

your compassion for those who wish to oppress others?

your motive for misunderstanding what others say here and telling them they have no right to talk about the corruption of religious institutions and the lies of religious beliefs - from that I think it is clear that your motives are to harass those who do not find religion offers anything of value.

[Cleobulus]

103. No, Religion is NOT different, and that's why I absolutely hate this argument...

its a way to excuse people for having homophobic, misogynist, ignorant and damaging beliefs about their health, etc. Religion should NOT be excepted from this.

[KonaKane]

111. Actually that argument you made just excused homophobia and racism.

CREED is protected just as our equality in race, color, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation is. Taking creed (religion) out of that class opens it up to attack and bigotry.

[Cleobulus]

131. Creed can be changed, its not an immutable characteristic for people...

Am I saying that churches or temples should be torn down by government and people imprisoned for their beliefs? No, but to say that my criticism of their beliefs is even close to rising to the level of racism or homophobia is stupidity run amok.

[RainDog]

132. stupidity run amok. yes.

that is a very accurate description of these posts on this thread -

[D23MIURG23]

120. No it isn't, and here is an arguement against all your points.

Religion is different. It goes to the very heart of a person. When you attack it, remember that you attack the religious. The religious are not all "over there" in the rightwing aisle. Many are your fellow Democrats, Liberals, Progressives. Many are DUers.

and

Religion is NOT like politics. Politics is temporal. Religion goes to a much deeper place in people. If you attack the religious, its almost like attacking their being. Commentaries like yours is nothing but a hunt to find reasons to bash the religious. A very bad move, since so much of what liberalism/progressivism has accomplished was because of religious leaders (MLK).

I just want to point out that until the advent of the modern constitutional republic you couldn't even talk about politics without including religion. The two have had a long and incestuous relationship, and are so inseparable that you can't even try to rebut me without bringing up MLK and other political issues. Your distinction here is highly artificial, and I'm not sure what you even mean by this:

It goes to the very heart of a person. When you attack it, remember that you attack the religious.

So, I've been through 3 distinct sets of religious beliefs in my life, and I'm currently an atheist. Are you trying to tell me that I've been 4 distinctly different people? Because that is the implication, and I can assure you that it is false. Attacking a religious belief is not attacking a religious person, anymore than disagreeing with a scientific opinion is attacking a scientist. People often take it personally when you disagree with their opinions, but the distinction between personal and doctrinal/theoretical still has meaning.

I note from your comments that you are very focused on the conclusions of religion as a defense for it. I find that curious considering you said that...

That's what Reaganism did. It sought to "make people comfortable with their prejudices again".

when this is exactly what religion does. This is underscored by your catholic friends who apparently disagree with the mortal man supposed to the infallible representation of Jesus on earth, except when he confirms their biases. Which is fine, except that if you are going that route, why not just dispense with the infallible old windbag and form your own conclusions based on reason and evidence?

Lets be clear; MLK was a preacher, but the idea that you should allot the same civil rights to black people and other minority groups that white people enjoy does not require a religious justification in order to make sense. By contrast the bible was heavily used by southern slave owners 100 years prior to the civil rights movement, in order to assure everyone that there was an ethical basis for keeping humans as chattel. Try justifying that with a modern moral philosophy.

I won't answer the rest because religion is not on trial and does not need to "prove" a God or Gods to you at all. That is your choice, to embrace it or not. Now see if you can do the religious the same service they do you in showing you respect for your beliefs and your world views.

Religion doesn't need to prove anything, and people have a right to their beliefs. I also have rights; I have a right to speak my mind on religion, and criticize the fact that religious people are always making claims that they can't back up, and doing things that don't make sense. If some beliefs can't coexist with reasonable criticism, that isn't my problem.

I don't find that atheism is particularly respected among religious people, although liberal religious people are often less pejorative in their demeanor than conservatives. But I end up laughing a lot because everyone tells me they will "pray for me" and it hasn't worked yet.

To be clear I don't discriminate against people by their religious affiliations. There is a distinction to be made between criticizing young earth creationism (which is a religious belief for some people) and not accepting explanations based on Noah's flood in high school geology papers, and giving Christian students a failing grade in geology simply for being affiliated with Christianity. I am the kind of person who would do the former things but not the latter. I hope you can see the difference there. One is an issue of ideas, the other an issue of identity/affiliation.

[KonaKane]

123. As long as religion stays out of politics, I'm with you 100%.

I have never said anything different.

[RainDog]

125. excellent post. n/t

[RainDog]

108. EXACTLY n/t

[ret5hd]

69. dooga dooga dooga dooga dooga?

[Dogtown]

70. Exactly, Cleobulus

It's a matter of "faith"...

:eyes:

[aikoaiko]

9. I agree.

I was about 20 when that happened (and already a non-practicing Catholic) and I thought she was talking about the common corporal punishment priests and nuns used against children in schools and orphanages.



I had no idea she was talking about sexual abuse and I don't recall her speaking of it directly.

[zipplewrath]

84. Yup

You do something like that to GET attention. Once you have it, you'd better be prepared to then use it. She just kept being outrageous.

[daggahead]

5. I remember watching SNL and thinking how bold that was.

Being a former Catholic myself, I had no problem with what she did. She was booed off of the stage just a few days later at a concert in New Jersey.

What was amazing about that was not that she got booed off of the stage, but how so many people were afraid to, and failed to question anything the Catholic Church stood for.

[aikoaiko]

7. If I recall correctly, Kris Kristofferson came to her, they embraced, and he escorted off the stage

I always admired Kris for his support of Sinead when it counted.

[peace frog]

11. Yes, he embraced her just as she burst into tears

because it was clear the audience rejected her message. Good on KK for his sensitivity.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

21. I don't know where the concert took place, but here's the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1a1IHIG5Gw

[Ilsa]

73. KK is One of The Best Things (People) to come out of Texas.

The man is insightful and brilliant. I didn't know he had supported her through this. Good on him!

[aikoaiko]

75. It's true. I got the chance to see him sing solo this past January.

It was a pleasure. He still sings Sister Sinead, too.

[Coventina]

77. What a beautiful song! Here are the lyrics for those not familiar (like me)

I`m singing this song for my sister sinead
Concerning the god awful mess that she made
When she told them her truth just as hard as she could
Her message profoundly was misunderstood

There`s humans entrusted with guarding our gold
And humans in charge of the saving of souls
And humans responded all over the world
Condemning that bald headed brave little girl

And maybe she`s crazy and maybe she ain`t
But so was picasso and so were the saints
And she`s never been partial to shackles or chains
She`s too old for breaking and too young to tame

It`s askin` for trouble to stick out your neck
In terms of a target a big silhouette
But some candles flicker and some candles fade
And some burn as true as my sister sinead


And maybe she`s crazy and maybe she ain`t
But so was picasso and so were the saints
And she`s never been partial to shackles or chains
She`s too old for breaking and too young to tame

on edit: typo!!

[Arugula Latte]

16. It's amazing that if something has the label of religion, you're not supposed to say jack about it.

Even here on DU.

To me, all belief systems are open to criticism. Just because something is "Faith" :eyes: doesn't make it immune.

[KonaKane]

43. Sure you can say jack about it. But realize that it's held sacred by billions

around the world. That's not an endorsement or a criticism, that's just the way it is. I say the same thing about the stupidity of going out of your way to piss off Muslims by defaming Mohammad. What's it gaining you, or anyone else?

[Arugula Latte]

45. So much horrible, stupid, ridiculous/harmful stuff is done/said in the name of religion.

MORE people need to challenge it, not fewer, IMO.

[KonaKane]

46. In the name of alot of things. Singling out religion is not only disingenous,

it's stupid and antithetical to much left/progressive thought which holds that tolerance and making alliances with humanity is a premium.

If you actually think you are going to advance any of that by making enemies of a religious majority of the world population, who are 90% peaceful, hardworking and loving people, then I am here to tell you that you are terribly wrong.

[D23MIURG23]

90. Making the argument that a particular institution can't be singled out...

because it isn't the only one causing malicious action is disingenuous.

Is the republican party the only source of problems in our country?

People on this website single republicans out all the time; but lots of republicans consider their party to be beyond question, and I know some of those people are decent people. That doesn't mean I can't criticize their ideas, work against their politicians, and ultimately be friends with them at the end of the day.

Religion isn't any different. Its a real problem that thousands of people every year do evil and misguided things that they wouldn't otherwise because they are being misguided by the self appointed representatives of deities for which there is no evidence. The appropriate response to that problem isn't to point out that it isn't the only source of iniquity.

As for what criticism of religion gets us; it firstly acclimates people to the idea that religion is not beyond criticism. If you can agree that some religious edicts are damaging to education and social justice, then I don't see why you should see a problem with criticism directed at those edicts. Religions have become accustomed to the idea that they can claim whatever they want free of scrutiny, but if the ideas made by religion can't handle the same level of scrutiny weathered by those of all other disciplines, then what good are they exactly?

In regards to "draw Muhammad day" (which you seemed to be referencing in your last post) this was a response to the Islamic practice of attempting murder and making death threats against those who depict Muhammad and criticize Islam. The point of the Muhammad drawing was to demonstrate that non-muslims are not subject to the religious laws of Islam, and will not be censored by tantrums from religionists who feel entitled to adjust the rules of our discourse to match their sensibilities.

I could go on.

But rather than ranting anymore I'd like to ask a question:

What piece of wisdom or moral philosophy can be found in a religion that isn't directly contradicted by another part of the same doctrine, or derivable from ordinary, secular reasoning?

[KonaKane]

94. False equivalency.

Religion is NOT like politics. Politics is temporal. Religion goes to a much deeper place in people. If you attack the religious, its almost like attacking their being. Commentaries like yours is nothing but a hunt to find reasons to bash the religious. A very bad move, since so much of what liberalism/progressivism has accomplished was because of religious leaders (MLK).

I won't answer the rest because religion is not on trial and does not need to "prove" a God or Gods to you at all. That is your choice, to embrace it or not. Now see if you can do the religious the same service they do you in showing you respect for your beliefs and your world views.

[RainDog]

101. so much of what progressivism has accomplished was done by union members

who died for their beliefs. those beliefs were not religious in nature. those actions came long before MLK. MLK used the ONLY venue he had - a church - to argue for human rights. The thrust of democracy and human rights over the entire course of history has consisted of moving away from blind superstition to an appreciation of the ethical value of positions regarding human rights. Religion is not needed for this and often impedes this process, as we have seen in this nation over the last 30 years.

if someone wants to believe ANYTHING - that is their right. However, it is NOT their right to claim that this is a reality that may be imposed upon others. It is not their right to claim that no one can point out the fallacy of these positions.

you write as tho religious beliefs are inborn and unchangeable. this is not true. religious beliefs are taught to children, usually, who do not have the critical faculties to examine the truth of those beliefs. many, if not most adults come to a point in their lives in which they realize that the comforting stories they were told as children were just that - stories to allay the fear of the unknown. This is also known as the process of becoming an adult.

when I was child I spoke as a child, but now, as an adult, it is entirely reasonable to come face to face with reality and to question things - is Santa Claus real? If an adult wanted to maintain a belief in Santa Claus, would you defend that right and tell someone else they have no right to note that Santa is an absolute fabrication? (beyond the guy, Nikolas, who lived in the past and tried to help children?)

If this is your position - what can you really bring to the current conversation about the ways in which this nation should be governed? This is the same sort of tactic that is used to manipulate people - to encourage beliefs that are not based upon fact, to encourage beliefs that allow them to attempt to deny civil rights to others, equal rights to privacy for women under the law - rights of women to make their own choices in consultation with their doctors rather than some ignorant voodoo pseudo-linguistic manipulation about the "unborn" that allows certain religious believers to think they have the right to deny women the right to privacy.

THIS BELIEF - that adults have the right to make decisions about their own lives without the interference of superstitions, is what is CORE for people who live in a democracy. This nation was founded upon the premise of overthrowing the MYTH of the divine right of kings, a myth that perpetuated by keeping people in religious shackles.

so, honestly, if you think it's more important to allow certain believers the comfort of their ignorance - you position is antithetical to the entire course of the Englightment - the basis for our very governing philosophy. But it is important to understand this position - to know those who hold this opinion - so that others can factor this into anything they have to say - how much of what they say is an attempt to bring something worthwhile to the table of democracy and how much is an attempt to pacify infantile projections.

[KonaKane]

112. I support you wholeheartedly when it comes to keeping others beliefs from imposition over us

in the form of laws or any other intrusion of faith on government. Absolutely. I am four square in favor of separation of church and state.

But that's not the case 95% of the time here on DU, when someone launches an attack on the beliefs of others by deriding their "imaginary friend " or other put downs. It is inconsiderate and not a way for an enlightened person to act.

What we are asking is not outrageous. It's a modicum of respect for your peers here. If you can't manage to bring yourself to do that, I dont see how you can call yourself progressive, liberal or anything of the kind.

[RainDog]

119. but enlightened people did just that

they ridiculed the beliefs that allowed injustice to continue. Why? because they recognized that a failure to challenge these beliefs allows them to fester and infect the body politic.

Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the mothers of feminism, noted that we must get away from the myths of prometheus and adam and eve because they were the embodiment of mental slavery.

Thomas Paine wrote entire tracts that excoriated religious belief b/c he understood those beliefs - those monotheisms with kings - were the narratives of slaves and slaveholders, not free men and women.

Thomas Jefferson cut the bible into pieces to remove the lies and maintain the humanistic teachings of Jesus - and this document remains as s testament to his belief that knowledge should be shared - knowledge of lies, for instance.

What respect should I show toward someone who wants to deny EVERY scientific field and deny reality in order to maintain a lie about how humans came into existence?

What respect should I show toward someone who thinks women should be brood mares because of their religious beliefs?

What respect should I show toward someone who thinks that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated like humans? Who TORTURE them with "re-education" training to "undo" their homosexuality - the belief goes against reality and harms children - it is abuse.

What respect should I show toward a religious organization that has spent decades providing cover for pedophiles and continues, to this day, to blame the victim - or to blame homosexuals and attempt to equate the two situations?

What respect should I show toward a religion that believes females should be sequestered behind walls, beneath burkas, and refused an education? (specifically the Taliban and the Wahabbist sects of Islam)

I cannot and do not speak for any and everyone here who makes a statement about belief or lack thereof. However to find some equivalency between a belief that god is in the universe vs a belief that god created the entire world in 7 human days is ridiculous. If people hold that second belief - they are outside of reality. We generally do not show respect for people who claim they are Napoleon - tho we may pity them, but we do not say, oh, that's your belief and I respect your right to have it. When someone who holds that belief wants to make himself emperor that you see a backlash. And that's what you see here.

Religion that is inserted into political life, religion that seeks to harm children - those are the things I speak up against. Religion that lies - and you say that it is necessary to show respect for lies because people believe them.

There is nothing progressive or liberal about that at all.

That's merely trying to hold people hostage to others' ignorance.

[KonaKane]

121. Nonsense. That's simply a list of reasons to excuse bigotry and hate.

There are plenty of people of intelligence, wit, rationality and great love who cleave to a given faith. For you to dismiss them for that alone is the epitome of ignorance.

[RainDog]

128. you mean it is a list of reasons from the religious to excuse bigotry and hate, I would assume.

you really have nothing of value to say to me if you cannot understand what I just wrote.

with that, I will put you on ignore because I find you tiresome. best wishes.

[KonaKane]

130. You assume wrong.

I perfectly well understood what you wrote, I just disagree with it and the reasons you posted it.

The fact that you had the need to log long post after long post to justify a reason to show disrespect to some of your fellows here, and then put me on ignore just because I wasn't buying it, speaks volumes.

[RainDog]

136. the reason I posted those things is that I could not believe your stance

...that you could be so obnoxious and think that you have any business telling anyone here what to think or do.

so, I took you off ignore to tell you that I wasn't selling anything. that speaks volumes, or it should.

the truth is that if you are supposed to represent "tolerance" on DU - I pity others here who have to tolerate you.

[Arugula Latte]

110. Meh.

Too many religious people think they can just spout off whatever anti-women, anti-gay, anti-science crap they want because it's "faith." That is such b.s. They need to be called on it.

[KonaKane]

113. Then criticize those opinions. You don't need to attack someone's entire faith

because I can almost guarantee that faith will have devotees in circles of people who are your friends, family and allies.

[Arugula Latte]

138. I don't respect "faith."

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." -- Mark Twain.

[Ignis]

22. I remember watching it live, and thinking how brave she was.

That appearance didn't kill her career, exactly, but it certainly made her persona non grata in much of the world.

[Warpy]

8. Those of us who had left the church in disgust believed her

I thought the whole furor was beyond stupid, but I'm not a believer.

The 90s were the height of millennial fever when people were clinging to religion to get them through it, additionally.

O'Connor didn't have a chance.

Now she looks prescient.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. She was ahead of the pack and I like the Facebook idea:

>>>A Facebook page has even been started called "Apologize to Sinead O'Connor NOW.">>>

[TheKentuckian]

12. I did. Others were not so receptive to her message because they cannot stomach

any challenge to the "common wisdom" or fret about "combative tone" as if that has similar footing as things like truth, justice, and caring for the innocent in our trust.

[CoffeeCat]

13. Because the catholic church had been successful...

...at covering up the sexual abuse, and also shutting up the victims.

The rape of children went on for decades. They had this all locked down.
The priests would serially rape children, the higher ups would find out
about it, and the bishops, cardinals and even the Pope silenced the victims
and covered up the crimes--then shuffled around the serial-rapist priests.

This was a highly organized, deliberate pedophile mill.

No other organization, in the history of this planet--besides NAMBLA--has
enabled pedophiles, covered their crimes, silenced the victims and put
KNOWN serial pedophiles in positions of power with access to a fresh supply
of innocent victims.

The catholic church hierarchy put a great deal of energy, time and resources
into keeping this going.

It was only when the VICTIMS refused to keep silent--that their crimes were unearthed.

The process of victims recognizing their abuse, understanding that the abuse was not
their fault--and finally, speaking out--is a relatively new phenomena. In the 50's and 60's
victims rarely spoke out. Now, there is a great deal more education and "good touch bad touch"
programs in schools.

Victims are now able to recognize what happened to them as "abuse." Pedophiles are incrediblY
skilled at convincing victims that the abuse was their fault and that they won't be believed,
or that they participated in it--thus shaming them into silence.

As horrific as this sick institution is---we are improving as a society--when it comes to
dealing with sexual abuse. We have a long way to go--but the fact that the church has
been humiliated, vilified and exposed--is a testament to the progress that humanity has
made when it comes to childhood sexual crimes and victimization.

[Bonobo]

14. Or Frank Zappa much earlier.

"Tax the churches. Tax the property owned by the churches. Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

-The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing.

[Arugula Latte]

15. I watched that happen and stood up and cheered when she did that.

[NC_Nurse]

18. I remember thinking she was right back then and I still think she's right.

I've always thought the Vatican mafia was creepy, but I'm not Catholic and really don't understand the appeal of the faith. So what do I know?

[Sebastian Doyle]

19. The fact that a lot of high profile Catholic celebrities dogpiled her, certainly didn't help.

Frank Sinatra actually said he would personally kick her ass. Gee, threatening violence against a woman? Real classy there, old Blue Eyes. I doubt Frank had a clue what Sinead was really talking about though.

JP was a popular Pope. I wonder if the reaction might have been different if it was Ratzinger?

[H2O Man]

20. I liked her before that,

and liked her much more after.

Good OP. Thanks.

[closeupready]

23. She spoke about this recently (March 2010) in an interview with the LA Times:

It seems like she embraces the church but attacks the hierarchy (which deserves it for how it handled the pedophilia):

>>What should the Irish people do?

It's the good-hearted, sweet Catholic people who go to Mass still despite all of this -- they are the people who have the power in their hands to get the Vatican on its knees and confess. . . . How these people can do that is by refusing to go to Mass, boycott them until they actually come to their knees and confess. . . .

Yet you still consider yourself a Catholic?

I'm a Catholic, and I love God. . . . That's why I object to what these people are doing to the religion that I was born into. . . .<<

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/24/world/la-fg-sinead-qa25-2010mar25

[NashVegas]

24. Speak For Yourself

There were plenty of us who knew exactly what that act was all about and we cheered her on, as our peers - that's the rest of you - looked at us like we were nuts.

If we'd told you then, what it was all about, you would have shrugged your shoulders and said we should get over it and get on with our lives. Some of you did, in fact.

[Coventina]

25. Is your post directed at me, personally?

Because I will admit (and I thought I did admit) that I did not understand her actions at that time.

What erupted afterwards was a huge campaign to discredit and silence O'Connor who seemed to be a lone voice, at the time. I was a huge fan of hers, I didn't stop listening to her music and buying her albums. And, I was a dumb kid, I'll admit that freely as well. I didn't try to find out the truth of the matter, but I never thought that she was nuts. I respected her too much for that.

And I never, EVER would have told the victims of abuse (of any kind) to "get over it".

[NashVegas]

30. More of a Universal "You"

I ask you not to take it personally.

[Coventina]

26. I guess the person who unrecced the thread is pro-child abuse...n/t

[atomic-fly]

27. I did not realize the extent of her message back then

but now it makes much more sense. I thought it was more
against religion for creating wars. I'm sure she knew of abused
people growing up in Ireland.
I was not put off by it then, but not embracing it either.
Now that I understand it more, I embrace what she is saying

[walldude]

31. K&R!

[robdogbucky]

32. She spoke somewhat from experience

when she expressed her rage at the church on that show. She had been an inmate of the infamous Magdalene Asylum, of which a rather powerful movie has been made since that time.

As I read it, she was sent there for truancy and uncontrollability, when living with her father, who was "separated," from her mother (remember there is no divorce in the church). Her mother was the bad actor in that household apparently and she chose to run from her mother, who was awarded custody and to stay with her da' Her experience in that "reformatory," went far to cultivate her rage for the institution of the church. It did not crush her and her dad got her out of there and sent her to a more reasonable school after that, in which her singing and songwriting talents were discovered:

"...In 1979, O'Connor left her mother and went to live with her father and his new wife. However, her shoplifting and truancy led to her being placed in a Magdalene Asylum<3> at age 15, the Grianán Training Centre run by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity. In some ways, she thrived there, especially in writing and music, but she also chafed under the imposed conformity. Unruly students there were sometimes sent to sleep in the adjoining nursing home, an experience of which she later commented, "I have never — and probably will never — experience such panic and terror and agony over anything."<4>

One of the volunteers at Grianan was the sister of Paul Byrne, drummer for the band In Tua Nua, who heard O'Connor singing "Evergreen" by Barbra Streisand. She recorded a song with them called "Take My Hand" but they felt that at 15, she was too young to join the band.

In 1983, her father sent her to Newtown School, an exclusive Quaker boarding school in Waterford, an institution with a much more permissive atmosphere than Grianan. With the help and encouragement of her Irish language teacher, Joseph Falvey, she recorded a four-song demo, with two covers and two of her own songs which later appeared on her first album.

Through an ad she placed in Hot Press in mid-1984, she met Columb Farrelly. Together they recruited a few other members and formed a band called Ton Ton Macoute, named for the ruthless Tonton Macoute, the Haitian secret police. However, a 1991 biography <2> incorrectly claimed this name refers to Haitian zombies. The band moved to Waterford briefly while O'Connor attended Newtown, but she soon dropped out of school and followed them to Dublin, where their performances received positive reviews. Their sound was inspired by Farrelly's interest in witchcraft, mysticism, and world music, though most observers thought O'Connor's singing and stage presence was the band's driving force..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O'Connor



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[truedelphi]

37. Asa huge fan of Sinead's, thank you.

I have pieced together little bits and pieces of her life from her songs. But that is some life she's lived.

I barely survived (like so many others) just your average every day Catholic Grammar and then HS. Her being an inmate at Magdalena - Wow.

She is an amazing song writer, and possesses an amazing voice. i was so sorry when her career ended. Just for speaking the truth in this sad country that has a really shitty media, a media that always helps the People in Power stay in power.

[slampoet]

33. Who is this fucking WE ? I listened.

[Coventina]

34. The world, as a collective whole, didn't listen. That's what I mean by "we."

Judging by the responses on the thread, most DUers did listen, but were in the extreme minority.

I certainly didn't mean to imply the DU community by my use of "we." So it was not a slam against you personally.

Kudos to you for standing by her and remaining her fan.

[Generic Brad]

36. The world was not ready to ask "Why" back then

No one asked her why she made such a charged statement. Instead, she was universally condemned. I don't ever remember anyone asking her why she did that after it happened.

[femrap]

39. I can't believe

that was 18 years ago...Goddess, I'm old.

I remember everyone (even Lefties) getting upset over it. I applauded her. But I don't like any of the organized religions.

[KonaKane]

41. I'm not Catholic, but vandalizing other peoples' religious symbols...

be they current day leaders or objects....certainly won't endear many to your cause. As much as I agree with Seannaid's views on just about anything, all this did was backfire on her and for obvious reasons.

She is much too intelligent and creative to have defaulted to such a stupid thing. She has accomplished so much more just by speaking out and writing/performing her music about these issues.

[Coventina]

47. O'Connor is Catholic, so she "vandalized" her own religious symbol

to bring attention to horrific crimes being committed by that religious figure.

It wasn't like she was an outsider. Did you read the article or listen to the interview at the link? She's not out to destroy the Catholic church. She wants the criminals booted out and prosecuted.

[KonaKane]

57. Yes, I'm aware of that. But she will be argued with by those who think John Paul II

was certainly not a criminal. Ripping up his picture lost her more support than her speaking out and her songs gained her on that note. I'm not against her views. I support her views. It's her tactics that were questionable.

[Coventina]

72. If JPII was part of the cover-up (and it's looking more and more like he was)

than he most certainly was a criminal and O'Connor was fully justified in tearing up a picture of him. This is the bottom line: She had been speaking out about abuse in the church but NO ONE WAS LISTENING! It's not surprising then that she resorted to a dramatic gesture on live television.

Maybe it wasn't the BEST thing she could have done, but she did what she could with the platform she had. Maybe she should have been more explicit and said, "The Pope is complicit in the rape of children in Ireland." But you know what? I'll be that would have gotten her into MORE trouble than she actually ended up with. She probably would have been prosecuted for slander and had the FCC lodge obscenity charges on her.

[KonaKane]

97. Then investigate it. I agree with O'Connors views. Not always her tactics.

And the reason should be obvious. When you vandalize or demean the symbols of one's faith, you don't create enlightenment or understanding. You shut minds. Slam them down. The reaction to her ripping the picture of the Pope was that it merely galvanized the feelings against her. She hurt her own case.

I understand that it was out of pure desparation, but that doesnt make it right or effective. In this case, sure wasnt. I say the same thing about the Mohammad cartoons. Yes, I get the point that people are expressing their freedom. But in doing it that way, you are intentionally creating more rancor than you want to solve in the end. It accomplishes little, and damages much.

[Coventina]

105. So what you seem to be saying is that the Pope is untouchable because

he is a "symbol" of the Catholic faith?

That even a believing Catholic (which O'Connor professes to be) cannot tear up a reproduced image of him without it automatically being an attack on all of her fellow Catholics?

I don't think I am quite understanding your arguments on this thread. You seem to be thinking that this thread is some sort of argument against religion. I can't speak for all the other posters on this thread but I'm the OP and I am a person of faith. The subject of the OP, Sinead O'Connor, is a person of faith. This thread was never intended to be about attacking believers.

on edit: clarity

[KonaKane]

115. Not what I'm saying at all. The way she chose to attack that pope was the issue

because it worked against her laudible views and alienated more people than won them over.

I repeat, you don't make many friends to whatever cause you have, in the religious community, by tearing apart their symbols. Try reason and a little empathy. You'll get further.

[RainDog]

134. this person wants to censor any criticism of pedophilic organizations

homophobic organizations... because it's just rude to acknowledge the corruption of the entire structure of the catholic church that allowed Maciel, for instance, to fuck his own seven year old son.

how dare you mention that!!

[Cleobulus]

54. No offense, but compared to what religions do to PEOPLE, symbols don't mean shit...

I hate this fucking stupidity of the veneer of respect just because some organization or set of beliefs are religious.

[KonaKane]

56. Religions don't do that. People misappropriating religion, do that.

Lets keep it straight.

[Cleobulus]

58. No, let's not, because its not the truth...

When the Catholic Church, for example, LIES about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spreading of AIDS in Africa, killing millions, is that a "misappropriation" of religion?

[KonaKane]

65. Yup, thats a misappropriation of a faith. By people, not the concept of religion.

Who made such a stupid announcement? Men did, not a "religion". When you defame Catholicism in general you also defame good Catholics who are not pedophiles or criminals, who are good people and live good lives.

I don't know what the big rush is to make enemies of people of faith, but its not only UN-liberal it is a dumb thing to do.

[Cleobulus]

66. Who's defaming Catholicism? I was raised Catholic, I know all about the stupidity...

and Guilt. I'm accusing the Catholic CHURCH of being a misogynist, abusive and a downright murderous organization. Are you going to tell me I'm wrong?

This has nothing to do with the laity, they have no power in the Church.

[KonaKane]

67. When you accuse the individuals, I agree with you 100%.

I am taking exception to those religion critics who, like grinning, giggling crocodiles take glee in insulting people of faith here with the "giant imaginary friend in the sky" crap. They are really doing good people who happen to have a religion, and this place, a disservice.

[Cleobulus]

68. People can be good and have frankly strange or silly beliefs...

frankly I think religious people are WAY too oversensitive about this on DU, especially considering their own attitudes that come across in their posts on DU regarding Gays and Atheists. Seriously, Atheists may mock the religious for their beliefs, and then the Religious fire right back with outright personal attacks. Some people just simply can't take even the smallest criticism of their beliefs, to the extent where they make a mockery of those beliefs and their "superior" morality.

[KonaKane]

95. "Silly" is in the eye of the beholder.

The point is, do you have the ability to show some respect to your fellows even though they have a different creed than you do? We do it for color, gender, race, and sexual orientation. When did we suddenly cut the "creed" part out?

Many atheists here on DU do not "criticize" religion. They demean and defame it, knowing full well that they do the same to the many believers of different faiths here on this forum. When people like myself (although admittedly damn few of us) decide to stand up and defend against such meanspirited belittling, we are accused of personal attacks. But if you carefully review the posting history here, you will not find any. At least not from me. All I do on this issue is defend, and I do it with a constant eye on keeping some respect for my Democratic comrades here, who unlike me, might be atheists.

I would love to see DU grow out of this embarrassing dishonor of ganging up on the religious here. The new rules have promised to address that, and it was a step in the right direction. But the proof is in the pudding. We shall see.

[Cleobulus]

106. Frankly no, because people with the characteristics you mentioned...

have immutable characteristics, they had no choice in how they were born. Religion isn't the same at all, and frankly I find it all to be primitive iron age superstition, if that's demeaning it, tough, that's my sincere belief.

Not all beliefs are according automatic respect, period, that's a stupid position to take. They must be weighed on their merits.

[KonaKane]

116. You don't have to agree with someone's choice of belief. But you should respect their choice

Because CREED is one of the pillars of equality we pride ourselves on protecting.

Whether you think its iron age superstition or whatever, remember there are some who hold that belief to the core of their soul. As long as they are good people, and have views that you otherwise value in a comrade, why can't you get over yourself and show a little respect?

[Cleobulus]

133. You are deliberately confusing two issues, the first being respect for someone's beliefs, and...

the other is respecting the right those people have to those beliefs. I have no problem with the second statement, and huge problems with the first. I don't care if someone holds a belief to the core of their soul, frankly, if the belief is silly or wrong in some way, I'll call them on it.

[RainDog]

137. but this person is telling you to censor yourself to please him

isn't that special?

[D23MIURG23]

91. You think the Pope would agree with you about that?

I always find it intersting that people's ideas of what is and isn't a "true" religious sentiment tend to line up with their own opinions.

I also don't think you have a single leg to stand on regarding your characterizations of Catholicism and Liberalism. I think the Pope is the actual authority on what is and isn't a "misappropriation" of catholic doctrine, and I think its the ultimate in conservatism to side with tradition over truth and public health.

[KonaKane]

96. The pope is a man. A mortal one.

I know many, many Catholics who disagree with this guy on just about everything. That doesn't mean they have ditched their faith - it means they have a quibble with its leading authority. The same case was with the Mormons when I was growing up. Tons of them who couldn't stand the church leaders but still held on to their mormon beliefs.

Again, it all gets down to respect for the creed differences of your fellows. I believe real liberals/progressives can easily do that.

[JuniperLea]

42. Too many thought she was a kook...

I have a friend who is an ex-seminarian... I've seen his unspoken pain... and I've seen Sinead's... after the initial shock of seeing her rip up a picture of the Pope, I got it.

I was sucked into thinking JPII was a good man too... I don't believe any Pope deserves that kind of pass... not now.

[fascisthunter]

44. At the Time I was Repulsed by how obedient people were to the Pope

She really opened my eyes up... say anything or do anything to challenge power and be met with unanimous disdain, even if the message was right.

[devilgrrl]

48. I remember privately thinking that she was spot on!

:thumbsup:

[bigwillq]

49. K and R (nt)

[SunnySong]

50. The Irish listened to her... They were dropping the chuch about ten

years before America.

[Skittles]

51. some of us agreed with Ms. O'Connor in 1992

yup

[thelordofhell]

52. And then Joe Pesci came on Saturday Night Live the following week

He used part of his monologue to say he would have done something bad to Sinead O'Connor if he was there and got a big round of applause. Then he was in a sketch called "The Bensonhurst Dating Game" where the whole point of the sketch was to slam a black man for being on the panel of guys trying to date the white woman.

Stay classy SNL

[KonaKane]

98. Joe Pesci is an ass.

He always has been. A nasty little man with an anger problem. He has been in and out of court on various assault charges, sometimes with complete strangers.

[caraher]

53. I don't think her message was clear to most people

I only recently learned *why* she did that. Absent the context of the scandal in Ireland, it looked like a random crazy act, and the media wasted no time in pushing that narrative.

[donco6]

64. What's this "we" stuff?

I loved her for it, and still do.

[Iggo]

71. We did.

[TNDemo]

74. Hi Coventina.

:hi:

[Coventina]

76. Hey there!!!!

How's it going???

How was your son's trip to India?

[TNDemo]

78. He had a great time.

I thought his girlfriend was a bit of a hothouse flower but I have to hand it to her for riding a camel into the desert and sleeping in a tent on a sand dune. They did a lot of city stuff too. He has been to Taiwan on business a couple of times since then. Got to experience an earthquake on the 15th floor of a 17 story building, which swayed around but was built well for earthquakes. We had our natural disaster here last month, the flood, and I was in one of the hardest hit areas. My house escaped but more than half my neighborhood went under. First major flood I have ever experienced. Hope it's the last. Are the fires getting near you?

[Coventina]

81. Oh wow! So glad you weren't flooded out! I hope your neighbors

are getting the help they need!

The fires are not near us, thankfully. They are in the northern area of the state. So, our 4th of July camping trip may get canceled, but our homes are safe. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who live in the area who can't say the same. :-(

[SemperEadem]

79. because we were pompous and thought we knew more about

her experiences than she did.

[Raster]

80. I watched. I agreed and cheered her on. And I still do.

I have not wavered. Institutionalized organized religion is the bane of human existence.

[Deep13]

82. I agreed with her then. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. so did i. nt

[AlbertCat]

85. Why didn't we listen to Sinead O'Connor in 1992?

Because I didn't like her music that much.


Oh you mean her rant on the Pope!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

87. I remember defending her actions to my coworkers

I was the only one sticking up for her and what she was trying to do. I guess we were both right. I love what she did back then and she is still a strong voice on this subject.

[California Griz]

88. I try and remind people we didn't just revolt from a king but

from a feudal system sanctified by the church. I was with her all the way.

[KonaKane]

118. I highly doubt the "founders" sought to create a society in which faith was demeaned

They held to a variety of beliefs (contrary to Christian fundamentalists who claim they were all "Christians" in the modern sense of the word). First and foremost they sought to create a nation of free people with rights to protect them. One of those rights was the freedom to believe as one's conscience dictated, or not believe.

[cate94]

89. I didn't get it at the time.

I thought it was annoying and a stunt, but I still liked her music. In fact, I have never understood vilifying someone for one act or statement, and I really didn't buy into the anger directed at her.

Recently, I read about her teenage years and it made perfect sense. Now I admire her courage as well as her talent. I think it was unfortunate that her message wasn't more clear.

[KonaKane]

99. Alot of people didnt. That was the main problem.

She acted out of personal anger, and in doing so in front of such a large audience alienated a huge number of people she actually was trying to get through to.

Not to stray too far from topic, but this is what can happen when you get too focused on a single issue and let it fester to the point of blinding anger. You can lose sight of the bigger picture and how to make your point effective, and understood.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Who is "we"? I had no love for the Pope, even then.

I didn't particularly care for her music, but that particular act didn't really bother me, at all.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Because her music sucked....

At least that's why I never did listen to her. Seriously, such boring and dull music!

[Coventina]

107. Ha ha ha ha ha! OMG, you should write for Jay Leno!!! n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

139. I wasn't trying to be funny. Her music is so fucking boring...

And I've never needed someone who produces boring dross like that to 'tell' me anything...

[KonaKane]

129. I love her music. It's brilliant and timely.

Especially live...have you seen her perform?

[Violet_Crumble]

140. Nah, haven't seen her live...

She's not my style, I guess...

[Swamp Rat]

104. I did. eom