Friday, August 04, 2006

Catholicism and Islam unite to condemn Madonna

It is a relatively minor sideshow (literally), but the Pope has apparently got the hump with Madonna for her self-crucifixion, and there are demands for her excommunication. It is reported that ‘in a show of solidarity’ leaders of the Jewish and Muslim faiths have joined in the protest.


Jews one may understand, but Muslims? They do not even believe Jesus was crucified, so why on earth are they protesting about the mockery of an event which they refute? Surely one cannot replicate, blasphemously or otherwise, that which did not occur?

Still, any excuse for a religious conflict…


Blogger Croydonian said...

I thought Ms Ciccone was into matters Kabbalistic these days, but I suppose doing something with teffilin would not much to most gentiles.

4 August 2006 at 14:40  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

She did this many years ago in her "like a prayer video", simulating sex with a negroid Jesus, I think its called publicity seeking.
Basically she is a skanky auld slapper, Guy Ritchie must be insane.
A quick note to your Grace , this is no relation to the Madonna you may be aware of, this one is a harlot who disports herself upon a stage before strangers in return for gold.

4 August 2006 at 15:05  
Anonymous DavidG said...

Muslims don't believe in the crucifixion? So their Jesus is a completely different Jesus, in which case when someone now refers to Jesus disrespectfully, Muslims should stop getting so upset about defaming their 'prophet', because disrespectful comments are usually referring the Jesus of the Christians, not to one of the other hundreds (thousands?) of first-century men called Yeshua.

4 August 2006 at 15:15  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Here's a quote from the Daily Telegraph:

"Another Vatican official, Bishop Velasio De Paolis, said: "How this woman can take the name of the mother of Christ, I don't know. Her show represents the rotten fruit of secularism and the absurdity of evil."

Madonna, for better or worse, is her given name, so the Bishop is being a little unjust, given quite how many Hispanic men are called Jesus.

4 August 2006 at 15:16  
Anonymous DavidG said...

Croydonian, the quote continues:

"What adds to the offence is that she is doing this in the city which is the cradle of the Roman Catholic faith.... A few months ago there was fury at the cartoons of Mohammed. Here we have a blatant profanity of the cross and no one bats an eyelid."

Clearly, some are now batting eyelids, but I'm sure there won't be riots, deaths, or the burning of embassies.

4 August 2006 at 15:23  
Blogger Croydonian said...

As a sidebar to this, when was the last time anyone heard any non-Muslim site referred to as 'a Holy City' by the broadcast media, with the possible exception of Jerusalem?

4 August 2006 at 16:04  
Anonymous Colin said...

On this issue Catholics, Muslims and Jews seem to be displaying religious solidarity. The seeds of any religious conflict seem to be springing from Madonna and Cranmer.

4 August 2006 at 16:24  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Gentlemen, re: the ex-porn star, "Madonna." I am sure many of you will recall the tens of thousands of teenage girls (even some just past puberty, perhaps only 11 or 12 years) and with the full blessings and cooperation of their mothers, dressing up in copy-cat clothes, hair-styles, eye-make up, and sluttish behaviour ... circa 1980??

Without men's authority, which naturally includes the authority of the Church, society goes to rot. If left to their own devices, women are the destroyers of society.

We simply need to get back to basics.

As for the "Mother Sl*t" making this country her home; maybe your average English woman and "Madonna" were made for each other? I don't wish to sound disrespectul to those you love & cherish, but there does appear to be a mutual, emotional affinity.

This can be confirmed, at least to some degree, by observing the more refined attitudes and behaviours of women from many other societies and cultures.

Perhaps the Victorians understood their women better than we do? Perhaps that is why they established finishing schools and other such methods of inculcating civilized values and self-discipline.

As for Islam joining in the condemnation ... me thinks they are only showing their territorial arrogance. We should also presume they had no expectation the Christian Church would issue strong enough statements.

4 August 2006 at 16:30  
Anonymous willow said...

Davidg said - 'I'm sure there won't be riots, deaths, or the burning of embassies,'

Remember, Muslims did start off protesting peacefully, but then they got more and more worked up about other countries re-printing the offensive images and the western countries hiding behind their 'freedom of speech' I do not agree with the actions of those who protested by burning buildings, etc, but it is not evident that they were provoked? (Obviously not to that extent, but still...)

Colin said - 'On this issue Catholics, Muslims and Jews seem to be displaying religious solidarity.'
Thank you, that's what I think. I do not think it has anything to do with 'any excuse for a religious conflict'

4 August 2006 at 17:05  
Blogger Professor D.C. Warmington said...

My Lord Archbishop

I am disappointed that a personage of your eminence has even heard of this creature. I am doubly disappointed that you stoop to add to the nitrous oxide of publicity which puffs up her banal faits et gestes.

I am, Your Grace,

Your devoted reader, &c.

A. de T.

Postscript, to Mr M. Impossible: pray tell, would you consider yourself a fan of Germaine Greer? I am not, myself.

4 August 2006 at 17:08  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

aubrey de tocquaine, II.d ... God forbid ... Germaine G r e e r ???

lnmdoheren Eunuch lnhehdkf stupidity lndeyge lnfdh!!

nfoidhde lmjodg h did dkmd enough damage!

She is fddp kjdd dye lomnxx fudd ddww kdoid round the bend!


4 August 2006 at 17:42  
Anonymous Rick said...

This self-publicist is getting very long in the tooth. She is really past it - what is she now 47 ? In that business she's over the hill and should settle into obscurity. Then again her mother in law is head of Kensington & Chelsea Tories I think so it is all probably a Cameron stunt.

Anyway, she is a blasphemous nonentity who should be scorned and I have no idea as to wther she should get a Salman Rushdie travelling fellowship - if she would just remain as obscure as her talents I should be most grateful - she is a circus act

4 August 2006 at 17:43  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Mr 'willow' ... seems you are living up to your moniker ... and bending like one.

Please, please, please read this book:

Islamic Imperialism: A History
-- by Efraim Karsh

The author is Professor and Head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, London. One may safely assume he knows what he is talking about.

You can confirm his thesis yourself by reading translations of the Qu'ran and the Hadith, along with some detailed study of pre-15th century history, then spending a few years in the Middle East. I think you will agree his book is the faster route.

4 August 2006 at 17:51  
Anonymous willow said...

Mission Impossible, I'm a Miss. Hence the name Willow....

'seems you are living up to your moniker ... and bending like one.'
What exactly do you mean by this?

Why do you assume I have not already read translations of the Qur'an and the hadith? I have read the Qur'an both in the original Arabic, and various translations, though often much of the meaning is lost through translations (as would be expected).

4 August 2006 at 18:04  
Blogger Joe Otten said...

willow... if there was provokation behind the riots, and burning of embassies, why are the Egyptian embassies still standing. The Mo toons were published in an Egyptian newspaper long before all the fuss.

See here

4 August 2006 at 20:21  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Germaine Greer does seem to have become more than a little 'eccentric' as she ages, but was certainly a considerable wit when she was younger.

As to the cartoon riots et al, it is more than a little curious that there was quite such a stock of Danish flags for burning in Islamabad et al. I would not fancy my chances of sourcing one in London tomorrow, should I so desire. If, as seems more than likely, the organisers planned it all well in advance, the idea that the riots were an immediate expression of rage looks more than a little suspect.

I have been led to believe that any verse from the Koran, when written in arabic, takes on the same level of sanctity as the book itself, which would mean that the image of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban (with Koranic verses on the turban) would present a thorny dilemma, shall we say.

4 August 2006 at 22:13  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

Croydonian my father has slept with germaine greer (honestly)
can you say the same?

4 August 2006 at 22:45  
Blogger Croydonian said...

I don't believe my father ever did, and he's six feet under now.

Meanwhile, back at the plot, the business of figures in popular culture being photographed in mock crucifixion poses is hackneyed beyond belief, and I would suggest is best dealt with by ignoring them.

5 August 2006 at 00:20  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Miss / Ms. / Mrs. whatever it is ... Willow:

Lyrics [extract] from Jethro Tull's "Bends Like A Willow"

She's catching the wind: the gentlest of breezes.
It's a sensitive passage she's sailing -
Through stormy straits, navigates my unfathomable failings.
[ ... ]
She bends like a willow.

I told you, you were bending like one because you were clearly bending over backwards to find excuses for a clear example of Islamic intolerance for freedom of expression; not to mention a complete lack of humour.

I have seen all these Mohammed cartoons, and not one comes anywhere near the kind of blasphemy routinely directed at Christianity and Christ. Perhaps you will recall the disgusting "Piss on Christ" art stunt in recent years?

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran 12 cartoons – one depicted Mohammed with a bomb as his turban - in September 2005.

There was no reaction or demonstration for several months. Then, suddenly, the riots erupted in Europe around February 2006. This is because certain Danish Imams, in the interim, toured the Middle East deliberately inflaming sentiment by distorting and exaggerating what had actually been printed. The Danish Embassy in Beiruit, was attacked and badly damaged (such behaviour is normally taken to be an act of war). If you understand the political & territorial status of Embassies, you will not require further elaboration from me.

Stepping-stones to the Islamist takeover of Europe were planted long before the cartoons were even published. On 15 April 2005, five months before the cartoons ran, Palestinian preacher and Hizb Ut Tahrir leader Sheikh Issam Amayra called from al Aqasa Mosque in Jerusalem, upon Muslims in Denmark to begin a holy war.

Denmark has in the last few years become a host country for various Muslim radical groups, the most prominent of which is Hizb ut-Tahir (HT). Denmark is the home of 180,000 Muslims, who constitute approximately 3 percent of its 5.4 million citizens. Most of these Muslims, including the second generation, adhere to the extremist creed propagated by HT, and refuse to assimilate into Danish society.

It can also be argued that Western indulgence of supposed Muslim outrage over these cartoon insults to the prophet is pretty demeaning. It can only fortify the destructive, self-pitying impulses that all too often paralyze Muslim conversations and thought.

The eagerness of leftists, such as yourself, to blame the West for every iniquity surely reached its inevitable farcical conclusion with this cartoon controversy.

Therefore, based on the historical facts, your 5:05pm comments were not only intellectually lazy, and self-indulgent, they also constitute a grave distortion; making them unworthy of someone who purports to have read the Qu'ran in its original form (Huh??? Quite an achievement considering many native Arabs have difficulty reading it! Perhaps you exaggerate also?).

If we take you -- MssMsMrs Willow -- at face value, which I suspect will be a mistake, then it should be said the act of mere reading is no guarantee of understanding.

5 August 2006 at 04:44  
Blogger Cranmer said...

I am disappointed that a personage of your eminence has even heard of this creature. I am doubly disappointed that you stoop to add to the nitrous oxide of publicity which puffs up her banal faits et gestes.

Mr Aubrey de Tocquaine, LL.D

His Grace makes no apology for this apparently superficial foray into the puerile world of tabloid journalism. The principal relevance is to highlight the sudden unity between Islam and Catholicism on the issue of 'offence' caused by allegedly blasphemous imagery, principally because the former seeks to legitimise their reaction to 'offence' taken at any 'disrespect' shown to Islam, and will expect reciprocity from the Vatican in the future.

Cranmer wonders why this genre of iconography is so unacceptable to Muslims, while the Catholics have been creating idols for centuries in contravention of the distinct commandment not to:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6).

It is, at the very least, hypocritical of the Catholic Church to complain about an image steeped in the truths of the gospel (we are, after all, exhorted to be 'crucified with Christ' [Gal 2:20], and to take up our crosses daily [Mt 10:38]), when it is itself built upon the worship of relics, statues and images, to which Christians of other denominations (along with Jews and Muslims) may justifiably take offence.

Ms Madonna is no more Catholic than she is chaste. She has therefore excommunicated herself.

5 August 2006 at 08:56  
Blogger Professor D.C. Warmington said...

My Lord Archbishop

Your point is accepted, especially concerning the idolatrous nature of popery. I remember being quite taken, while reading Woodes Rogers's A Cruising Voyage Round the World, by his account of the fate of certain wooden and plaster madonnas, &c., which he found in the hold of a captured Spanish vessel: as also a large quantity of papal bulls. He says: "We chucked 'em overboard."

Muslims of the kind you execrate are no less savages than the fierce tribes encountered by that adventurer, and make, I should hazard, excellent bedfellows for the rapacious hypocrites of the Vatican.

I am, sir, and shall remain,

Yours truly, &c.

A. de T.

Postscript: my title is not "Mr"; by rights I should be addressed as "Dr de Tocquaine" or "Aubrey de Tocquaine, LL.D". These niceties, if left unobserved, signal the end of civilization, as I am sure Your Grace would readily agree.

5 August 2006 at 18:24  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

What I fail to understand is how anyone can be concened with the activities of a low minstral when there is a test match going on.

5 August 2006 at 20:14  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Terry Hamblin,

You are very welcome. Your observation is noted. May all further contributions be as intelligent and erudite.

Mr Aubrey de Tocquaine, LL.D

His Grace is fully cognisant of the particularities of forms of address, and has no doubt that your doctorate was hard-earned. However, it is a house rule that everyone be addresses as Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms. Only His Grace has a titular form of address which expresses academic status. These things are never set in stone, however, because, as with the Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, flexibility and evolution are occasionally warranted.

5 August 2006 at 22:33  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Erm, in which case, why does His Grace reply using a somewhat demotic surname only form?

6 August 2006 at 01:36  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Regarding extreme relio-political issues:

Gentlemen, I have just watched an on-line movie (18 mins duration) describing the concept of Palliwood: the cynical staging of violent events by media-savvy Palestinians in order to dupe western media, like the BBC (Britain), CBS (Canada), ABC (USA), et al.

Considering the fact you have been duped or influenced by this great propaganda weapon, at least once in your life, and considering what is at stake here, I feel you have a duty to watch it.

It will open in your Windows Media Player via your browser. If you have broadband, then you will enjoy a smooth playback.

As I have mentioned already, I have spent many years of my life in the Arab world. I can tell you, without hesitation, that this movie (although excellent) does not even tell half of what is reality. In my experience, and that of most of my former colleagues overseas, Arabs are quite simply, a race of inveterate liars.

Here is the URL to the movie:

Here is the URL to the post that provided it:

... along with other comments and (a link to) an excellent article by the historian, Victor Davis Hanson.

As I have intimated before, we have been turned (by our left-dominated media) into the meek recipients of a psychological offensive designed to undermine our will to resist the march of Islam.

6 August 2006 at 07:02  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Erm, in which case, why does His Grace reply using a somewhat demotic surname only form?

Name recognition, dear boy; name recognition. News of the religio-political probings of Cranmer has spread far and wide; he doubts this would have occurred if he had signed contributions 'His Grace'.

Mr Mission Impossible,

Most interesting. Your intelligent observation is consistent with what is about to be posted on the BBC's latest exploit.

6 August 2006 at 07:26  
Anonymous Colin said...

If you are an archbishop then shouldn't you be signing your posts as +Cranmer?

6 August 2006 at 09:04  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

colin, if you have something intelligent and relevant to offer this blog, then kindly do so.

Otherwise, comments such as your 9:04 AM, only succeed in demonstrating your shallowness, your cynicism, and your general inability to think. All indicative of a loser.

6 August 2006 at 09:40  
Anonymous Colin said...

I apologise for upsetting you. My question was tongue in cheek, and as it has clearly offended you to this degree then all I can do is to say sorry.

6 August 2006 at 10:09  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Mission Impossible,

As previously pointed out, it is Cranmer's prerogative to dispense admonishment, though he occasionally appreciates the assistance offered by regulars to uphold his standards of intelligence and erudition.

His Grace can't help feeling that your tone with Mr Colin was a little over-zealous.

Cranmer demands that comment be intelligent and erudite, yes, but this must not be devoid of the occasional expression of humour, especially when that humour is itself intelligent and perceptive.

In demanding that His Grace sign himself '+Cranmer', Mr Colin has shown himself to be a clever sort of chap. In any case, he has now apologised for offending you.

Yet further, His Grace has always wanted a 'Colin' on his blog, and would be a tad annoyed if he lost this one.

Mr Colin,

His Grace notes your comment, and will consider whether a deceased Archbishop ought to sign himself '+'. If it is adopted, you will have the satisfaction of having contributed to the evolution of house nomenclature.

6 August 2006 at 10:28  
Anonymous Colin said...

My thanks Your Grace.

6 August 2006 at 10:31  
Blogger Professor D.C. Warmington said...

Your Grace

Surely a deceased Archbishop should sign himself as "x".

However, this might be misinterpreted.

I am, Your Grace, and for the moment remain

Aubrey de Tocquaine

6 August 2006 at 12:01  
Anonymous Rick said...

Surely a deceased Archbishop should sign himself as "x".

Why ?

I am sure that even after 500 years Lord Cranmer could still fill the vacancy at Canterbury far better than the journalist currently reprising the role

7 August 2006 at 07:12  
Anonymous Little Black Sambo said...

An ex-archbishop reverts to simple Bishop, since Bishop is his apostolic order & Archbishop merely an institutional dignity. Abp Ramsey became Bp Ramsey; others have been loth to give up the grandeur, so retain a sort of emeritus archbishopric. Deans & Archdeacons do the same. Vanitas vanitatum!

16 August 2006 at 19:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

are reporters or whoever wrote this in the west really DUMB!!! hello!!! this is jesus christ ure talking about iam a muslim and i beleive he wasnt crucifixed yes true!! ,,,,BUT! i also beleive that no man nor woman has the right to symbolize his or herself as christ or any prohpet of god ... so shut up u islamaphobe satan and go educate ure whiteself!

20 August 2009 at 17:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary of Nazareth (September 8, 20 BC? - August 15, 45 AD?) Aramaic, Hebrew: מרים, Maryām Miriam; Arabic:مريم, Maryam), often referred to by Christians as the Virgin Mary or Saint Mary, was a Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, identified in the New Testament[Mt. 1:16,18–25] [Lk. 1:26–56] [2:1–7] as the mother of Jesus Christ.[3] Muslims also refer to her as the Virgin Mary or Syeda Mariam, which means Lady Mary. The New Testament describes her as a virgin (Greek παρθένος, parthénos).[4] Christians believe that she conceived her son, Jesus Christ, miraculously by the agency of the Holy Spirit. This took place when she was already the betrothed wife of Saint Joseph and was awaiting the concluding rite of Jewish marriage, the formal home-taking ceremony.[5] Roman Catholics believe that Mary was conceived and born without the stain of Original Sin, thereby making her sinless, perfect, and immaculate from all forms of evil.[6] In Islam she is regarded as the virgin mother of the prophet Jesus. She is described in the Qur'an, in the Sura Maryam (Arabic: سورة مريم‎).twase

8 September 2010 at 13:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older