Getting cross about Madonna
That's Madonna performing her song on last year's world tour. The singer took part in a mock crucifixion scene wearing a crown of thorns. She says the performance was in support of Aids charities, but it cost her a prosecution in the Netherlands (of all places). Bizarrely enough, a Dutch priest was arrested after placing a hoax bomb call in an attempt to stop the show.
Which of these statements do you agree with?
(1) Madonna's performance was grossly offensive and she should be arrested if she tries it again.
(2) Madonna's performance may be offensive to some but it's a free country so get over it.
(3) Madonna's performance explored and interacted with religious imagery (and not for the first time) but this is no more offensive than a medieval .
(4) Madonna's performance contained more theological insight than most sermons I've ever heard.
(5) Madonna's performance got us all talking. And that was the point.
Comments
2, 3, 4 and 5
hi will ... i love madonna. people need to stop reading so much into this kind of thing. enjoy the music and pull your head out of the past.
by the way ... check this out ... i've come across a website mentioning your interview with the new church of ireland leader. these conservatives are calling for a national day of prayer for the archbishop because of the things he said to you in the interview. hilarious!
So what if it's blasphemy? Thats a legitimate statement too isnt it?
I agree with statements (2), (3) and possibly (5). I'm against (1) on principle, and I wouldn't be opposed to or surprised by (4) if it were in fact the case... which I don't think it is.
Such cynics! Madonna wouldn't deliberately try to shock people in a performance!!!! How could you think such a thing!?!
Madonna has a much right to borrow from the pagan mystery cults as the early Christians did. Why should anyone be upset? The reason is that the Christian religion historicized its metaphors at the beginning of the Enlightenment and now see them as their own factual history. However, just a quick trip through Google or Wikipedia will allow one to see just how much of the metaphors of Christianity lie to a large extent in the pagan mystery cults. Here are some cuttings from my own quick search:
Begin quotes......
The story of Jesus has a lot of parallels in for example Osiris/Dionysus - the details of Osiris' myth are: the God is killed and resurrected, after which he becomes immortal and goes into the beyond to be the God of the dead. Osiris' followers as resurrected believers were rewarded with eternal life. Inventio Osiridis celebrated the death of the God on October 28th, and His resurrection on November 3rd.
Dionysus' mom was the mortal woman, Semele; his dad was the supreme God Zeus. The mysteries of Dionysus celebrated the death of the God in the myth of young Dionysus-Zagreus, who died and was eaten. Only his heart was left; it was buried and from it Dionysus was resurrected and ascended to heaven.
Mithras with twelve disciples traveled as a teacher of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead. At the first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and incense was burned. Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," " Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God." His followers ate sacramental meals in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
Attis was born of the Virgin Nana on December 25th. He was both the Father
and the Divine Son. For the celebration of Attis' death and rebirth on March 22 a pine tree was brought to the sanctuary of Cybele, on it hung the effigy of Attis. The God was dead. Two days of mourning followed, but when night fell on the eve of the third day, March 25th, the worshippers turned to joy - the tomb was opened; the God had risen from the dead. The resurrection of the God was hailed by his disciples as a promise that they too would issue triumphant from the the grave. Attis' worshipers had a sacramental meal of bread and wine. The wine represented the God's blood; the bread became the body of the savoir. They were baptized in this way: a bull was placed over a grating, the devotee stood under the grating. The bull was stabbed with a spear. The blood poured through the apertures and was received by the worshiper...who had been born again to eternal life and had washed away his sins in the blood of the bull. In Rome the new birth and the remission of sins by shedding of bull's blood took place on what is now Vatican Hill, the site of the basilica of St.Peter's.
Buddha was by legend born from the side of the Virgin Maya on December 25th, announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts. He taught in temple at age 12, was tempted by Mara, the Evil One, while fasting, was baptized in water with the Spirit of God present, healed the sick, fed 500 from a small basket of cakes, walked on water, preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness, obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world. He died (on a cross, in some traditions), was buried but arose again after his tomb was opened by supernatural powers. Ascended into heaven (Nirvana) and will return in later days to judge the dead.
End quotes......
Madonna says she is using the metaphor of the crucifixion as a way to highlight the suffering caused by Aids. To use it in that way seems to be entirely appropriate.
Unfortunately, her fans may not understand the metaphor and certainly those who have historicized the metaphor do not understand it.
Therein lies the problem.
Regards,
Michael
Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but the Romans were supposed to have crucified people on a "T" bar, not what we would now recognise as a cross. The "Latin cross" arose from the Egyptian Ankh (the symbol of "life"), which had been used in Egyptian religion for over 3 millennia before Christianity came along. Coptic christians in Egypt still often use the Ankh.
The notion of the Trinity derives directly from the conflation of the triads of Osiris/Isis/Horus and Amun/Mut/Khonsu. When Horus was born, his "evil" brother Set (from which we probably got "Satan", although Set had a rather more rounded personality) tried to kill him, but his mother Isis placed him in a basket in the bulrushes in Egypt... sound familiar?
Good for Madonna. If nothing else, she is demonstrating that so much religion is purely based on imagery, rather than actuality. Might even make people (gasp) think!
When Madonna decides to ride across our television screens on a camel, dressed as Mohammed wearing a turban with a bomb in it, she'd better do it in America where we still think we have free speech. If she tries it in Denmark, France, or Britain, she'll be lucky to get out of the country alive. (It might be OK in Turkey as long as she doesn't wield a scimitar pretending to behead Armenians.)
RE Post 6.
for me all of this underlines the idea of religion as a potent meme (is this another way of saying metaphor Michael?). After all - christians are on the record as not really having conversations with god (ref: discussion of my credo) - there can be no explaining the spread of religion due to any inherent truth (ie those who know for sure if there is an afterlife or not in an empirical sense, are all dead).
Madonna is a canny operator - work the dna of ancient memes into your brand and of you go...Laughing all the way to the bank (even if this performance was for charity). Maybe she should chuck in a few monsters too...
It's all about the Brand. Reminds me of the Beckham discussion we had...
Re post 7 Amenhotep wrote:
"so much religion is purely based on imagery, rather than actuality"
True but the same can be said of science. When discussing spiritual things (love, hatred, suffering) one uses metaphors (or imagery as you used the term) while in science we use 'models'.
I grew up in Ireland at a time when it had a very fundamentalist/evangelical culture. I was taught that the bible was literally true and inerrant, and that unless I 鈥渂elieved鈥 and was 鈥渟aved鈥 I would be 鈥渓ost鈥.
I studied science in both high school and university and of course an apparent conflict between faith and reason soon entered my thinking. I also studied literature and came to understand that the methods that I applied to science - methods involving mathematics and models - could not be applied to a study of Shakespeare, Keats or Charles Dickens. To understand great plays, poems and novels one had to use metaphors and metaphorical language.
I grew to understand that science pursues factual truths 鈥 what is the nature of the atom for example 鈥 while religion and faith pursue intrinsic truths 鈥 what is the nature of forgiveness, what is meant by love etc. I also came to understand that the physical world was 鈥榤echanistic鈥 and thus we can exercise no free will over it. On the other hand, the metaphysical world does offer free will 鈥 one can choose whether or not to have anger or hatred etc.
Any concept that one develops can only be shared with another through the use of either a model or a metaphor 鈥 there are no other means available to us 鈥 and there is no conflict between either approach. Each approach is equally necessary and each is equally valid. Models use diagrams, or mathematics, in the physical world to explain phenomena such as the nature of gravity or the nature of atomic fusion. Metaphors use symbols and imagery in the metaphysical world to explain phenomena such as the nature of love, or the joy of laughter.
Metaphorical narratives are stories told about the relation between this world and the sacred. I think that the bible should be read mostly from this perspective 鈥 the perspective of metaphorical narrative. Thus, for example, I accept that the Genesis creation stories are metaphorically true (God created the universe) but do not portray a correct 鈥榤odel鈥 of His creation.
I suspect that the person Jesus and his teachings became widely accepted in the pagan world only when the story of his life was wrapped within the metaphorical traditions that were prevalent in the Middle East at that time. Thus Matthew and Luke placed his story within a virgin birth tradition and of course when he was actually (i.e. factually) crucified by the Romans this fit very nicely into the prevalent rising and dying Gods tradition.
Thus I think that the importance of Christianity is to understand Jesus as a 鈥榃ay鈥 and to understand what he taught and the wisdom he imparted and we need to begin educating those who live within the Christian tradition what the true factual origins of their metaphorical stories are.
If this sort of a debate results from the Madonna spectacle then it will have served a useful purpose even if that purpose was not the one intended by Madonna.
Regards,
Michael
Hi Michael,
Metaphors in religion are not the same as models in science. In science there *is* such a thing as the Wrong Answer, whereas in metaphysical speculation, people are free to go with whatever floats their particular boat. However, your "metaphor" is well taken; the imagery is a tool for people to navigate the rapids of their personal psyche (to return to the boat imagery). Different people will use different metaphors, and in the end it's all about communication. Madonna understands this exceptionally well (and it's hard not to *like* the lass).
Now I see that our pals in Derry are proposing a 160-foot concrete Columba for the middle of the Foyle, complete with bible and cross, and they're taking it for granted that it *won't* be controversial?? William - blog that one, man! Isn't that all imagery claiming the city for Jesus?
What about all us atheists and agnostics who regard the arrival of Christianity in Ireland as not exactly being an unalloyed Good Thing? What about a big old statue of someone without any "faith" connotations at all? Maybe Niall of the Nine Hostages (or maybe not - it was all his fault for kidnapping Patrick).
In post 11 Amenhotep wrote:
鈥淢etaphors in religion are not the same as models in science. In science there *is* such a thing as the Wrong Answer, whereas in metaphysical speculation, people are free to go with whatever floats their particular boat.鈥
Amenhotep: That鈥檚 not how I see metaphor. Let me repeat what I said in an earlier posting in a different thread with apologies to those who have read it before.
An example of a model in the outer reality is the symbol we use for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is modeled as a point in the center of a circle to symbolize a proton with another point on the circle鈥檚 circumference to represent an electron. We use language (in this case mathematical language) to deepen this model鈥檚 utility by writing equations to describe things protons and electrons 鈥榙o鈥. With the use of the model we have an understanding of how a 鈥榟ydrogen atom鈥 manifests itself but we still do not know what a hydrogen atom 鈥榠s鈥. We may find out that the model does not answer certain questions and so we look for a better model.
In the spiritual realm we use metaphors. Metaphors refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. An example of an archetype is the fictional hero Don Quixote de la Mancha. We can analyze Don Quixote's literary archetype and proceed to consider archetypal behavior and discuss the nature of quixotic behavior.
Just like models some metaphors are not very good in describing a situation and so we look for a better metaphor. Great metaphors are what make great poetry, literature and even, I would argue, great music.
Models and metaphors have both real and imaginary components. In mathematics, real and imaginary numbers are essential for describing outer world reality using models. Imaginary numbers have essential applications in areas such as signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics. Without imaginary numbers modern science would be paralyzed.
Likewise real and imaginary situations and persons are essential for describing spiritual reality using metaphors. Metaphor does not imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions.
So it isn鈥檛 either/or with respect to models and metaphors it is both/and. We are stuck in that anything we try to do to exchange ideas between one another can only be done through the use of either a model or a metaphor. Both are equal partners in human dialog.
Regards,
Michael
In post 9: Gee Dubyah wrote:
鈥淩E Post 6. for me all of this underlines the idea of religion as a potent meme - is this another way of saying metaphor Michael?"
I quote from
鈥淒awkins used the term to refer to any cultural entity (such as a song, an idea or a religion) that an observer might consider a replicator. He hypothesised that people could view many cultural entities as replicators, generally replicating through exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient (though not perfect) copiers of information and behaviour. Memes do not always get copied perfectly, and might indeed become refined, combined or otherwise modified with other ideas, resulting in new memes. These memes may themselves prove more (or less) efficient replicators than their predecessors, thus providing a framework for a theory of cultural evolution, analogous to the theory of biological evolution based on genes.鈥
Given the above I would accept that 鈥榤etaphorical stories鈥 constitute a 鈥榬eligion鈥 and that the set of stories is a 鈥榤eme鈥.
You also wrote: 鈥渢here can be no explaining the spread of religion due to any inherent truth鈥
On this I would disagree 鈥 I think that the metaphorical stories carry within them the intrinsic truths which makes the stories viable in the first place. For example, if you strip Christianity down to a single intrinsic truth it might be to 鈥榣ove one another鈥. It is this type of truth that is carried along by the metaphorical stories and thence the memes.
Regards,
Michael
Michael,
fair point on truth.
I was of course referring to the veracity of the claims of the religion in question and not the underlying message eg "to love one another".
The underlying messages are valid - one of the reasons having my kids at a church school doesnt bring me out in a cold sweat - essentially they are being taught good values.
The real trouble comes in when the wrapper of the meme (or the historicised religion as you would put it) becomes the raison d'etre.
Nobody else interested in saying which of Will's statements they agree with?
Re 15:
John: I guess what I have said puts me in agreement with Will's #3.
Michael
Michael #12
Actually that is not a very good model of a hydrogen atom at all. It is grossly oversimplified. The best model I've seen for hydrogen is the Neils Bohr equation which I think won him the Nobel Prize in Physics and is now over 100 years old. I'm sure we have even better models. In fact, even in the simplest notions of chemistry, your area of specialization, the electron around a hydrogen atom is viewed more analogously to a cloud. This model is modified by equations of Schroedenger and Heisenberg among others. There are also a slew of equations which govern the electrical fields of both the proton and electron and how they interact. These came from Maxwell, Ampere, Biot and Savart, Gauss, and Faraday among others,
It's number 2 and number 5 in my book.
Re 14:
"One of the reasons having my kids at a church school doesn't bring me out in a cold sweat - essentially they are being taught good values."
Gee:
IMHO if you and your wife have decided to give your children 'church school values' then even if you are an atheist I would suggest that you attend all 'church' activities with them. That way you can ensure throughout their formative years that while they learn 'good values' they don't learn things that they may have to unlearn later as teenagers and young adults. For example, you could help them in understanding the difference between metaphorical and factual truths. That will then equip them as young adults to arrive at their own understanding of the 'meaning of life' either as theists, atheists, or whatever.
Regards,
Michael
I would like to see Madonna do a show in which she pies Bush and Cheney in the face.
I think most would agree with points 2 and 5.
With regards to question 5, this has got us talking but is there really anything worth saying on this? Madonna is a self-publicist, so what? Like the BB thing last week - is there any substantive issue here at all?
The "Material Girl" who lives in a material world seems to have found a new source of material for her schtick. Good for her. I'm sure it will only add to her material wealth. As for here spiritual wealth whatever that means, how many people on this board have ever adpoted an unwanted orphan child from Africa? The rest of you would be do gooders talk, she DOES!
VS- I don't believe there's anything worthwhile theologically in her performance. It's merely a provocative stage piece as part of her live show..... period.