Ma Don't Laaa
“Madonna's record breaking Confessions Tour filmed at London's Wembley Arena during her worldwide sold-out 25-city run in 2006 has been banned in Singapore for her performance on a massive neon cross in a mock-crucifixion.”
fridae
Photograph modified by Gadgit
I don't see why it ought to be banned because of the 'mock crucifixion' scene (personally, I don’t think much of this ‘artiste’ with her superficial lyrics and simply arranged ‘music’ which is no more than an accompaniment to primitive sexuality and attempts to pander to an insignificant people seeking significance vicariously). After all, though the crucifix was popularised by Jesus' crucifixion, it was a common enough tool for retribution in Roman times. Perhaps, the bimbette was trying to emulate one of the thieves crucified on either side of the Christ – but I suppose it takes more than a ‘singaporean’ to realise that. We ought not to allow the Christ to monopolise the cross where others besides Him especially since others too were afforded this dire conduit to the next life by the Romans.
However,
the meaning and usage of symbols is not independent of the common perception of it. The user of a particular symbol, unless s/he is unaware of its common association, or makes it clear that it is being utilised with an alternative meaning, is guilty of misrepresenting, falsely associating, or compromising the integrity and sacredness of its associated value. Hence, I would inquire after Madonna’s intentions before supporting any such ban.
Banning this and that..
…may be seen as little more than an effort to either show the people ‘who's boss’ and thus train them in the art of submission, or, indicative of deficiencies in general logical abilities by the banning party, or, indicative of a logically-disabled people who have trained the banning party to do as they please when they please with little thought by their being unable to offer consistent and logic-based opposition.
With rights come responsibilities. But, we would be well advised to keep in mind, that taking up the right responsibilities have historically been proven to be the harbinger of more rights. To allow one’s development to be dictated by the mores, requirements and solely take on the expected ‘responsibilities’ of a particular system is to simultaneously cause the disabling of the imaginative and creative faculties required to improve it.
However,
the meaning and usage of symbols is not independent of the common perception of it. The user of a particular symbol, unless s/he is unaware of its common association, or makes it clear that it is being utilised with an alternative meaning, is guilty of misrepresenting, falsely associating, or compromising the integrity and sacredness of its associated value. Hence, I would inquire after Madonna’s intentions before supporting any such ban.
Banning this and that..
…may be seen as little more than an effort to either show the people ‘who's boss’ and thus train them in the art of submission, or, indicative of deficiencies in general logical abilities by the banning party, or, indicative of a logically-disabled people who have trained the banning party to do as they please when they please with little thought by their being unable to offer consistent and logic-based opposition.
With rights come responsibilities. But, we would be well advised to keep in mind, that taking up the right responsibilities have historically been proven to be the harbinger of more rights. To allow one’s development to be dictated by the mores, requirements and solely take on the expected ‘responsibilities’ of a particular system is to simultaneously cause the disabling of the imaginative and creative faculties required to improve it.
malaysia singapore philippines hong kong christianity madonna
0 comments:
Post a Comment