|
|
| Author |
Message |
md
|
|
What *would* Jesus do, anyway?
| 
Jun 1 19:18 UTC 2002 |
Cross Words
Vatican agency op-ed slams stars like Jennifer Aniston, Cher, and Naomi
Campbell for wearing crosses as expensive fashion items.
By Bill Hoffmann and Lorena Mongelli
New York Post
The Vatican is cross with stars who wear crucifixes as jewelry - and
wants stunners like Jennifer Aniston, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Jennifer
Lopez to take them off.
The edict from the Vatican news agency Fides slammed the trio and other
celebs for turning jewel-encrusted crosses into "the mania of the
moment."
It called the crucifix "sacred" and said using it as a fashion item is
outrageous.
"Crosses glitter around the necks of television show-women, leading
models and actresses," the agency raged in a scathing editorial.
"Jennifer Aniston, star of 'Friends' and wife of Brad Pitt, wears a
cross of platinum and diamonds. Naomi Campbell has a collection of
enormous, jewel-studded crosses.
"Catherine Zeta-Jones exhibits a cross of gold and diamonds. This mania
is incomprehensible." Also blasted were Cher and Liz Hurley.
"Is it consistent with the Gospel to spend millions on a copy of the
sacred symbol of the Christian faith," the critic asked, "and perhaps
forget there are people all over the world who suffer and die of
hunger?"
Cher spokeswoman Liz Rosenberg said: "Why don't you tell the pope to
clean up his own house."
Pricey Manhattan jewelers Harry Winston and Tiffany's don't carry
crucifixes, but they do have some big-ticket crosses.
Winston charges $6,500 to $15,000 for crosses. At Tiffany's, the
priciest cross is $20,000.
|
| 89 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 1 of 89:
|
Jun 1 19:21 UTC 2002 |
No wonder al Qaida hate us.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 89:
|
Jun 1 19:38 UTC 2002 |
I think the copyright has expired on the cross. People only run the
risk of being associated with the dominant firm that uses it as a
symbol, however.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 3 of 89:
|
Jun 1 19:45 UTC 2002 |
Prehaps would should introduce legislation to help stop the use of sacred
symbols in non-sacred ways. Otherwise, people will begin thinking Hollywood
is representative of Our Lord And Savior. Like, they'll begin worshipping
actors and stuff.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 89:
|
Jun 1 20:17 UTC 2002 |
"Sacred symbols" is another of those evolutionary vestiges that keep
getting in the way of a sane society. Witness the suggested US flag
"protection" amendment to the Constitution. People are always letting
symbolism become more important than principles, as though without
the sumbolism we would not remember the principles. There was certainly
truth in that in pre-literate human society. I do appreciate that
physical symbols seem more "durable" than conceptual principles
(although not permanent - the symbolism of several ancient societies
are as beyond our comprehension as are their principles), but the
error is in mistaking one for the other.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 5 of 89:
|
Jun 1 20:19 UTC 2002 |
The American flag stands for freedom and liberty for all. Of course it
shouldn't be burned.
|
krj
|
|
response 6 of 89:
|
Jun 1 22:31 UTC 2002 |
Q.: What is the respectful way to dispose of a worn-out flag?
|
gull
|
|
response 7 of 89:
|
Jun 1 22:55 UTC 2002 |
Re #5:
Maybe so, but a law *preventing* someone from burning it would be rather
contrary to those principles, don't you think?
|
mary
|
|
response 8 of 89:
|
Jun 1 23:29 UTC 2002 |
I am curious why the Pope would think he is more deserving of
his gold and jewel encrusted goblets and crosses than Jennifer
Aniston is of her necklace. I wonder if Jennifer Aniston got
any of her booty from exterminated Jews.
How anyone could raise their children to respect the Catholic
empire simply boggles my mind.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 9 of 89:
|
Jun 2 00:04 UTC 2002 |
R. 6: It depends on whether the flag is American or not.
R. 7: No, because by burning an American flag, you're taking away other
people's freedo
|
polytarp
|
|
response 10 of 89:
|
Jun 2 00:09 UTC 2002 |
* * * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
REAL AMERICAN FLAG-- (Some characters were stripped, so it might not turn out.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 11 of 89:
|
Jun 2 01:54 UTC 2002 |
I suppose it boggles some peoples' mind to have no belief in any
dieties at all, too. Just a thought.
|
remmers
|
|
response 12 of 89:
|
Jun 2 03:08 UTC 2002 |
Re #5: The American Flag FAQ at http://www.state.sd.us/deca/flag/faqs.htm
has the answer:
When a Flag has served its useful purpose, it should be
destroyed, preferably by burning. Patriotic organizations, such
as the American Legion, often hold Flag disposal ceremonies
on Flag Day (June 14).
|
polytarp
|
|
response 13 of 89:
|
Jun 2 04:10 UTC 2002 |
That's most clearly a disrespectful way to treat a flag which has brought
freedom to all the free world.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 14 of 89:
|
Jun 2 04:47 UTC 2002 |
Re #8: It is kind of ironic to see the Pope complaining about this, given
the massive amount of wealth the Vatican throws around.
|
michaela
|
|
response 15 of 89:
|
Jun 2 06:03 UTC 2002 |
I would think that if they wanted to show their love of Jesus, they should
be able to show it any way they please. Would the Pope be happier if they
took off their crosses and converted to some other religion?
Also, the Pope should be worrying about his child-molesting bretheren more
than the price of a movie star's necklace. Talk about your priorities...
|
mdw
|
|
response 16 of 89:
|
Jun 2 06:07 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps he's worried about the influence a gold encrusted cross over a
plunging neckline has on a priest.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 89:
|
Jun 2 06:59 UTC 2002 |
The flag is a piece of cloth (or paper or plastic) that identifies
vessels, vehicles, and other American properties in foreign territories.
The flag identifies a *country* that stands for principles of "freedom and
liberty". The flag itself does not. I think it is a pretty stupid protest
to burn a flag since all the flag is is a national identifier, but there
is also no harm in doing so. (Making a distinction between burning a piece
of cloth in anger vs burning it to "properly" dispose ot it, is the height
of the ridiculous.) And of course absolutely no one's freedom is even
diminished an iota, much less "taking away other people's freedo(m)", nor
has any FLAG ever "brought freedom to all the free world". (Besides the
fact that the United States itself has not done so either.)
Giving all this significance to pieces of printed cloth (or whatever) is
beyond my comprehnension. I value American principles, as encoded in our
Constitution and laws. Objects themselves have no such value.
|
oval
|
|
response 18 of 89:
|
Jun 2 08:00 UTC 2002 |
which is why it's also dumb to fly one.
|
mary
|
|
response 19 of 89:
|
Jun 2 12:37 UTC 2002 |
Re: 11 And I agree with your thought. The ones that scare me
the most are the ones incapable of being boggled.
|
md
|
|
response 20 of 89:
|
Jun 2 15:31 UTC 2002 |
Personally, I have a hard time seeing the Vatican as much more than a
cultural repository. I'm sure they have some way of squaring the
material splendor of the place with Jesus' poverty and his admonition
to "sell all your goods and give the proceeds to the poor." Probably
something to do with visible evidence of God's favor toward the One
True Church, or some such. Whatever the excuse is, it won't convince
me. I agree with Lenny Bruce: never trust a minister who owns more
than one suit. But *as* a cultural repository, the Vatican is pretty
cool, no denying it. Worth preserving, even.
What struck me about the story was the incredible triviality of the
church's concern. Like, Jennifer Aniston's choice of jewellery isn't
trivial enough, I also have to listen to the Vatican's opinion of it.
|
jep
|
|
response 21 of 89:
|
Jun 2 16:46 UTC 2002 |
The Catholic Church is one of the top charitable organizations in the
world, doing a lot for hungry, sick, hurt, abused, uneducated, and
otherwise needy people. I don't think it's fair to denounce the Church
for wasting it's money on frivolities. The Church does a lot of good.
I think #0 is ridiculous, though.
|
mary
|
|
response 22 of 89:
|
Jun 2 17:05 UTC 2002 |
A lot of those sick, hurt, abused, hungry and uneducated are
here and in that predicament *because* of the Catholic church's
policy that women should service their husbands, on demand, and
not use any birth control. But once you have two or three children
you can't support what's a few more when God will take care of you
if you just trust in Him? And welfare if you're lucky enough to be
a Catholic in the USA.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 23 of 89:
|
Jun 2 19:17 UTC 2002 |
I guess I don't see #0 as quite so ridiculous. The comment about starving
children was pretty insensitive coming from the Vatican, but really, the
dollar value of the jewelry is beside the point. Even as an atheist, I think
it's bizzarre to wear a symbol of religious faith because it looks cool.
(Would you wear a political slogan you disagreed with because you liked the
typeface? Would you fly a Confederate flag because the color scheme went well
with your house?) If I were Christian, I imagine I'd find the idea a little
offensive.
|
void
|
|
response 24 of 89:
|
Jun 2 20:48 UTC 2002 |
During my RC upbringing, I was taught that the crucifix, which has
a Jesus figure on it, was to be treated with more respect than a plain
cross. While I agree that wearing symbols of a religion you don't
follow is a bit weird, I think the Pope is being particularly petty
on this one. Then again, John Paul II has been getting more and more
conservative in recent years anyway.
|