Celebrity overdose
It's not as entertaining as Jade Goody vs Shilpa Shetty was!
I was tickled to find out about the huge demand for the Pope’s visit over at the Bristolian:
Thousands of tickets remain unsold for events during the visit of the Pope, who arrives in Scotland on Thursday.
The largest organised event is an open-air Mass at Bellahouston Park in Glasgow on the opening day of Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the UK.
The capacity has been reduced to 80,000 after a slow take-up of tickets.
I wonder if the root cause of this isn’t anything like what Dave thinks: he believes it’s because fundamental Christianity (or indeed any Christianity) is increasingly irrelevant in our modern society.
I’m not so sure. Back when JP2 was Pope, there were many fewer celebrities than their are now. Many, many people would have gone to see the last Pope speak, not because they were fervent Catholics, but because it was a chance to see someone famous. Marginal Catholics would have gone to see the Pope for much the same reason.
But we are so inundated with “famous” people nowadays that the genuinely famous are reduced to mere high points in a wall of noise.
I was stuck in the doctor’s surgery the other day and flipped through some or other “sleb” magazine, featuring the earth-shattering news that some former Big Brother “star” went and banged her equally “famous” co-star and ex-husband.
People were clearly willing to pay good money to read this tawdry drivel about two people who were not actually “has-beens”, but rather “never-weres”. And they pay this money on a weekly basis to find out more of this important and world-changing news.
Given that it’s so easy and cheap to get a fix of “sleb”, and given that most slebs have happily reduced the presentation of their lives to the same vacuous low standards, is it a surprise that no-one is happy to pay big money and expend any effort to go gawk at someone who really is famous*.
*This does not imply any kind of endorsement of Popes, Catholics, paedophiles or skyfairy fuckwittery.
Originally published here.
-
1
September 16, 2010 at 21:02 -
Yet more mockery.
-
2
September 16, 2010 at 21:36 -
Yes, mockery indeed. Mockery of the pathetic culture of celebrity that infests the British Public – an attitude which the MSM is happy to participate in because it is cheaper and easier to join a race to find the lowest common denominator rather actually do any useful reporting.
-
3
September 16, 2010 at 22:50 -
I meant of all things perceived to be Christian, whether they are or not.
Just half a chance to snigger, that’s all this site needs.
-
4
September 17, 2010 at 00:04 -
English Viking, you’re clearly looking for something to be aggrieved about. I personally thought it was an interesting perspective on the difference between this Papal visit and the previous one.
-
5
September 17, 2010 at 18:33 -
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.
I am not aggrieved, nor looking to be. Just a little confused at the near constant ridiculing of all things perceived by the uninformed to be Christian.
-
-
10
September 17, 2010 at 13:45 -
English Viking I wonder if you like me are getting a bit fed up of the blatant anti Christian propaganda going on at this otherwise informative blog. How should one handle it?
-
11
September 17, 2010 at 15:56 -
Tricky. Is it “turn the other cheek” or “an eye for an eye”? Very contradictory, these religious instructions. From what I can tell, you choose whichever suits you.
-
13
September 17, 2010 at 17:04 -
Or you could just close your browser window and fuck off.
No-one’s holding a gun to your head.
-
15
September 17, 2010 at 22:05 -
I thought the owner of this site (Anna), was herself a Christian. I would have thought that if the articles do not offend her religion (Christianity), then that would indicate that it is not Christianity per se that is being criticised, but maybe a particular aspect or subset of Christianity or Christendom that is being mocked?
-
16
September 18, 2010 at 00:01 -
Anna claims to be a Quaker, which is, by my reckoning, 5 cans short of a 6 pack when compared to Christianity.
It basically means you can believe anything you like, and how dare you question me, and there probably is no God, but if there is everybody is fine… It goes on, but I’m afraid I can’t.
Can’t stop, I’m getting ‘inner light’. (Don’t ask, I’ve no idea)
-
-
-
-
-
17
September 16, 2010 at 22:31 -
A lot of people didn’t go because the organisation was shocking – I live abroad, couldn’t find a way to get a ticket, was at an evening Sunday Mass in Scotland in the middle of a walking holiday and learned that the only access would be for those on official coaches, and the deadline was the next day. No internet access, no way to check prices of plane tickets, so I couldn’t sign up and couldn’t go. Some folk down south signed up for Birmingham, but their tickets still haven’t arrived.
However, some folk who had tickets, but decided their health wasn’t up to it after all, were motivated to go by Tatchell’s Pile of Bile the other night
-
18
September 16, 2010 at 22:45 -
The New South Wales Government has forked out A$2.7 million to bring over Oprah Winfrey plus 300.
-
19
September 17, 2010 at 00:17 -
I do not give a damn about the pope – but I do give a damn about the rampant sexual child abuse that appears to be endemic in his religion.
I care even less about “slebs”, don’t even know who most of them are – or were – or care.
I am ashamed of my fellow females who buy into this “sleb” larky-marlarky and purchase those “sleb” celebrating mags just to see the wonderful pretentious homes of “sleb” halfwits.
What a vacuous nation we are becoming.
Anna .
-
20
September 17, 2010 at 01:08 -
the rampant sexual child abuse that appears to be endemic in his religion.
Am I the only person raised an RC , with nuns and monks for teachers, who was never sexually abused? -
23
September 17, 2010 at 01:42 -
My better (or worse) half – however you care to view it Fabian the Fabulous, attended a seminary and was never sexually abused – but was emotionally abused.
I do not think that anyone thinks that every Catholic child suffered sexual abuse – but ignoring that some were – because you were not, is blind.
Anna G
]-
24
September 17, 2010 at 08:59 -
I recall a conversation with an Irish fellow-tenant years ago who told me about his miserable education at the hands of the so-called Christian Brothers. Stories about abuse in the RC church are abundant; this is probably because of its many misguided claims to a monopoly of Christian truth – and the resulting authoritative power it has derived from it. It stands under divine judgement for this – but it’s not by any means alone, is it? There’s also an association between secular children’s homes, orphanages, public schools and abuse as well, yet I don’t see the same degree of stink being kicked up about that..
I don’t support the RC church – we should expect better – but I wonder if the outpouring of invective is proportionate to the abuse from other quarters?
-
-
25
September 17, 2010 at 10:48 -
berinike, I couldn’t agree more. My mother really wanted to go and see the Pope, here was the score:
The Pope was going to say Benediction in Hyde Park around 7pm, and the gates closed at 2pm. This means she would have had to arrive in London/get into the park earlier. Then, she would have have to endure 5+ hours of pop celebrity “entertainment” before the 15 minutes of the Pope. With two small children, it was not viable. The coach leaving Oxford to Birmingham for a 10.30am service left at… wait for it… 2am. Utterly ridiculous. For a journey that takes one hour.
Her feelings are that the bishops don’t really want many people to show up, as the Pope is a bit hardline for them.
oh and @ Anna G – “the rampant sexual child abuse that appears to be endemic in his religion”
I was raised Catholic, and I know a great number of Catholics and priests, and none of them were remotely connected to any nasty goings on. A small number of highly publicised and horrific cases does not qualify for the words ‘rampant’ or ‘endemic’. There are some excellent articles on the hysteria against the Catholic Church on Spiked-Online, from a very much atheistic perspective.
-
27
September 17, 2010 at 12:05 -
Fabian, Thomas.
You are both correct – my statement was a bit of an overstatement and a gross generalisation. But nevertheless – we can’t pretend it never happened.
Anna
] -
28
September 17, 2010 at 12:53 -
29
September 17, 2010 at 13:37 -
They are not for sale- but a recommended donation is clearly advertised as you fill in the forms. 5 Quid for the London one I think…
-
30
September 17, 2010 at 14:02 -
Thank God for television.
I think The Pope is a lovely man. Which is probably the most crasse remark that I have ever made.
-
31
September 17, 2010 at 16:19 -
Consider the wisdom contained in 1 Samuel 25:22 (King James Version).
-
32
September 17, 2010 at 17:09 -
And your point is..?
-
33
September 17, 2010 at 22:16 -
That urinals use less water compared with flush toilets. The Bible, like all religious books can be used to justify anything.
-
34
September 18, 2010 at 00:26 -
So can Atheism.
Again, your point is?
(You haven’t been cribbing from anti-Christian sites again, have you?)
-
35
September 18, 2010 at 10:06 -
Mr Meek and Mild, you may be surprised to learn that I was a diligent RE pupil at school, enjoying the ripping yarns and wonderful phrases in the KJV. (Doesn’t the story of Samson using the jawbone of an ass have echoes with equipment problems in Iraq and Afghanistan?) But don’t expect me to respond positively to Moses ordering the murder of women and children, or God telling Abraham to slaughter Isaac and then saying it was a test or the Levite and his concubine. Because I was an eager pupil I read the bits that the RE teacher skirted around. Oh, and why did it take someone omnipotent six days and a day off to do something that in theory could be done all at once? When I was a child I asked questions and found no sensible answers from religions. Now, if you take the goodness and love to others bit preached by Jesus in the New Testament and take away the Middle-Eastern tribal brutality and ignorance you get a rational philosophy similar to humanism. A bit like the hellenistic philosophy that was knocking around in the area at the time. Why do you fear using your own mind to decide right and wrong?
Finally, at university a couple of evangelicals said they would pray for me because my disability was obviously caused by the sins of my parents. (a decade before Glen Hoddle) What’s not to like about fundamentalists?-
36
September 18, 2010 at 13:18 -
Don’t allow the stupidity of others to lead you into a rejection of the truth. John 9 v 3 is the Biblical truth concerning sins of the parents.
The word ‘fundamental’ is now so pejorative that it appears to have lost its meaning. If a Christian is to be any use to God, fundamentalism is a prerequisite; one cannot just skip the bits one dislikes.
God created the world in the manner in which He did because he chose to do so, not because he was unable to do so in an instant.
All of the pieces you speak of are OT, which is not an instruction book for Christian living; Christ became incarnate centuries, and in some cases thousands of years after these events. Christ spoke against quasi-religiosity, of precisely the ‘ration philosophy’ kind which you appear to espouse. If one accepts that God exists, one must also accept that He can do what he likes, whenever he likes. Proving that he falls short of your understanding of ‘fair’ or ‘nice’ is neither here nor there.
Hoddle describes himself as a ‘spiritualist’, something very different to Christianity.
…’Why do you fear using your own mind to decide right and wrong’…
If there is no God, there is no right and wrong.
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
September 17, 2010 at 16:55 -
Rather than “Celebrity Overdose” it seems that two of the usual suspects are responsible for poor audience levels for the Pope: those two bogeymen, the terrorist and the paedophile. Hysteria about both of these has been cranked up by a scapegoat-seeking government and compliant media, with the result that those of the potential audience who are not put off by paedophilia scandals are discouraged by the absurd “security” circus.
-
39
September 17, 2010 at 18:35 -
To Anna R, not Anna G, going to take Obnoxio’s advice and Fuck Off.
Deleting your blog from my favourites.
I’ve battled religious persecution my whole life. The British State and all those above have have maintained the persecution. Unless you are RC you just don’t see it.
I thought here on ‘we’re all liberal’ site would never see this. My rights and feelings don’t count obviously. Fine, understood.
Said the same to England Expects after he made disparaging remarks.
There’s no child abuse anywhere in society other than the Catholic church I take it. The Family Courts are perfect I believe.
Read some very good blogs here over the years. Thanks and goodbye.
-
40
September 17, 2010 at 22:12 -
bil,
//I thought here on ‘we’re all liberal’ site would never see this. My rights and feelings don’t count obviously. Fine, understood.//
You are correct. Your feelings do not matter, at all. Your rights, however, are paramount. You have no right to not be offended, to not have your religion criticised or mocked, any more than homosexuals have the “right” to be criticised for homosexual activity, or Muslims for their religious nonsense, or black people to be discriminated against by the BNP.
It is called Freedom of Speech. Persecution is the application of violence, whether by the individual or the State (through law). As fas as I am aware, there has not been a post on this site advocating restricting the right of Catholics to practice their religion. I am imagine that this site has been one of the champions of the RCC adoption agencies.
Try growing a spine.
-
-
41
September 18, 2010 at 13:10 -
This so called article is devoid of any real content. It is so obviously just a vehicle to attack the faith.
-
42
September 18, 2010 at 16:57 -
Oh, fuck off.
I wrote this article very clearly about the vacuity of modern celebrity culture and all I get is a couple of wittering clits determined to get their panties wedged about their particular flavour of God bothering.
Don’t you have some witches to burn or an apostate to stone or something, rather than dragging down the average IQ in here by 40 points?
-
43
September 18, 2010 at 18:35 -
I agree with your point about slebity. I was amazed that Jade Goody (pbuh) or Elizabeth York weren’t being beatified instead of that Albert Steptoe looky-likey.Perhaps Simon Cowell’s permission wasn’t forthcoming because he’s developing a new show called Britain’s Got The Parable Of The Talents that will go mitre-to-mitre with Songs of Praise.
Or I could just be writing bollox. -
44
September 18, 2010 at 19:05 -
Don’t think anyone has an issue with the vacuity of modern celebrity culture you mention. The controversy is caused by your attacking peoples religious convictions which you of course have a right to do along with the rest of the British media. Its not a particulary underground act. Readers of this blog have just as much right to refute you.
-
45
September 19, 2010 at 11:16 -
“This so called article is devoid of any real content. It is so obviously just a vehicle to attack the faith.”
What part of that did I misunderstand?
Did you actually read my post, or are you just one of the professionally aggrieved who is delighted to have one sentence somewhere to get aggrieved about?
-
-
-
]
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }