I don't want to invest much time in the Olympic Opening ceremony controversy. There seems to be some question as to what painting the offensive portion of the ceremony was parodying. Although I can't believe that they really expected everyone to conclude that they really were referring to a painting that is not as well known as the Last Supper painting. I'm also wondering why they didn't make a point of telling the commentators so that they could have shut the controversy down before it started. Finally "the Olympic presentation was literally called "La Cène Sur Un Scène Sur La Seine," i.e. "The Last Supper on a Stage on the Seine." per one source.
Be that as it may, the reality is that as Christians we should expect this sort of thing from non Christians. We should expect to have Christianity mocked, parodied, and ridiculed.
What I find interesting is that these folx mock Christianity because it's safe and the people they respect condone it. There is virtually zero chance that we would have seen transvestite tableau mocking the painting The Night Journey of Muhammad on His Steed, Buraq from the Bustan of Sacdi as a part of the opening ceremony. I think that everyone knows what the results would have been had that happened.
I suspect that they knew that their tableau was going to get some Christians all riled up on social media, but that they would ultimately benefit from the Christian "Turn the other cheek" thing. I'm not sure how much courage it takes, or how edgy it is, to mock or parody a group that poses absolutely zero risk of danger to the parodists. It's kind of a hallmark of the left, they want to "protest" and "speak out", but for most they don't want to risk much of anything. They'll put a black box as their profile picture or add a Ukrainian flag to their bio, but they know that they're safe to do so.
It's a bunch of cowards who won't poke a Grizzly, but bravely poke a teddy bear.
FWIW. the tableau was stupid, pointless, unnecessary, and intentionally provocative. It had added nothing to the absurdly long and boring opening ceremony.
14 comments:
Jesus was a man, rejected by his family and community and faith community.
LGBTQ folks know all about this.
Jesus responded, in part, by creating his own family and beloved community. THIS is what Jesus is doing in the Communion tradition.
LGBTQ folks know all about that, too. They deeply understand Communion in that sense, and I find that highly biblical and respectful of, consistent with Jesus' teachings.
I don't know the intent of the artists involved, but taking offense only might make sense if they owned Communion. They don't. Christ was clearly welcoming to all, offering the shared meal to all.
Conservatives are so easily offended and territorial about that which does not belong to them.
It's not a good look for them.
Dan
"It had added nothing to the absurdly long and boring opening ceremony."
That certainly is one opinion. I didn't watch any of it, as I don't care about sports. I only know about it now because the religious right has brought it to the world's attention about how beautiful it was to be intentionally inclusive and welcoming to a traditionally oppressed minority, thereby living up to the Olympic ideal of promoting peace for ALL.
So, many people HAVE found that it adds something to the event.
Fortunately, religious right types don't get to decide art or morality for everyone else.
Conservative religious folk would do well to live up to my dear Mom's saying: if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all. It's just another black eye for the religious right.
Dan
"Progressives" do what "progressives" do...act perversely.
The above was mine. Forgot to sign my name.
--Art
"Jesus was a man, rejected by his family and community and faith community."
That's one way to spin Jesus' story. It does ignore the fact that His mother and at least some of His brothers were instrumental in starting the early church. It also ignores the fact that His "family" was the Godhead and His "community" was the Kingdom of YHWH.
"LGBTQ folks know all about this."
Really, that's quite a claim. Although the demons also know lots about Jesus, so I'm not sure what your point is. I'd also point out that knowing something about what one mocks or parodies is important in deciding what to mock or parody.
"Jesus responded, in part, by creating his own family and beloved community. THIS is what Jesus is doing in the Communion tradition."
That's some creative eisegesis, that flirts with the Truth, but misses it as well.
"LGBTQ folks know all about that, too. They deeply understand Communion in that sense, and I find that highly biblical and respectful of, consistent with Jesus' teachings."
Again with the unproven claims, and offering yourself as the arbiter of Truth.
"I don't know the intent of the artists involved, but taking offense only might make sense if they owned Communion. They don't. Christ was clearly welcoming to all, offering the shared meal to all."
That's quite the unproven claim as well. I was unaware that Jesus (at the actual Lord's Supper, which is the model for communion) included anyone but His disciples. He clearly did not, nor did Paul, offer the Lord's Supper to "all".
"Conservatives are so easily offended and territorial about that which does not belong to them."
Some are, as are some liberals. SO what?
Ok, now how about actually responding to what I actually wrote instead of bringing Alphabet Soup folx propaganda into the conversation?
"That certainly is one opinion. I didn't watch any of it, as I don't care about sports. I only know about it now because the religious right has brought it to the world's attention about how beautiful it was to be intentionally inclusive and welcoming to a traditionally oppressed minority, thereby living up to the Olympic ideal of promoting peace for ALL."
Well, speaking from your monumental ignorance on the subject, and based on your biased hunches driven by the biased sources you revere, I can see how you'd jump to that conclusion. I especially appreciate you speaking for the "religious right" (I'm not sure that the French RCC church fits that description), and lumping me in with those you perceive are in that group. Strangely the "Olympic ideal" you claim in your ignorance prevented the Israeli delegation from wearing yellow ribbons in support of the hostages still held by Hamas (a war crime) yet allowed a Hamas supporter to wear a shirt showing an airplane dropping bombs. Oh, how does the Muslim athlete who refused to shake hands with an Israeli athlete at a judo match fit with your "Olympic ideal"?
"So, many people HAVE found that it adds something to the event."
Great, I've always enjoyed the parade of athletes and them doing the oath and lighting the flame. The rest has gotten bloated, self indulgent, and is just designed to fill broadcast time to make money for the broadcasters and the IOC. The great thing is that we have the freedom not to watch.
"Conservative religious folk would do well to live up to my dear Mom's saying: if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all. It's just another black eye for the religious right."
It could be argued that mocking Christianity would be "not saying anything nice", but that's neither here nor there.
I can only assume that you'll actually comment on the actual content of my post, not just keep up these random attacks on your regular targets.
So, you've touched on many things in your post. You posit...
"the reality is that as Christians we should expect this sort of thing from non Christians. We should expect to have Christianity mocked, parodied, and ridiculed."
Is that your central hunch you're getting at? If, I'd say that Christians following in the steps of Jesus and the early church may indeed (and have) received pushback and derision for being a community of the least of these.
As to a lot of mocking or push back against conservatives who seek to marginalized and not be community with the least of these... people who worry about a blue man in an art installation not having sufficient clothes, well, yes, that might be met with mockery, but reasonably so. And not because of Christianity.
Or is your main point your concern that they don't treat Islam the same way that you perceived they're treating conservative Christian traditions?
Well, maybe the reasons for that include...
Islam not being the dominant faith tradition in the West
Or...
That it wasn't about the last supper at all
Or
That it WAS about the last supper/communion, but with no intention to mock the teachings of Jesus, but just a side giggle that some groups of uptight Christians would be irritated by it (you know, in the same sense Jesus regularly irritated the Pharisees)?
As to their intentions, you'd have to ask them.
I just know of the bravery of too many in that community to make a guess that they're afraid of anything.
Dan
"So, you've touched on many things in your post. You posit..."
Yet you chose to ignore those "many things" and start your commenting with off topic bullshit.
"Is that your central hunch you're getting at? If, I'd say that Christians following in the steps of Jesus and the early church may indeed (and have) received pushback and derision for being a community of the least of these."
No it's not the central point, it's merely re stating something that we should expect.
"As to a lot of mocking or push back against conservatives who seek to marginalized and not be community with the least of these... people who worry about a blue man in an art installation not having sufficient clothes, well, yes, that might be met with mockery, but reasonably so. And not because of Christianity."
Well, if you say so, then it must be absolutely beyond questioning. Of course, you decided to change being mocked as a Christian, with being mocked as a conservative. Mocking those of a different political bent is fair game and insignificant. As someone who tries to follow Jesus, who was clear that following Him would lead to mockery and worse, it's something to be expected.
"Or is your main point your concern that they don't treat Islam the same way that you perceived they're treating conservative Christian traditions?"
Well, now you've cracked the code. Absolutely Islam does not get treated the same way that Christianity does. What would the response have been if the art world displayed "Piss Mohammad"? Hell, some newspaper ran a cartoon of Mo and got violently attacked.
"Islam not being the dominant faith tradition in the West"
So? What difference does that make? Given the vast number of Muslims in Europe it seems like a stupid excuse.
"That it wasn't about the last supper at all"
WHile that's possible, the literal naem of the tableau was "literally called "La Cène Sur Un Scène Sur La Seine," i.e. "The Last Supper on a Stage on the Seine."". So maybe the person that named it might know something you don't. It's almost like they chose a painting that was incredibly close to the Last Supper so they'd have something to hide behind.
Of maybe referring to the tableau as "The new gay testament" had nothing to do with Christianity.
"That it WAS about the last supper/communion, but with no intention to mock the teachings of Jesus, but just a side giggle that some groups of uptight Christians would be irritated by it (you know, in the same sense Jesus regularly irritated the Pharisees)?"
Which would, of course be completely in keeping with the spirit of the Olympics and all the bullshit you spouted earlier. But hey, at least you admitted that mocking Christians could have been part of it. That's something.
"As to their intentions, you'd have to ask them."
Well, they intentionally named the tableau "La Cène Sur Un Scène Sur La Seine," i.e. "The Last Supper on a Stage on the Seine." and called it the "new gay testament" so maybe they've already answered.
"I just know of the bravery of too many in that community to make a guess that they're afraid of anything."
They're afraid to mock Islam. They're smarter than the "Gays for Palestine" idiots.
"That it WAS about the last supper/communion, but with no intention to mock the teachings of Jesus, but just a side giggle that some groups of uptight Christians would be irritated by it (you know, in the same sense Jesus regularly irritated the Pharisees)?"
Jesus irritated the Pharisees as a side giggle? He wasn't being sober and serious in His criticisms?
As I said at the top, "progressives" do what "progressives" do...act perversely. Dan was grace embracing enough to affirm that truth by perversely defending the pervs who compelled this post.
It isn't "brave" to defend perversion and decency, it perverted and deviant. Dan wouldn't praise the "minor attracted" or the "animal attracted " that way. Well, maybe he would if he thought it would help him be perceived as "embracing grace". After all, they've been oppressed and marginalized, too! No doubt Jesus has a place for them at Communion, too...right next to those Dan's defending now.
It should be pointed out that those of us who strive to be actual Christians aren't as offended as Dan is thrilled to believe we are. Acknowledging another manifestation of what Christ said we'd encounter is merely reporting such happening yet again. Dan's more than happy to avail himself of the opportunity to join them in doing so.
Art,
That's why I think that Dan missed the purpose of this post. That he's speaking for Christ is just what he does.
So, you're now a medical expert in gender studies and YOU are able to authoritatively declare as a fact that a GIRL born with a vagina and no penis is actually a male, and you have the medical knowledge to make that decision for everyone else?
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/
What IS the decision and consensus of the medical field on this point, Craig? Enlighten us.
Oh, and congratulations on completing your medical doctoral studies.
[Rolls eyes]
If nothing else, you all should learn from this that gender is literally more complex than just, "does he have a pee pee...?" and maybe humble yourselves a bit that you're not an expert on many topics.
Dan
"So, you're now a medical expert in gender studies and YOU are able to authoritatively declare as a fact that a GIRL born with a vagina and no penis is actually a male, and you have the medical knowledge to make that decision for everyone else?"
No, but I am able to read at or above a college level, and can understand the description of the rare condition which prevents that male genitalia from developing outside of the body, thus appearing to be female at birth. While the male genitals continue to develop internally and to function. I can look at the pictures of this person who dresses, and presents as a man publicly. I'm not sure where "gender studies" plays into this at all.
"What IS the decision and consensus of the medical field on this point, Craig? Enlighten us."
Well, the consensus of biology and biologists is that the XX/XY thing is pretty definitive.
"Oh, and congratulations on completing your medical doctoral studies."
Coming from someone who regularly tries to pretend expertise in things like science and medicine, this is amusing.
"If nothing else, you all should learn from this that gender is literally more complex than just, "does he have a pee pee...?" and maybe humble yourselves a bit that you're not an expert on many topics."
We're not talking about "gender", but about biological sex. We're talking about the indisputable fact that men have a significant and vast advantage over women in almost every single athletic endeavor. We're talking about the fact that the Biden administration just gutted Title 9 and the fundamental unfairness of biological men competing against biological women. Especially in sports where women are being put at risk of actual, physical harm.
"Gender studies"! That's funny! Dan actually thinks that's a thing!
Post a Comment