Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Lennon/Jesus controversy illustrates what I regard as one of the most annoying....and dumb...distinctions made by people. That is that there are regular beliefs and "sacred" beliefs, and that for some reason, others are supposed to have automatic respect for those "sacred" beliefs whether or not they have any more merit than any other belief.
Had Lennon said "We're more popular than Mozart" or "We're bigger than Charles Lindbergh", the extent of any controversy would have been some speculation on the size of Lennon's ego and the true cultural value of the Beatles. There would be plenty of Mozart or Lindbergh admirers who thought that John was full of himself and that the Beatles accomplishments did not belong in the same discussion with those names. What there would not have been was what we got when Lennon used "Jesus" as his comparative....international outrage, people burning Beatle records, endless angry editorials and so forth.
Why? Because Lennon treaded on a "sacred" belief when he employed Jesus in his assertion.
In fact, there is no distinction apart from the imaginary one that people with "sacred" beliefs like to advance. Religious beliefs are just guesses about the cosmos which are unprovable, as well as being dismally rooted in antiquated and overthrown thought patterns. A Christian's "sacred" beliefs about Jesus enjoy no more actual validity than did the pagan's beliefs about Apollo or the Mormon's beliefs about Joseph Smith or the Native American beliefs about the Great Spirit. They are all equally valid and equally loopy because they all ultimately come from the same sources....people made em up.
The whole dynamic has a "will to stupidity" quality in that the relativity involved never seems to dawn on most people. The same sorts of people who got bent out of shape about Lennon using Jesus to frame the Beatles' popularity, will read about Islamics being offended by someone's book where Mohammed isn't treated as they think he should have been, and laugh at the silly Islamics for getting so worked up over nothing.
Burning Beatle records and stoning apostates to death in Saudia Arabia, both spring from the same foolish impulse....someone stepped on a "sacred" belief."
Nonsense is nonsense whether marketed as "sacred" or not.
I'm just a little too young to remember this. Sounds like it was a big deal at the time. I doubt a celebrity saying that today would get much press.
Ironically, 40+ years later, most kids have no idea who John Lennon was. They know the "Beatles" and their music, but most couldn't tell you who was in the band.
The Lennon/Jesus controversy illustrates what I regard as one of the most annoying....and dumb...distinctions made by people. That is that there are regular beliefs and "sacred" beliefs, and that for some reason, others are supposed to have automatic respect for those "sacred" beliefs whether or not they have any more merit than any other belief.
Agreed, and this is why blasphemy laws are ridiculous and oppressive.
Quote:
Had Lennon said "We're more popular than Mozart" or "We're bigger than Charles Lindbergh", the extent of any controversy would have been some speculation on the size of Lennon's ego and the true cultural value of the Beatles.
If he'd said "we're bigger than Charles Lindbergh", if anything the controversy would've come from Lennon comparing himself to a man who was known as an antisemite and fascist sympathizer. (It would've been like saying to the UK media, "we're bigger than Oswald Mosley", except that Lindbergh did contribute to society through his pioneering aviation, while Mosley contributed nothing positive to society whatsoever.) I don't know how the elderly Lindbergh himself would've regarded that statement - at the time he was trying to rehabilitate himself through working in environmental causes and no longer spoke about political issues other than saving the planet.
If he'd said "we're bigger than Mozart", he would've been right.
Quote:
There would be plenty of Mozart or Lindbergh admirers who thought that John was full of himself and that the Beatles accomplishments did not belong in the same discussion with those names. What there would not have been was what we got when Lennon used "Jesus" as his comparative....international outrage, people burning Beatle records, endless angry editorials and so forth.
It should also be mentioned that the UK media was used to outrageous statements from Lennon and didn't take them that seriously. The US media, otoh, was a different story - especially because Britain didn't (and doesn't) have such a massive "Bible Belt" as America. It did have Mary Whitehouse but she and her followers were not armed like many US fundies were.
Quote:
Why? Because Lennon treaded on a "sacred" belief when he employed Jesus in his assertion.
In fact, there is no distinction apart from the imaginary one that people with "sacred" beliefs like to advance. Religious beliefs are just guesses about the cosmos which are unprovable, as well as being dismally rooted in antiquated and overthrown thought patterns. A Christian's "sacred" beliefs about Jesus enjoy no more actual validity than did the pagan's beliefs about Apollo or the Mormon's beliefs about Joseph Smith or the Native American beliefs about the Great Spirit. They are all equally valid and equally loopy because they all ultimately come from the same sources....people made em up.)
The whole dynamic has a "will to stupidity" quality in that the relativity involved never seems to dawn on most people. The same sorts of people who got bent out of shape about Lennon using Jesus to frame the Beatles' popularity, will read about Islamics being offended by someone's book where Mohammed isn't treated as they think he should have been, and laugh at the silly Islamics for getting so worked up over nothing.
Burning Beatle records and stoning apostates to death in Saudia Arabia, both spring from the same foolish impulse....someone stepped on a "sacred" belief."
Nonsense is nonsense whether marketed as "sacred" or not.
If he'd said "we're bigger than Charles Lindbergh", if anything the controversy would've come from Lennon comparing himself to a man who was known as an antisemite and fascist sympathizer.
I selected Lindbergh as an example of someone who achieved mega fame while still alive. It could have been Buffalo Bill Cody or John Glenn, and if it had been Bill, then you could be writing that Lennon was comparing himself to a severe alcoholic and womanizer.
The point was the level of fame, not the character of the famous person.
A thread where everyone is pretty much correct in their comments. Yes, the statement was taken out of context. He was commenting on the waning influence of religion at the time. It certainly was not a boast or a provocation.
If someone said it today (Kanye West maybe), it would ignite the shotgun media for a few days and flicker out as soon as another "outrage" arrived.
About those cities not liked by the Beatles. I recall an interview where JL said there were always local pols, police, and goons who insisted on some special attention, not unlike what Marcos wanted in the Philippines. Perhaps they had preturbed the wrong people in these cities?
...Had Lucy herself would had said that she was "bigger than Jesus" and with Vance & Frawley being so connected to Lucy perhaps CBS and/or the general public would had looked the other way.
No, you're not getting the times.
Havng grown up in that era, I have to say I think you are 100% wrong. This was still the era of smalltown America to a large degree. For a national idol to have made such a statement would have been considered the over-the-top arrogance and bordering on sacriledge.
Things were far, far different then.....including the importance attached to popular musicians in the overall society. The vast bulk of the adult American population was not taking four Brit kids even remotely as seriously as Lucy would have been taken.
An adult population adoring someone like John Lennon, Yoko Ono, et al is relatively new. We have a generation or two of adults now who have grown up with pop music as the center of their lives, and they are used to thinking that the opinions of a Madonna actually matter, that they are worthy of note and something to be considered seriously.
But back then no. Lucy, yes, she was truly a national American icon. She had lived in America's living rooms for decades, she and her program were part of the fabric of American life.
The Beatles, no. Pop musicians, blow-ins. News items, and "kid stuff."
And there was a world of difference between the weight of Lucy and the Beatles in American culture.
I selected Lindbergh as an example of someone who achieved mega fame while still alive. It could have been Buffalo Bill Cody or John Glenn, and if it had been Bill, then you could be writing that Lennon was comparing himself to a severe alcoholic and womanizer.
At least those were character traits closer to Lennon's own personality unlike those of Lindbergh.
And there's a big difference between being an alcoholic and womanizer on one hand, and being a Nazi sympathizer and anti-semite on the other.
At least those were character traits closer to Lennon's own personality unlike those of Lindbergh.
And there's a big difference between being an alcoholic and womanizer on one hand, and being a Nazi sympathizer and anti-semite on the other.
Also, it's been acceptable for a famous man to be a womanizer throughout American history, and being an alcoholic has generally been tolerated or accepted throughout most of American history. Being a Nazi is a whole different thing.
It was meant as a wake-up call. Not a boast. Like "Hey, why are you giving us all this attention?" It was more of a put-down than anything else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
