John Waters on Katie Taylor. IT today

antiskeptic

Were the implications less serious, it would have been entertaining to observe the squirming of sports presenters and journalists confronted by Katie’s matter-of-fact understanding of the centrality of God in her life, their discomfiture as she expressed her gratitude for the contribution to her success of the prayers of other believers.

Each time, it was as though she had not spoken or had said something else – as though she had been talking about her training regime or wittering about the thrill of winning a medal. Her interlocutor would jump upon some smaller dimension of what she had just said, as though terrified that the “religious” dimension of Katie Taylor might cause the medal to melt.

But here’s the news, folks: the medal belongs to nobody but Katie, who alone seems to know that it’s but a token of the embrace that enfolds her.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0817/1224322324199.html

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0817/1224322324199.html

I have to say, I picked up on that myself. It reflects life in general tbh. Religion is definitely taboo.

Onesimus

Is it possible for us to have an example of how the media was embarrassed by Katies faith?

I agree that religion is often taboo in public circles where talking about anything but God is more acceptable. But I don't see how he can tie that in with Katies faith if he failed to provide an example of ignorance by the media and how they were embarrassed by Katies faith in Jesus.

JimiTime

Onesimus wrote: »

Is it possible for us to have an example of how the media was embarrassed by Katies faith?

I agree that religion is often taboo in public circles where talking about anything but God is more acceptable. But I don't see how he can tie that in with Katies faith if he failed to provide an example of ignorance by the media and how they were embarrassed by Katies faith in Jesus.

I think that point about embarrassment is simply assumption by John Waters. I personally don't think its embarrassment, more the social mantra of 'don't talk religion'. Its obviously very much part of Katies make-up it seems, yet very few want to mention it in mainstream media. Religion makes people uncomfortable, and is a topic when not handled well (and in some cases even when it is) can bring one into the line of fire. There are a lot of offence junkies out there just waiting to be offended. I don't think this is a conspiracy, but rather a reflection on the sociological evolution of Religion in the modern age. People rather you just kept it in the closet.

Dyr

Waters was a drip before long before he found jesus, fianna fail or whatever other contrarian gig he picks up.

homer911

JimiTime wrote: »

People rather you just kept it in the closet.

Its a valid comment, but why? What are people afraid of?

Fanny Cradock

I've actually had a couple of chances to talk about my faith on the back of KT's success. In both cases I don't think I would have had the conversation - certainly not there and then - without her newsworthiness. Moreover, I think that both people were genuinely surprised that I didn't start talking about a 6,000 year old earth, how evil homosexual are and, at least to my mind, how I made made a case for my faith beyond whatever they though religious folks normally appealed to (probably "blind faith"). Now I'm not saying that I was convincing and that they have since found Jesus but it was interesting that KT's success afforded me the opportunity to present an alternative to whatever image their mind conjured up when they thought of Christianity.

On another note, I think Jimmy is correct. To some people religion is something you do on Sundays and behind closed doors. It is something that shouldn't have a voice in the public square because, in true circular logic, religion is religion and therefore shouldn't have a voice in the public square.

Bambi wrote: »

Waters was a drip before long before he found jesus, fianna fail or whatever other contrarian gig he picks up.

Great. Aside from ad hominem slurs about the man did you have anything to say about the content of his article?

Benny_Cake

Firstly I'd say that Waters is talking complete rubbish, much as he normally is. I didn't see any presenter or journalist discomforted by what she said, besides, her faith is hardly a secret. As well as that, are the likes of Marty Morrissey supposed to engage her in a theological discussion?! As to why Irish people don't feel comfortable with God talk, our divided history perhaps?

Toby Take a Bow

It's the usual stuff from Waters. Constructing a scenario that's not applicable in order to write yet another piece about the media conspiring against religion. There have been plenty of articles that discuss in some way Taylor's religion. Of course it's a small element of the article as, rightly, most of the articles about a boxer will focus on the sports aspect of the boxer. There's also been some articles that have specifically addressed Taylor's own evangelical religion. What more does Waters want?

The Idyll Race

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

It's the usual stuff from Waters. Constructing a scenario that's not applicable in order to write yet another piece about the media conspiring against religion. There have been plenty of articles that discuss in some way Taylor's religion. Of course it's a small element of the article as, rightly, most of the articles about a boxer will focus on the sports aspect of the boxer. There's also been some articles that have specifically addressed Taylor's own evangelical religion. What more does Waters want?

John Waters has always been like this about his hobbyhorses, his "oppressed majority" tone reminds me of Desmond Fennell in the Sunday Press of the 1980s, railing against a strawman version of those who sought the liberalisation of Irish society. I saw no embarrassment in the coverage of Katie, her faith is a huge and matter of fact part of her and I read no sneer against it, directly or indirectly.

r3nu4l

I think that any discomfiture that exists stems from a journalist not knowing what to do with a statement that attributes a win to Jesus or God.

After all, what is the line of questioning a journalist is supposed to follow on a statement that it was the prayers of all her fans that helped her win?

'So Katie, you've thanked all those who prayed for you to win, do you think that the other girl just didn't have enough prayers?'

'So Katie, Jesus helped you because of the prayers, do you think the other girl just didn't pray hard enough?'

'So Katie, do you think Jesus favoured your prayers because the other girl is too much of a sinner?'

'So Katie, do you not think Jesus would have been better answering the prayers of sexually abused children or people dying of starvation than answering the prayers of a woman who wants to win a sporting contest?'

'Katie, now that Jesus has answered your prayers to win a boxing medal where will you focus your prayers next, a cure for AIDS, world peace and an end to sexual exploitation of children? Will you have more time now to focus your prayers on other important matters?' Will you be asking your fans to pray for specific events?'

These are inane questions imo but equally they are the only logical follow up if you are a journalist and wish to pursue such statements from Katie.

Better then to ask about whether Katie thinks her training regime was better than that of the opponent or whether Katie felt that she had a better strategy than the opponent or whether Katie felt that her technical ability was better than that of the opponent. That, to my mind is the very reason for silence from journalists when confronted with the 'prayer helped me win' statement from anyone, not just Katie Taylor.

Dyr

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Great. Aside from ad hominem slurs about the man did you have anything to say about the content of his article?

It's the usual red herring dribble he's being coming up with for years. He might as well wear a sock puppet and argue against it while he delivers its lines out of the side of his mouth.

antiskeptic

Bambi wrote: »

It's the usual red herring dribble he's being coming up with for years. He might as well wear a sock puppet and argue against it while he delivers its lines out of the side of his mouth.

The word is drivel. Drivel

Dyr

antiskeptic wrote: »

The word is drivel. Drivel

I am familiar with the word drivel, thanks very much

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=drivel&forum=&user=7356%2C7356&date_from=&date_to=

I choose to refer to the stuff that Waters comes up with as dribble. Its a term that I reserve for grade A guff, observe:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80163518&postcount=184

Fanny Cradock

OK, so still nothing of substance. Just some drivel about dribble.

JimiTime

homer911 wrote: »

Its a valid comment, but why? What are people afraid of?

That you are judging them, or trying to force your beliefs on them etc are the first two things that spring to mind. For whatever reason, simply hearing someone preach these days in considered by many to be some kind of invasion of ones mind space or something. Maybe its becoming increasingly obvious that God and the modern world don't mix. What we do for enjoyment is increasingly becoming at odds with Christian standards, so to bring it up almost instantaneously holds a mirror up to everyone, which makes them feel like they are being belittled etc. Don't spoil the party, kind of thinking.

Religion is like the parent coming home to the house party. Thats a rather brief synopsis of part of it IMO.

The Idyll Race

JimiTime wrote: »

That you are judging them, or trying to force your beliefs on them etc are the first two things that spring to mind. For whatever reason, simply hearing someone preach these days in considered by many to be some kind of invasion of ones mind space or something. Maybe its becoming increasingly obvious that God and the modern world don't mix. What we do for enjoyment is increasingly becoming at odds with Christian standards, so to bring it up almost instantaneously holds a mirror up to everyone, which makes them feel like they are being belittled etc. Don't spoil the party, kind of thinking.

Religion is like the parent coming home to the house party. Thats a rather brief synopsis of part of it IMO.

Not all Christians are pious idiots ramming their views down ppls throats, I should know!

JimiTime

The Idyll Race wrote: »

Not all Christians are pious idiots ramming their views down ppls throats, I should know!

I don't doubt that in the slightest. the issue is not one of facts though, but rather of perceptions. I'm a believer myself btw, just in case that read as an attack on religion to you.

homer911

JimiTime wrote: »

That you are judging them, or trying to force your beliefs on them etc are the first two things that spring to mind. For whatever reason, simply hearing someone preach these days in considered by many to be some kind of invasion of ones mind space or something. Maybe its becoming increasingly obvious that God and the modern world don't mix. What we do for enjoyment is increasingly becoming at odds with Christian standards, so to bring it up almost instantaneously holds a mirror up to everyone, which makes them feel like they are being belittled etc. Don't spoil the party, kind of thinking.

Religion is like the parent coming home to the house party. Thats a rather brief synopsis of part of it IMO.

Christians know you cant force your beliefs on anyone!

Personally I think its a form of denial - they can sleep better at night in their sinfulness. It's a complete lack of understanding that a Christian life is a completely fulfilled life - you gain far more than you lose

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"

JimiTime

homer911 wrote: »

Christians know you cant force your beliefs on anyone!

Remember though, the term 'Christian' is pretty meaningless. WE can insist on what a true Christian aught to be, but for the ignorant (wilfully or otherwise) Christians are everything from the Apostles to Fred Phelps.

Personally I think its a form of denial - they can sleep better at night in their sinfulness. It's a complete lack of understanding that a Christian life is a completely fulfilled life - you gain far more than you lose

As someone who is too faithless and afraid to throw myself into Gods hands, I can't really comment on the Christian life, as I've never TRULY lead it.

The Idyll Race

homer911 wrote: »

Christians know you cant force your beliefs on anyone!

Personally I think its a form of denial - they can sleep better at night in their sinfulness. It's a complete lack of understanding that a Christian life is a completely fulfilled life - you gain far more than you lose

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"

Well, as a Christian I certainly don't ponder other peoples' sinfulness or compare their spirituality or lack of it to mine. I have enough of a job to do on myself. CS Lewis has a good quote "No-one is told anyone else's story other than their own".

mathepac

The Former Mr O'Connor off on one of his bizarre solo-runs again, having forgotten the ball.

I fail to see the problem. Katie, a mature adult, a dedicated and skilful athlete at the pinnacle of her career, the single greatest athlete this country has ever produced, believes in God and God is a big part of her success, in her world-view. God is a team-member or team-manager or head coach as far as Katies is concerned. That's fine by me, I have no comment or judgement to make either way.

Where's the problem? Would the Former Mr. O'Connor see it as as a problem or an observation worthy of commentary if Katie had attributed her success to a diet of goats' toes and discarded fairy wings? Or would that just go down as "special supplements" worthy of no further comment?

I think the Former Mr. O'Connor often misses the point, and the goal.

ceegee

So according to him, the media were embarrassed and tried to shy away from Katie's religiousness ??? It was being discussed EVERYWHERE for the best part of a week, not to mention the number of front pages with shots such as:



IMO this was one of the few times in recent years that the general media (and public) have painted someones faith in a positive light.

Although I wouldnt expect any better from a hack with his track record for spouting nonsense

marienbad

People expressing their faith in victory is nothing new in sport and journalists see it all the time and at the moment of victory or defeat they would no more ask about it than they would Graeme Le Saux about his antique collecting

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

People expressing their faith in victory is nothing new in sport and journalists see it all the time and at the moment of victory or defeat they would no more ask about it than they would Graeme Le Saux about his antique collecting

Except they did ask. And they asked because our only gold medallist of the games happened to to place her faith at the centre of her life, rather than the margins. To some Irish people this was a novelty. To others it was down-right weird. Either way it was newsworthy.

Two opinion pieces on Katie Taylor's faith appeared in the Saturday edition of the IT.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0818/1224322382826.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0818/1224322383674.html

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Except they did ask. And they asked because our only gold medallist of the games happened to to place her faith at the centre of her life, rather than the margins. To some Irish people this was a novelty. To others it was down-right weird. Either way it was newsworthy.

Two opinion pieces on Katie Taylor's faith appeared in the Saturday edition of the IT.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0818/1224322382826.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0818/1224322383674.html[/QUOTE]

Yeah but this is not really contradicting anything I am saying Fanny - those of us that follow sport have known about her faith for many years and and it just accepted as a part of her no problem.

I don't see any issue with her expressing her faith - which John Waters etc seems to think is the case. It is just not a concern in the sports world .

This is the kind of stuff that will come up on Miriam O'callaghan or the late late show but is just commonplace in sports as to be unremarkable

gracielooks

@r3nu4l I think that you're right about them not knowing what to say, but I don't agree they could've only followed up with inane questions, as you put it. I feel a simple acknowledgement would have sufficed, yes your faith has sustained you, your faith brought you here or something along lines. Maybe some journalists did though, I'm just going on the coverage I saw.

gracielooks

The Idyll Race wrote: »

Well, as a Christian I certainly don't ponder other peoples' sinfulness or compare their spirituality or lack of it to mine. I have enough of a job to do on myself. CS Lewis has a good quote "No-one is told anyone else's story other than their own".

Absolutely! I too hold a mirror only to myself, even that is exhausting sometimes. On a side note I recommend CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters if you haven't read it.

r3nu4l

gracielooks wrote: »

@r3nu4l I think that you're right about them not knowing what to say, but I don't agree they could've only followed up with inane questions, as you put it. I feel a simple acknowledgement would have sufficed, yes your faith has sustained you, your faith brought you here or something along lines. Maybe some journalists did though, I'm just going on the coverage I saw.

I disagree, any journalist worthy of the term journalist would follow up with the question 'Yes your prayers (Katie attributed success to the power of prayers, not simply faith) sustained you, why do you think the other boxer's prayers did not sustain her?'

A journalist does not 'simply acknowledge' without question, that's what propagandist journalists do like in North Korea, a proper journalists questions statements about success.

Had she attributed her success to her training regime, I would have expected a journalist to ask how Katie felt her training differed from her opponent. Therefore it follows he should ask how her prayers differed from the opponent.

It is that simple. The obvious answer from Katie would have to be 'I don't know' because she cannot assume to speak for God or to know what God thinks. Therefore a journalist has very little to do with that.

Perhaps to balance things up, next time Katie is being interviewed they should send a religious correspondent rather than a sports journalist? I'm not being flippant here. If people really want to hear about Katie's prayer routine and her faith and how they help her to win fights then perhaps a trained religious correspondent is the best person to interview her.

Ash.J.Williams

I noticed that too, Katie said something like "it was great to feel the grace of god in me, i could feel him in the arena" and rte responded with "so begorah ya won a medal, aren't ya a great girl"

I found it noteworthy because it was the first words out of her mouth after winning gold, and the follow up question ignored that.

JimiTime

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I noticed that too, Katie said something like "it was great to feel the grace of god in me, i could feel him in the arena" and rte responded with "so begorah ya won a medal, aren't ya a great girl"

I found it noteworthy because it was the first words out of her mouth after winning gold, and the follow up question ignored that.

Thats it, and I think a lot of people are missing it. God is at the fore everytime she opens her mouth, yet its just avoided. You summed it up well above.

Dyr

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I noticed that too, Katie said something like "it was great to feel the grace of god in me, i could feel him in the arena" and rte responded with "so begorah ya won a medal, aren't ya a great girl"

I found it noteworthy because it was the first words out of her mouth after winning gold, and the follow up question ignored that.

Sounds interesting, gis a link to it

gracielooks

r3nu4l wrote: »

I disagree, any journalist worthy of the term journalist would follow up with the question 'Yes your prayers (Katie attributed success to the power of prayers, not simply faith) sustained you, why do you think the other boxer's prayers did not sustain her?'

A journalist does not 'simply acknowledge' without question, that's what propagandist journalists do like in North Korea, a proper journalists questions statements about success.

Had she attributed her success to her training regime, I would have expected a journalist to ask how Katie felt her training differed from her opponent. Therefore it follows he should ask how her prayers differed from the opponent.

It is that simple. The obvious answer from Katie would have to be 'I don't know' because she cannot assume to speak for God or to know what God thinks. Therefore a journalist has very little to do with that.

Perhaps to balance things up, next time Katie is being interviewed they should send a religious correspondent rather than a sports journalist? I'm not being flippant here. If people really want to hear about Katie's prayer routine and her faith and how they help her to win fights then perhaps a trained religious correspondent is the best person to interview her.

Yes you are right, investigative journalism would be as you describe, I suppose when they stick a mike in someone's face after a match I think of it as more conversational.

marienbad

gracielooks wrote: »

Yes you are right, investigative journalism would be as you describe, I suppose when they stick a mike in someone's face after a match I think of it as more conversational.

Of course it is more conversational ! We have different catagories of journalists, Religious ,business, currents affairs and sports journalists.

Sports journalists are only interested in sports and John Waters for the purpose of making a point is conflating sports journalists with all journalists. As I have said before when Katie Taylor is on Mirriam O'C or the late late show you will have all those types of questions.

It is now so commonplace for sports people to thank God that nobody even notices it. Possibly we are not used to seeing an Irish person doing it.

CerebralCortex

homer911 wrote: »

Its a valid comment, but why? What are people afraid of?

Well in this case, I just feel embarrassed for Katie the poor girl.

marienbad

I wonder will John Waters write an article on the great coverage Katie Taylor got on the late late show ?

antiskeptic

marienbad wrote: »

I wonder will John Waters write an article on the great coverage Katie Taylor got on the late late show ?

I wonder would the LLS have picked up on Katie's faith were it not for John Water's article?

marienbad

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder would the LLS have picked up on Katie's faith were it not for John Water's article?

Of course they would - why would you think otherwise ?

mathepac

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder would the LLS have picked up on Katie's faith were it not for John Water's article?

News Flash - there are sources of information other than the LLS or The Former Mister O'Connor.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder would the LLS have picked up on Katie's faith were it not for John Water's article?

Ah, anybody who watched the coverage of the Olympics would have to be seriously mentally deficient to have missed KT's faith.

Ash.J.Williams

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder would the LLS have picked up on Katie's faith were it not for John Water's article?

Now that you mention it, I learned of her faith on the LLS a few years ago.

Greaney

Just my observation....

1) Folk feel uncomfortable with Christianity because they think they're being judged (an unfortunate cultural legacy perhaps?)

2) Pat Kenny always has a bit of a panicked twirly when folk mention a sincere faith when he's interviewing them. Even when Íngrid Betancourt (Catholic) was expressing a simple depth of believe when she began reading the bible during her captivity. He began stammering and tryed to direct her off the subject immediately, it was kind of embarrasing actually.

3) John Murray is kinda cool and asks questions when folk express their faith. He's not fazzed at all.