Tell Me :
Talk
Huh?
There's quite a lot of references to religion in the Stones' music, partly no doubt because their musical roots
(as in blues, gospel, soul, reggae) are full of such references, but that's not necessarily the only reason.
You and I don't know whether the Mick really believes he's a sinner who will die out in the cold,
but he's plainly thought about issues related to religion, metaphysics, good and evil and all that. Keith too.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-14 14:47 by with sssoul.
Hallelujah! And I am so pleased to be blessed with this, that I ran twenty red lights in their honor--thank ya Jeezis, thank ya Lohd!
Whether we like it, or not, that is a “common talk” between Jews, between Jews and non Jewish people with whom they are comfortable and the more you go back in time – a way of talking common in General – especially in countries where the bulk of local population was of North-West or East European origin and had a large Jewish community. Jews still openly use the “Jewish look” term today and it is not considered too offensive – maybe somewhat bold. Ask any Italian-American who grew up in areas that were dominantly Jewish. When people feel comfortable and free from the fear of being savagely attacked on PC backgrounds they might surprise you. I just had this type of experience in Berlin just when I was on the way to Paris. Obviously I’m not surprised (or offended) as I’m aware of the fact most people THINK that way, just don’t admit to it. When you travel to countries that are outside the “PC periphery” you see that people openly regard to “looks” that are typical to certain ethnic groups. And people who do come from “PC enforced” countries, whom life circumstances carried away to other countries, also very fast adopt this way of talking and feel comfortable with it. Its not a justification – just an observation.
And in general – whether we like it, or not, Clapton under the influence of poor judgment and alcohol expressed opinions that all signs, pools and personal experience show to be (still, and definitely when going back to the 70’s) widely held. The question that should be asked is how come he – of all people – was caught saying that. The “Clapton? He of all people – the lover of Blues yada-yada-yada” questions doesn’t follow the way things happen in real life. I’ve never found much of a correlation between a person’s personal passion towards certain “products” related to certain cultures/ethnic groups, and his general tolerance. Did hear quite a few people say things such as “I would die for them &%$#@ - not live with them”. And offcourse that the PC state of mind of the time dictates what’s considered unacceptable and what is acceptable within certain limits. While commenting (today) about Ethnic groups of African origin – even as a hint – might cause you to be lynched over the internet, somewhat racial comments about the peoples of one HUGE nation where practically everything we use in our daily life in manufactured, are much more tolerated. It is explained in various ways so the tone is given a more respectable aroma (Animal rights, organs cropping, Falun Gong etc.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-15 11:27 by Wroclaw.
Neither. But I do see a couple of mensches there.
can't tell, but you certainly look happier!
I recall when Mick and Marianne went along to see the Maharishi in London and then went with The Beatles to Wales to attend the weekend lecture with Maharishi back in the summer of 1967. I think Mick and Marianne just wanted to check out MMY.
In the end George, Paul and Ringo continued TM when the need arose. They took pride that it was Maharishi who had given them each their Mantras.
That was a very interesting read... There is no issue here... Jagger wants to listen to the guide in the sacred place in his own right... And the others, well I would have done the same, I guess... Jagger and Jesus in the same place, SFTD all ringing in our mind... What a tension...
Yes, I am serious. The distinction is that religion is being indoctrinated from birth since ages and The Rolling Stones are only around since 1962. So how come a Stonescap is not allowed at work and other religious clothing is? I don't see the difference. They are fans of "a god" and I am a fan of The Stones.
I would say they are public figures who try to keep as much of their private life as private as possible. That includes not discussing what they do or don't think about any religion for the most part. I do believe that at least Mick and Keith have tried and discarded several faiths over the years, but I wouldn't look to their image or lyrics as being particularly relevant. As for the remark about Mick and Jerry's kids being baptized being solely Jerry's wish, I doubt a Texan girl felt strongly about the Church of England, maybe christening them in a church, but that's often simply cultural and not betokening faith. As for Mick's remark about "two sides of the same medal," that's a typical Mick media response, quotable and revealing nothing.
If you, in all seriousness, consider The Rolling Stones to be your religion then you might be able to argue
your case---however: (a) there is no religion called The Rolling Stones, and (b) if there were, there is no
official headpiece that has been deemed holy, or arising from tenets of that religion.
Tell it to Mick, Straycat13.
I concur with you Straycat, if anyone is interested Mr Dawkins had a lengthy debate with noted theologian and pastor Douglas Wilson that is available on DVD, it is very well done. It's called "Collision" and you can buy it here:
Is Christianity Good for The World? Hitchens/Wilson Debate
NWSooner
b) Nonsense. Just fairytale stuff made up by clever manupilators through the ages and continueing today.
I know The Rolling Stones are no religion but they are for real and playing tonight in Vienna. That's what live is about, not believing in "something" so you can "live" further
after dead and others who don't are not allowed in their "heaven".
I tend to think maybe some of the hard partying was a bit overblown, especially by the time he met his future wife.
And there's probably plenty of us on here that like to have too much to drink on regular occasions and probably frequent a religious service regularly as well. I don't see a major conflict there.
He also said something in his book about heaven/hell being the same place and you just wave at each other while passing by. Although he also mentioned working with the Wingless Angels you couldn't help but get caught up in the religion. And he did play on that gospel album of his sister-in-laws a few years back.
Also, there was this story by Christopher Standford, published in November 2003 by The Spectator:
Richards married for the first and only time on his 40th birthday in 1983, and it probably saved his life. His bride was the 27-year-old Patti Hansen, a home-town girl from Staten Island, New York, and a devout Lutheran. His in-laws gave a startling interview in which they portrayed Keith as an ‘enthusiastic disciple of Christ’ and that he ‘embraced Christ as a way of life’. Under Patti’s influence, Richards cut back on drugs, attended church from time to time and even started a gentle exercise regime. ‘She’s a wonderful girl; I ain’t letting the bitch go!’ he confirmed in a speech at his wedding reception. Keith may have written ‘Sympathy For The Devil’ back when, but these days much of his life is spent with a woman who attends a weekly Bible study group and who won’t stand for swearing around the house.
The Lee Strobel series is good on that subject as well, might start here: [www.amazon.com]
You're probably not allowed to wear ANY cap to work though. Asuming that non-muslim women allowed to wear scarves on their hair as opposed to arround their neck you might have a valid discrimination claim against your employer? Are Kippah's permitted? - I'll bet they are. If you were to ask your employer why regligious headgear is permitted while secular headgear is banned, you may even have a leg to stand on in the debate even though it probably wouldn't get you the result I assume you're wanting.
It's an interesting question you raise, though. If I were in the same position, I don't think I'd care enough to approach my employer about it as I don't find it that important. HOWEVER, if you do choose to persue it any farther, I'd be interested in how it turns out for you. Mainly because my wife's job is as Human Resources Director for the small corporation she works for. SHE'S actually the person who writes this type of policy for her company. I'm going to describe your situation to her tonight and see what she says.
Peace,
Mr DJA
You.
That is an amazing story.
OK. Good idea, swiss.
HEY, MICK! READ THE ABOVE! And hi, how are you? Have fun with your family. I hope you got some nice socks for Father's Day. You're doing an amazing job on this tour. We all love you here. Thanks for keeping us satisfied. Bye for now.
I think I agree
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: June 14, 2014 12:42
Quote
stonehearted
The Stones and religion? Well, that's a bit of a stretch.
...
Rock and roll and religion? Can you really put those two terms in the same sentence? I mean, do they really belong together?
Huh?
There's quite a lot of references to religion in the Stones' music, partly no doubt because their musical roots
(as in blues, gospel, soul, reggae) are full of such references, but that's not necessarily the only reason.
You and I don't know whether the Mick really believes he's a sinner who will die out in the cold,
but he's plainly thought about issues related to religion, metaphysics, good and evil and all that. Keith too.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-14 14:47 by with sssoul.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
RomanCandle
()
Date: June 14, 2014 12:48
Quote
with sssoulQuote
stonehearted
The Stones and religion? Well, that's a bit of a stretch.
...
Rock and roll and religion? Can you really put those two terms in the same sentence? I mean, do they really belong together?
Huh?
There's quite a lot of references to religion in the Stones' music, partly no doubt because of their musical roots
(as in blues, gospel, soul) but that's not necessarily the sole reason.
You and I don't know whether the Mick really believes he's a sinner who will die out in the cold,
but he's plainly thought about issues related to religion, metaphysics, good and evil and all that. Keith too.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
Green Lady
()
Date: June 14, 2014 13:00
They have taken the advice so often given here - whatever your beliefs are, keep them to yourself.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
NWSooner
()
Date: June 15, 2014 04:01
Patti hansen is a devoted Christian according to a People Magazine article about her bladder cancer in 2007.
"It was Hansen's deep Christian faith that buoyed her strength when she underwent surgery to remove her infected bladder in April 2008. If during the operation Bochner had found that the tumor had spread to an adjacent organ, Hansen's insides would have had to be rerouted so that she would urinate through a catheter inserted through an opening below her belly button. "I was like, 'I'm going to become a man!' I did comic drawings of myself as a fountain!" says Hansen, who was "praying, praying, praying" that wouldn't be her fate."
People Magazine Article
NWSooner
"It was Hansen's deep Christian faith that buoyed her strength when she underwent surgery to remove her infected bladder in April 2008. If during the operation Bochner had found that the tumor had spread to an adjacent organ, Hansen's insides would have had to be rerouted so that she would urinate through a catheter inserted through an opening below her belly button. "I was like, 'I'm going to become a man!' I did comic drawings of myself as a fountain!" says Hansen, who was "praying, praying, praying" that wouldn't be her fate."
People Magazine Article
NWSooner
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: June 15, 2014 04:18
Quote
Green Lady
They have taken the advice so often given here - whatever your beliefs are, keep them to yourself.
Hallelujah! And I am so pleased to be blessed with this, that I ran twenty red lights in their honor--thank ya Jeezis, thank ya Lohd!
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: June 15, 2014 11:09
Holy stones! Jagger alters the altar
JERUSALEM — And then Mick Jagger walked in.
I was in Israel, with several friends, visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, believed to be the site where Jesus was crucified and later buried. It is one of the biggest religious destinations in the world, viewed by thousands of people every day. Some fall to the floor. Others place personal items on a large stone where, it is said, Jesus’ body once lay. They pray. They weep. It is a place of deep reverence.
And then Jagger walked in.
And everything changed.
He happened to stop just in front of me, blocking my view. I wanted to say, “Hey, Mick, get off of my cloud,” but I resisted.
[www.freep.com]
JERUSALEM — And then Mick Jagger walked in.
I was in Israel, with several friends, visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, believed to be the site where Jesus was crucified and later buried. It is one of the biggest religious destinations in the world, viewed by thousands of people every day. Some fall to the floor. Others place personal items on a large stone where, it is said, Jesus’ body once lay. They pray. They weep. It is a place of deep reverence.
And then Jagger walked in.
And everything changed.
He happened to stop just in front of me, blocking my view. I wanted to say, “Hey, Mick, get off of my cloud,” but I resisted.
[www.freep.com]
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
Wroclaw
()
Date: June 15, 2014 11:22
Quote
michaelsavageQuote
Estoneado
I find it very interesting that Charlie is jewish. I had guessed it. He always looked very jewish to me.
He "looks" Jewish!!!! What does that mean?!
Whether we like it, or not, that is a “common talk” between Jews, between Jews and non Jewish people with whom they are comfortable and the more you go back in time – a way of talking common in General – especially in countries where the bulk of local population was of North-West or East European origin and had a large Jewish community. Jews still openly use the “Jewish look” term today and it is not considered too offensive – maybe somewhat bold. Ask any Italian-American who grew up in areas that were dominantly Jewish. When people feel comfortable and free from the fear of being savagely attacked on PC backgrounds they might surprise you. I just had this type of experience in Berlin just when I was on the way to Paris. Obviously I’m not surprised (or offended) as I’m aware of the fact most people THINK that way, just don’t admit to it. When you travel to countries that are outside the “PC periphery” you see that people openly regard to “looks” that are typical to certain ethnic groups. And people who do come from “PC enforced” countries, whom life circumstances carried away to other countries, also very fast adopt this way of talking and feel comfortable with it. Its not a justification – just an observation.
And in general – whether we like it, or not, Clapton under the influence of poor judgment and alcohol expressed opinions that all signs, pools and personal experience show to be (still, and definitely when going back to the 70’s) widely held. The question that should be asked is how come he – of all people – was caught saying that. The “Clapton? He of all people – the lover of Blues yada-yada-yada” questions doesn’t follow the way things happen in real life. I’ve never found much of a correlation between a person’s personal passion towards certain “products” related to certain cultures/ethnic groups, and his general tolerance. Did hear quite a few people say things such as “I would die for them &%$#@ - not live with them”. And offcourse that the PC state of mind of the time dictates what’s considered unacceptable and what is acceptable within certain limits. While commenting (today) about Ethnic groups of African origin – even as a hint – might cause you to be lynched over the internet, somewhat racial comments about the peoples of one HUGE nation where practically everything we use in our daily life in manufactured, are much more tolerated. It is explained in various ways so the tone is given a more respectable aroma (Animal rights, organs cropping, Falun Gong etc.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-15 11:27 by Wroclaw.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: June 15, 2014 11:43
OK, so who looks more Jewish, Charlie or me?
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
latebloomer
()
Date: June 15, 2014 15:46
Quote
BluzDude
OK, so who looks more Jewish, Charlie or me?
Neither. But I do see a couple of mensches there.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: June 15, 2014 16:02
Quote
BluzDude
OK, so who looks more Jewish, Charlie or me?
can't tell, but you certainly look happier!
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
WindyHorses
()
Date: June 15, 2014 17:36
Quote
Wanton Witch of the Côte
...back in the day'' that is key b/c folks forget of don't realize it was very taboo to marry ouside one's faith. And, one can't necessarlily tell ones faith by their surname (whatever her surname was?)
I recall Mick J making a remark pertaining to the Beatles' embrace of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - or at least John's, that was somewhat derogatory. (Of course that might be more of a a new religious movement or/and as non-religious.)
I recall when Mick and Marianne went along to see the Maharishi in London and then went with The Beatles to Wales to attend the weekend lecture with Maharishi back in the summer of 1967. I think Mick and Marianne just wanted to check out MMY.
In the end George, Paul and Ringo continued TM when the need arose. They took pride that it was Maharishi who had given them each their Mantras.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
The Joker
()
Date: June 15, 2014 18:30
Quote
proudmary
Holy stones! Jagger alters the altar
JERUSALEM — And then Mick Jagger walked in.
I was in Israel, with several friends, visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, believed to be the site where Jesus was crucified and later buried. It is one of the biggest religious destinations in the world, viewed by thousands of people every day. Some fall to the floor. Others place personal items on a large stone where, it is said, Jesus’ body once lay. They pray. They weep. It is a place of deep reverence.
And then Jagger walked in.
And everything changed.
He happened to stop just in front of me, blocking my view. I wanted to say, “Hey, Mick, get off of my cloud,” but I resisted.
[www.freep.com]
That was a very interesting read... There is no issue here... Jagger wants to listen to the guide in the sacred place in his own right... And the others, well I would have done the same, I guess... Jagger and Jesus in the same place, SFTD all ringing in our mind... What a tension...
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
OutOfTime
()
Date: June 15, 2014 20:45
Quote
AquamarineQuote
OutOfTime
One question: why is it accepted muslimwomen wear a "headscarf" (is that the right word?) at work in public places and a Rolling Stones cap is not. I'm not allowed to wear one at work.
Umm. You seriously don't see the distinction?
Regarding Bliss's post [I never figured out how to multiquote, sorry!]I remember Charlie being quoted in one of the early Stones books saying something like "Being Jewish, I was keen to make some money", describing the early years., he did indeed say this, and I regret to say it was probably because back in the day it was pretty common to use "Jewish" as a synonym for "tight with money." So he may not have meant it literally.
Yes, I am serious. The distinction is that religion is being indoctrinated from birth since ages and The Rolling Stones are only around since 1962. So how come a Stonescap is not allowed at work and other religious clothing is? I don't see the difference. They are fans of "a god" and I am a fan of The Stones.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
shattered1978
()
Date: June 15, 2014 20:54
I remember an interview with Mick after "Goddess in the doorway".
The journalist asked "what's up with the contrast between Sympathy for the devil and Goddess in the doorway?".
Mick answered: "two sides of the same medal".
That sounds pretty neutral/atheist to me.
The journalist asked "what's up with the contrast between Sympathy for the devil and Goddess in the doorway?".
Mick answered: "two sides of the same medal".
That sounds pretty neutral/atheist to me.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
DeanGoodman
()
Date: June 16, 2014 00:32
Charlie could move to Israel under the Law of Return, though I don't think his horses would be thrilled with the new surroundings.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: June 16, 2014 05:04
Quote
shattered1978
I remember an interview with Mick after "Goddess in the doorway".
The journalist asked "what's up with the contrast between Sympathy for the devil and Goddess in the doorway?".
Mick answered: "two sides of the same medal".
That sounds pretty neutral/atheist to me.
I would say they are public figures who try to keep as much of their private life as private as possible. That includes not discussing what they do or don't think about any religion for the most part. I do believe that at least Mick and Keith have tried and discarded several faiths over the years, but I wouldn't look to their image or lyrics as being particularly relevant. As for the remark about Mick and Jerry's kids being baptized being solely Jerry's wish, I doubt a Texan girl felt strongly about the Church of England, maybe christening them in a church, but that's often simply cultural and not betokening faith. As for Mick's remark about "two sides of the same medal," that's a typical Mick media response, quotable and revealing nothing.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: June 16, 2014 05:50
Quote
OutOfTimeQuote
AquamarineQuote
OutOfTime
One question: why is it accepted muslimwomen wear a "headscarf" (is that the right word?) at work in public places and a Rolling Stones cap is not. I'm not allowed to wear one at work.
Umm. You seriously don't see the distinction?
Regarding Bliss's post [I never figured out how to multiquote, sorry!]I remember Charlie being quoted in one of the early Stones books saying something like "Being Jewish, I was keen to make some money", describing the early years., he did indeed say this, and I regret to say it was probably because back in the day it was pretty common to use "Jewish" as a synonym for "tight with money." So he may not have meant it literally.
Yes, I am serious. The distinction is that religion is being indoctrinated from birth since ages and The Rolling Stones are only around since 1962. So how come a Stonescap is not allowed at work and other religious clothing is? I don't see the difference. They are fans of "a god" and I am a fan of The Stones.
If you, in all seriousness, consider The Rolling Stones to be your religion then you might be able to argue
your case---however: (a) there is no religion called The Rolling Stones, and (b) if there were, there is no
official headpiece that has been deemed holy, or arising from tenets of that religion.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: June 16, 2014 05:57
As I posted in another recent thread about the Stones and religion:
Mick From a 2007 interview in the Independent:
"Like most English people I’m not a great believer. I’ve read Richard Dawkins’ book and it’s very
persuasive. I’m more in awe of the universe and that’s not really a belief in God… Killing for ideas
is the most dangerous form of killing at all… dying for an idea, like in religion, is absurd."
Mick is referring to Dawkins' The God Delusion.
Summary per Wikipedia:
"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila that 'when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion'."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-16 05:59 by swiss.
Mick From a 2007 interview in the Independent:
"Like most English people I’m not a great believer. I’ve read Richard Dawkins’ book and it’s very
persuasive. I’m more in awe of the universe and that’s not really a belief in God… Killing for ideas
is the most dangerous form of killing at all… dying for an idea, like in religion, is absurd."
Mick is referring to Dawkins' The God Delusion.
Summary per Wikipedia:
"In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila that 'when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion'."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-16 05:59 by swiss.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
Straycat13
()
Date: June 16, 2014 07:28
Dawkins is an arrogant man. Romans 1 answers all his questions.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
swiss
()
Date: June 16, 2014 08:12
Quote
Straycat13
Dawkins is an arrogant man. Romans 1 answers all his questions.
Tell it to Mick, Straycat13.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: June 16, 2014 08:28
People can be in between belief in something and doubt...
Doesn't have to be all or nothing. Spirituality is a complex, individual thing, except for rigid fundamentalism and dogmatic atheism.
There's a lot of gray for those who are both intellectual and emotional.
Fundamentalists and atheist are cut from the same cloth.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-16 08:34 by stupidguy2.
Doesn't have to be all or nothing. Spirituality is a complex, individual thing, except for rigid fundamentalism and dogmatic atheism.
There's a lot of gray for those who are both intellectual and emotional.
Fundamentalists and atheist are cut from the same cloth.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-16 08:34 by stupidguy2.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
NWSooner
()
Date: June 16, 2014 20:08
Quote
Straycat13
Dawkins is an arrogant man. Romans 1 answers all his questions.
I concur with you Straycat, if anyone is interested Mr Dawkins had a lengthy debate with noted theologian and pastor Douglas Wilson that is available on DVD, it is very well done. It's called "Collision" and you can buy it here:
Is Christianity Good for The World? Hitchens/Wilson Debate
NWSooner
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
OutOfTime
()
Date: June 16, 2014 20:47
a) So a religion that's named itself something ages ago by someone is holy just because they named themselves christians, muslims, etc.?Quote
swissQuote
OutOfTimeQuote
AquamarineQuote
OutOfTime
One question: why is it accepted muslimwomen wear a "headscarf" (is that the right word?) at work in public places and a Rolling Stones cap is not. I'm not allowed to wear one at work.
Umm. You seriously don't see the distinction?
Regarding Bliss's post [I never figured out how to multiquote, sorry!]I remember Charlie being quoted in one of the early Stones books saying something like "Being Jewish, I was keen to make some money", describing the early years., he did indeed say this, and I regret to say it was probably because back in the day it was pretty common to use "Jewish" as a synonym for "tight with money." So he may not have meant it literally.
Yes, I am serious. The distinction is that religion is being indoctrinated from birth since ages and The Rolling Stones are only around since 1962. So how come a Stonescap is not allowed at work and other religious clothing is? I don't see the difference. They are fans of "a god" and I am a fan of The Stones.
If you, in all seriousness, consider The Rolling Stones to be your religion then you might be able to argue
your case---however: (a) there is no religion called The Rolling Stones, and (b) if there were, there is no
official headpiece that has been deemed holy, or arising from tenets of that religion.
b) Nonsense. Just fairytale stuff made up by clever manupilators through the ages and continueing today.
I know The Rolling Stones are no religion but they are for real and playing tonight in Vienna. That's what live is about, not believing in "something" so you can "live" further
after dead and others who don't are not allowed in their "heaven".Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: June 16, 2014 20:58
Quote
rob51
The reports of Keith being married to a religious woman always has puzzled me. How could that be? He's definately not knowen for his deep religious views but rather the hardest partier of all time so how could someone claiming to be the exact opposite of that find him attractive? Makes no sense to me.
I tend to think maybe some of the hard partying was a bit overblown, especially by the time he met his future wife.
And there's probably plenty of us on here that like to have too much to drink on regular occasions and probably frequent a religious service regularly as well. I don't see a major conflict there.
He also said something in his book about heaven/hell being the same place and you just wave at each other while passing by. Although he also mentioned working with the Wingless Angels you couldn't help but get caught up in the religion. And he did play on that gospel album of his sister-in-laws a few years back.
Also, there was this story by Christopher Standford, published in November 2003 by The Spectator:
Richards married for the first and only time on his 40th birthday in 1983, and it probably saved his life. His bride was the 27-year-old Patti Hansen, a home-town girl from Staten Island, New York, and a devout Lutheran. His in-laws gave a startling interview in which they portrayed Keith as an ‘enthusiastic disciple of Christ’ and that he ‘embraced Christ as a way of life’. Under Patti’s influence, Richards cut back on drugs, attended church from time to time and even started a gentle exercise regime. ‘She’s a wonderful girl; I ain’t letting the bitch go!’ he confirmed in a speech at his wedding reception. Keith may have written ‘Sympathy For The Devil’ back when, but these days much of his life is spent with a woman who attends a weekly Bible study group and who won’t stand for swearing around the house.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: June 16, 2014 21:08
Quote
NWSoonerQuote
Straycat13
Dawkins is an arrogant man. Romans 1 answers all his questions.
I concur with you Straycat, if anyone is interested Mr Dawkins had a lengthy debate with noted theologian and pastor Douglas Wilson that is available on DVD, it is very well done. It's called "Collision" and you can buy it here:
Is Christianity Good for The World? Hitchens/Wilson Debate
NWSooner
The Lee Strobel series is good on that subject as well, might start here: [www.amazon.com]
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
mr_dja
()
Date: June 16, 2014 21:42
Quote
OutOfTimea) So a religion that's named itself something ages ago by someone is holy just because they named themselves christians, muslims, etc.?Quote
swissQuote
OutOfTimeQuote
AquamarineQuote
OutOfTime
One question: why is it accepted muslimwomen wear a "headscarf" (is that the right word?) at work in public places and a Rolling Stones cap is not. I'm not allowed to wear one at work.
Umm. You seriously don't see the distinction?
Regarding Bliss's post [I never figured out how to multiquote, sorry!]I remember Charlie being quoted in one of the early Stones books saying something like "Being Jewish, I was keen to make some money", describing the early years., he did indeed say this, and I regret to say it was probably because back in the day it was pretty common to use "Jewish" as a synonym for "tight with money." So he may not have meant it literally.
Yes, I am serious. The distinction is that religion is being indoctrinated from birth since ages and The Rolling Stones are only around since 1962. So how come a Stonescap is not allowed at work and other religious clothing is? I don't see the difference. They are fans of "a god" and I am a fan of The Stones.
If you, in all seriousness, consider The Rolling Stones to be your religion then you might be able to argue
your case---however: (a) there is no religion called The Rolling Stones, and (b) if there were, there is no
official headpiece that has been deemed holy, or arising from tenets of that religion.
b) Nonsense. Just fairytale stuff made up by clever manupilators through the ages and continueing today.
I know The Rolling Stones are no religion but they are for real and playing tonight in Vienna. That's what live is about, not believing in "something" so you can "live" further
You're probably not allowed to wear ANY cap to work though. Asuming that non-muslim women allowed to wear scarves on their hair as opposed to arround their neck you might have a valid discrimination claim against your employer? Are Kippah's permitted? - I'll bet they are. If you were to ask your employer why regligious headgear is permitted while secular headgear is banned, you may even have a leg to stand on in the debate even though it probably wouldn't get you the result I assume you're wanting.
It's an interesting question you raise, though. If I were in the same position, I don't think I'd care enough to approach my employer about it as I don't find it that important. HOWEVER, if you do choose to persue it any farther, I'd be interested in how it turns out for you. Mainly because my wife's job is as Human Resources Director for the small corporation she works for. SHE'S actually the person who writes this type of policy for her company. I'm going to describe your situation to her tonight and see what she says.
Peace,
Mr DJA
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
Straycat13
()
Date: June 17, 2014 03:46
Quote
BluzDude
OK, so who looks more Jewish, Charlie or me?
You.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
Straycat13
()
Date: June 17, 2014 03:48
Quote
The JokerQuote
proudmary
Holy stones! Jagger alters the altar
JERUSALEM — And then Mick Jagger walked in.
I was in Israel, with several friends, visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, believed to be the site where Jesus was crucified and later buried. It is one of the biggest religious destinations in the world, viewed by thousands of people every day. Some fall to the floor. Others place personal items on a large stone where, it is said, Jesus’ body once lay. They pray. They weep. It is a place of deep reverence.
And then Jagger walked in.
And everything changed.
He happened to stop just in front of me, blocking my view. I wanted to say, “Hey, Mick, get off of my cloud,” but I resisted.
[www.freep.com]
That was a very interesting read... There is no issue here... Jagger wants to listen to the guide in the sacred place in his own right... And the others, well I would have done the same, I guess... Jagger and Jesus in the same place, SFTD all ringing in our mind... What a tension...
That is an amazing story.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
Straycat13
()
Date: June 17, 2014 03:56
Quote
swissQuote
Straycat13
Dawkins is an arrogant man. Romans 1 answers all his questions.
Tell it to Mick, Straycat13.
OK. Good idea, swiss.
HEY, MICK! READ THE ABOVE! And hi, how are you? Have fun with your family. I hope you got some nice socks for Father's Day. You're doing an amazing job on this tour. We all love you here. Thanks for keeping us satisfied. Bye for now.
Re: Stones & Religion
Posted by:
BluzDude
()
Date: June 17, 2014 06:35
Quote
Straycat13Quote
BluzDude
OK, so who looks more Jewish, Charlie or me?
You.
I think I agree
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
big4 , fan989 , FloresMuertas , gnillor , jp.M , jumpinfrog123 , jumpingjackflash5 , stefanofontaneto , steffiestones , syrel , TeddyB1018 , teleblaster
Guests:
1965
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10