From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: sinead o'connor
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:50:51 GMT

bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:

>A wiser philosopher than myself (and I forget this author, but, as I 
>seem to remember, he is well known...) once stated that
>"anti-catholicism is the antisemitism of the intellectual set" or words
>to that effect.  Let's face it, just because of the sheer size, the 
>Church will be attacked by those with a personal agenda or vendetta-
>and, because the Church does not shy away from controversy, but states,
>in clear, sometimes ringing tones, moral and ethical certainties, it
>will be attacked by the moral relativists and other hacks with a
>personal point to get across.

Possibly true.  But I don't think that all of the actions that the Church
has taken in recent years have been perfect.  I don't think it is wrong
to criticize the Church or the Pope.  I just think that if one is going to
do such things, one needs to go about it intelligently.  Sinead's action
was impulsive and not intelligent.

>In the general scheme of things, who is
>this female?  A strident, hate-filled, publicity-seeking harlot that
>will use any device, including live tv, to insult, abuse, or otherwise
>be intolerant towards a group of people.

I disagree.  I saw an interview with her from a few weeks back and it 
seems that her hatred of the Church is rooted in the child abuse that 
she experienced as a child.  I think what she needs is help and compassion
and not to be called names.  

>Add to that her blatant
>hypocracy-if she cares so much about not harming others, then why did
>she do what she did, other than to put herself back in the spotlight.
>And we are doing just what she would want us to do: we all know her
>name, and are talking about her...think about it...

I don't necessarily think her criticisms of the Catholic Church should 
be silenced.  She may well be wrong about some of them, but still I think
that she does have the right to be upset about things if that is her 
opinion.  But she needs to address those issues and not be inflammatory.

As I stated before and as you quoted:
>>   I interpret her tearing of the Pope's picture as an insult to Catholics.
>>Had she given some focus to her criticism, I might at least have been able
>>to accept it.  But you can't even argue with her because she hasn't even
>>said what's really bothering her.
>>
>>>Another interesting point was made that she may have guessed incorrectly as
>>>to how her American audience would take her performance.  I guess she is
>>>more understood in Ireland.

>In Ireland, she would have been arrested and probably heavily fined.
>Most countries other than the US don't maintain such a blatant double
>standard when it comes to religious tolerance.  She is not understood
>in Eire, is not popular there, and spends very little time there.  I
>guess the US is more fertile for her feverish rantings about the Church.

Is this true?  Do we have anyone who can confirm this?  I wouldn't be
surprised, given that even giving out information about abortion is illegal.
But still, do we have any Irish people in the audience who know this for 
a fact?

I guess what I'm saying is that no one should be able to stop her from
ripping up a picture of the Pope on live television, but that's not saying
I think what she did is right.  This is America, after all, with all it's
plurality and difference of opinion.  I just think someone needs to be ready
to say WHY they did something.

Sharon
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu