Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 251 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Why Are Christians Upset About The Next Day By David Bowie?

The following is the music video for his song The Next Day. Why would we post it here? Why would you watch it? Well…

YouTube censored the video. The Catholic League and the Archbishop of Canterbury are in a tizzy of outrage about it, which shows priests hanging out and dancing around with sexy young people (which is something that apparently does happen). There’s a stigmatification, and some eyeballs, and blood.

What’s the big deal? There’s a whole lot more gore and sex in the Christians’ holy book than what’s contained in this short video. So, why ban it? Why would Christians get offended?

Perhaps they’re miffed that someone made something a bit more interesting than the tired old material they’ve been working with?

9 comments to Why Are Christians Upset About The Next Day By David Bowie?

  • Bill

    It’s a pretty hard-hitting (albeit not undeserved) commentary. Let’s face it, the Church’s track record for tolerating criticism is…um, how to say this?…not great. But look at the bright side, because things are improving: only a few hundred years ago the Church would have broken Bowie on the rack for this. Nowadays they’re resigned to just whining, stamping their feet (clad in luxurious custom-made red leather loafers) and leaning on YouTube. Hey, it’s a start.

  • JeffD

    Christian bashing is fun for the insensitive.

    • But really, who’s getting bashed here? Really, I want to know. What is this video, compared to the Book of Revelations, or Abraham and his son and the knife? I mean, I kind of agree with Dave. The video doesn’t do a really creative skewer of Christianity, so much as it throws together some semi-religious images, in a lazy way, and then someone bleeds from their hands. I question why anyone is upset with this, because it doesn’t have much vision, really. At least back in the day, when Madonna made out with an African Jesus, that stretched a few boundaries. This video doesn’t, really. It’s not offensive, so much as it is bait for those who are ready to be offended at anything.

    • Bill

      It’s not “Christian bashing” (at least not from me; I’m a Christian and I respect a lot of Christians. I have no reason to bash them). It’s “religionist scam artist bashing.” Totally, completely different thing (and oh, by the way, something Jesus was into, too). Makes no difference if they’re reputedly Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, whatever. A scam’s a scam.

  • Dave

    Bowie was a competent artist back in the 70′s, but golly I don’t want to relive that bleak decade. If he is looking for a way to kickstart a thirty year sag in his career, this might do it if he can sell enough ring tones, but he really should follow Bob Dylan’s lead and allow his art to gracefully act its age.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury is a wuss if he marvels at this sort of thing, as his own Christ said not to marvel, but this video, with all its finger pointing and moralising is really cowardly to an extreme. An easy target indeed is a belief system whose central figure said to turn the other cheek, do good to those who mock you, etc. One can be certain that any blowback from hypocritical “pretenders of the faith” will be just that — blowback. I have to disagree, Rowan. This video is tired old material, and if Bowie wants to do cutting edge stuff like the old days, why not go after a few hypocritical Imams with the same fervor? You know, strip some burkahs off some Muslim babes, etc. Powerful imagery that would be. Forget it; why ask courage from a fraidy cat like David Bowie? Better to spit on people who by the lights of their own doctrines are not allowed to spit back. Easy pickin’s, you know.

    • Bill

      Dave, Bowie must speak for himself of course, but I’ll suggest that perhaps, as a member of a predominantly Christian society himself, he felt best qualified and most motivated to criticize the Christian church rather than Islam.
      One hears all the time “why don’t more Muslims publicly denounce radical Islam?” I guess the question here is, “why don’t more Christians denounce scam Christianity?” In short, I find your rhetorical suggestion that Bowie should be picking on Muslims instead to be pretty much beside the point.

      • Dave

        I appreciate the feedback, Bill. I did go off point with the Muslim angle, and to be sure, it was an inartful attempt to suggest to Mr. Bowie (who I am sure is reading the comments) that this video might have been really strong stuff back in the 70′s where so many artists (including a number of young contemporaries) want to camp out, but today, well, it’s just so …. you know…. so …. well …. you know. As David Bowie at one time was not afraid of sharp edges, I tried to think of something in a video that would have spoken directly to the “Pharisees” or, in a broader sense, any religious hypocrites, that would take more courage and have a sharper edge and I took it out on Islam. Honestly, it just popped in there. You are right. Bowie should slam that which he knows best. The sulking lyrics of this piece are too small for the broader view.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>