MD7 said:

Why, fcuz. These people have had centuries of practice
in cutting and pasting to their liking



Good for her. No matter what you think about it, stuff
like that takes guts. Or madness.

I'd like to believe it was guts. Good for her.

PANDURITO said:

Well, all those folks listed have the right to express themselves. They were not jailed for stating their beliefs. The flipside is that everyone who disagreed with them had the right to express themselves as well, even if that meant saying that their actions were inappropriate.

If Sinead or Lauryn Hill state their problems with the Pope, that's fine. They absolutely have the right to do that, but they have to understand that all the Catholics who were offended by their statements have the right to express their outrage as well.

I don't completely disagree with Ms Hill's statements, but I do think she could have been more diplomatic about it. She was disrespectful to her hosts, and that's not cool (she has the right to disrespect them, but I don't think it was a nice thing to do). I guarantee that if she had been in a mosque, and had said some anti-islamic statements, people would be all up in arms over it. The same principle holds here. She doesn't have to agree with her hosts, but she shouldn't attack them in their "home" so to speak.

I think she should have saved these comments for a different venue, or expressed her dissaproval by boycotting the concert altogether. She has many valid points, and I think they would have made more of an impact had she shown some class about it. As it is, it just came across as rude.

JediMaster said:

MUCH RESPECT FOR THIS WOMAN FOR SAYING IT IN THEIR FACES. YOU CRY THAT SHE'S BEING DISRESPECTFUL WHILE THE CHURCH IS DISGRACING ITSELF AND DISRESPECTING ALL OF HUMAN KIND. COME ON GET A LIFE.

:PIMP:

JediMaster said:

Whoa! Totally, entirely, and unequivocally correct.

For those who would agree with what Lauryn did and how she did it:

1. She is right to be outraged with the scandals in the Catholic church. Catholics like myself are as well. If she believes in God and justice then speak your mind about it. Jesus did the same thing.

2. But to agree to perform a song at a Catholic event with Catholic clergy in attendance and then rebuke the Catholic Church and perform a different song is sinful in and of itself. First of all, she was dishonest. Second of all, many faithful Catholics showed up in fellowship to enjoy her performance, and she insulted them.

She could have picked a better time and place to speak her mind and heart.

3. Lauryn Hill, like so many others (including, sadly, many orgers) displayed a patent ignorance of what Catholics believe and practice.

4. If you agree with Lauryn Hill, that's fine. But if you really want to know what Catholics believe, ask a Catholic.

Supernova said:

The difference is, Sinead didn't accept an invitation to the Vatican to make her statement. Lauryn Hill did.

namepeace said:

Very well said, namepeace. By the way, do you know if Lauryn is Catholic?

JediMaster said:

Hey, i'm as much against the catholic church (or any church, for that matter) as anybody, but
Well said!!!

I pretty much agree with Lauryn Hill, but where does one get off accepting an invite to perform at a church's religous venue to celebrate one of their highest masses with them and then dissing them in their own "house"? I pump my fist in solidarity to ballsy, needed social protest, but I think that's WAY tactless... and I doubt her audience of Catholics will be swayed from any position they'd had just seconds prior to her diatribe.

I've long since considered Lauryn a hypocrite -- a beautiful, talented one, but a hyporcrite nonetheless. She certainly wasn't dissing "representatives of God on earth" when she was screwing Rohan Marley and jocking the Rastafarian reverence of Emperor Haile Selassie as God on earth.

She gets mad props for backbone, but loses them for inconsistency and lack of sophistication.

namepeace said:

I know what the difference is. Pandurito seems to equate the two things.

stymie said:

I don't know. It would explain her outrage at the church scandals even more. If she were, it would be sad, because she doesn't really know her faith.

Supernova said:

Sorry, Nova.

Lammastide said:

Post of the day.

Lammastide said:

i agree with you on the incosistency, but what exactly is a tactful way to call people GODless hypocrites to their face?

namepeace said:

It's no problem.

Actually, to this day I have no idea what specific problem Sinéad was angry about (as far as I know she never explained) when she made her most infamous stance. And although I wouldn't have chosen the same methods that Hill did, I do believe it needed to be said.

pimpdoutt said:

Are you calling out all Catholics? Surely not.

Supernova said:

It has been said time and time again over the last 2 years, particularly by outraged Catholics.

namepeace said:

surely not. i don't know all catholics.

"God has been a witness to the corruption of his leadership, of the exploitation and abuses ... by the clergy," she said.

pimpdoutt said:

Okay. So just me and Papa John, then!

No sin escapes God's eyes. Even papal sin. But Lauryn should make sure her own garden is weeded before judging sinners (there's a difference b/w protesting against sin and judging sinners).

namepeace said:

This is where I was headed when I asked you about whether she is Catholic. I get the feeling she is not.

Supernova said:

I equate the two things...Sinead tore the picture in responce to the vatican refusing to respond to child molestation charges...If they had reacted then, maybe many children would have been allowed a normal childhood...

and for the record, Sinead was/is Catholic...

namepeace said:

The last 2 years? I wish ALL those in positions of power within the church would have been so outraged from the get-go.
º
[This message was edited Mon Dec 15 10:35:14 PST 2003 by Supernova]

pimpdoutt said:

For starters, you do it on your own -- or neutral -- turf. OR you accept the invitation to their turf with the full courage to suggest you've got a bone to pick. Next, especially if you claim to be a spiritual person like Lauryn, you might decide to do this at a time more appropriate than the lighthearted celebration of a mass.

Lammastide said:

there IS no appropriate time. when else would she have them all there in one spot. what IS inappropriate is the shelter the church grants theives devils.

pimpdoutt said:

There may never be a comfortable time, but there's absolutely an appropriate time. Where the abuse accounts are regarded, Lauryn's message is important, but because of the way she delivered it, its poignance will be easily obscured. Just imagine how much better received -- not to mention well circulated -- this message might have been via an interview, a recorded work, a well-written open letter to the Vatican in the New York Times, anywhere. She went for the quick sucker punch, and while it might have struck a couple hundred people at a single concert, she could have propelled the discussion in front of an entire world.

It was the right place and the right time. I bet everyone in this 'garage' felt quite uncomfortable. That's when you get attention, we need more Lauryns out there.

BlueNote

Supernova said:

That makes two of us. But I don't agree with how Lauryn did it. She accepted the invitation to perform at the Vatican and she should have shown a measure of respect to her hosts.

And I can't speak for all Catholics, but I know what the Church has done, and the last person I need a lecture from on virtue is Lauryn Hill. Love her music but she ain't no saint herself.

pimpdoutt said:

I'm not crying at all, and now YOU are the one being rude. If the Church is, as you say, "DISRESPECTING ALL OF HUMAN KIND", then Lauryn has sunk to their level by being disrespectful back. Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter what. I agree that Lauryn's message needed to be heard, and I would have had no problem with her saying it to their faces at another time and venue. She was in their house, at their invitation, and that is not the time to show disrespect.