Bono "Focus on the Family" program

[Nick66]

Man, not even deep plays the devil's advocate card this hard.

I love you.

 

[digitize]

I love you.

I'm telling Mary.

 

[Nick66]

I'm telling Mary.

Her and Percy Bysshe have an open marriage.

Are you calling Nick giant?

That's why Mary and Percy Bysshe have an open marriage.

 

[Nick66]

I see your point about the strict definition of the term "tolerance." My point, I suppose, is that tolerance of intolerance is often abetting a problem

I hear you. I feel this way about lactose.

 

[lov12113]

Why are you guys surprised by this? He met the fucking pope, how many years ago? 10? That dude hates gays, porn, condoms, beer, women, abortion, pretty much everything "Focus On The Family" hate.

This is like an outrage grenade.

Dude, having a stance on an issue, and "hating" people are not the same thing. Some groups have different stances on issues but don't "hate" people. (Others do hate people, which is very sad imo). It drives me friggin nuts when people label others who have different stances on controversial issues as "haters" and "Bigots." Judge them by their actions. If a group has a view or stance you don't like (like the Pope in your example), look at their actions, too. Don't just label everyone else as "haters" because they don't agree with you.

 

[jeevey]

I don't tend to "side" with Peterr very much on..anything, really..and I don't even profess to understand what his beefs or arguments about God are, really...

But as someone who actually has studied the bible, quite extensively (I'd call 20 years fairly extensive), he alludes to some worthwhile points.

Taken as it is written, the god of the Old Testament was at many times a very..exacting and vengeful god (I think Peterr would call this "cruel" or "murderer"). There's no spin or interpretation on that comment, it is what it is.

So this is where I get off the boat with Bono and religion, because he sometimes seems to want to reinvent God and Jesus into this giant bundle of love and I'm sorry, but even Jesus said he came to put a sword between brothers etc.

So it does in fact come off like a bit of cherry-picking in the end. He wants to use scripture to counsel leaders on poverty, but what about the passages just a few verses before and after that talk about segregating the believers from the non-believers, not even eating with such people, etc? It just seems that Christians with a "progressive" view do cherry-pick alot.


I find it hard to listen to Bono talk about God sometimes, knowing that. It's either one big giant fairy tale or it's not, imo, in which case my rational side wants nothing to do with it all.

There's a lot that I identify with here. The God of the OT is frankly psychotic a lot of the time- controlling, paranoid and abusive. And Jesus says some sweet things but his issue are complex; it's not all sweetness and light. The thing is that modern non-fundamentalist Western Christianity does in fact promote a certain kind of cherry-picking, which we call common sense. But neither the Bible nor classical Christian doctrine actually teach that common sense should be used to moderate one's Christianity. So those who do use scripture as their final arbiter can rightfully say that Bono is less Christian than them, and more liberal Christians can fairly label that position as a kind of idolatry, worshipping the Bible rather than God.

For me, it's rather like gvox said. If all we are using Christianity for is a final result of kindness, generosity and ethical behavior- hell, I can justify those things through reason and common sense. I don't need the sorts of acrobatics that it would take to make me feel good about the god of the Bible.

And I totally hear what Peterrr what saying earlier- sin and redemption are essential to orthodox Christianity, and the doctrines of redemption and salvationism are pretty disgusting to someone who doesn't believe in fallenness. If those are not morally objectionable to you than Christianity may be a good fit. And if they are, there's not a reason in the world to spend time on it.

But in this case with Focus on the Family, Bono is rather like God himself: inscrutable. Bono will do what he will do, and how can we know the whys and wherefores? We just like him or we don't. For me, I'm deeply uncomfortable with it, but I do like him and I probably will.

 

[Pearl]

Has anyone really gone from being a big fan of U2 to a hater just because of who Bono chooses to associate himself with?

Not really a rhetorical question, but it is worth mentioning.

I wonder what the band thinks of all this. I read years back that Edge was livid that he met with George W Bush. Boy, I'd like to have been a fly on the wall to have seen Edge and the other two find out about this!

 

[doctorwho]

I
Bono can sort of identify with this, as he himself is a tax cheat, like the people in heaven.

I acknowledge the point of your post was to be humorous. However, I disagree with this sentence. Bono (and really, the rest of U2 because this isn't just Bono) are NOT tax cheats.

Do you own a house? If so, you can deduct interest from your mortgage. Is that a tax cheat? You can deduct charitable donations. Is that a tax cheat? If you get profits from stock, you can redistribute them to either pay less taxes or no taxes. Is that a cheat? All of these are allowed under U.S. law. This is why Mitt Romney, and people like him, can pay 15% tax while making far more money.

Bono, and U2, are doing what MANY artists have done. It is legal and not a tax cheat.

The question is why is Bono asking for people to forgive debt when it will cost taxpayers. The answer is three-fold. First, taxpayers already paid for the original loan - the money was given away to 3rd World nations long ago. So he's not asking people to pay more. Second, this debt will NEVER be repaid. But by forgiving the debt, the people of these nations have a chance to move forward - not be burdened by debt from money that was essentially stolen by dictators. Third, Bono pays lots of taxes. In every city he tours, there's a city tax, county tax, state tax and federal tax. He pays more in taxes that we'll probably earn in our lifetimes.


As for the creationism vs. evolution debate - why can't there be both? Hawking has stated that the laws of physics allow the creation of everything from nothing; therefore, God is not required. I am not a theoretical physicist nor do I have the intellect of one. But I often question this "laws of physics" part. Laws as defined by whom? I still support the notion of both. And if one believes in the paranormal at all, an existence beyond this life is possible. So...


Christianity has indeed changed considerably over 2000 years. It is like the English language: it takes ideas from other sources; is constantly expanding; and is constantly growing. Another similarity is that both can be heavily abused. But in the end, Jesus gave just one command - to love one another. And to me, THAT is what Christianity is really all about. To really follow that one command, one has to forgive and be forgiven, to give and to receive, to love and to be loved. Alas, abuse and close-mindedness sadly dominate too many minds.

 

[Nick66]

Paying taxes isn't a moral or ethical act. It is a legal requirement, no more or no less. U2's responsibility is to pay every Dollar, Pound and Euro they owe, and not one cent or pence more. If they are legally able to lower their tax burden under the laws of Ireland, there's no moral or ethical attachment to that decision, at all. If people have a problem with U2 obeying the tax laws in a way that's favourable to them, their issue is not with U2 but with the legislatures who write the laws.

Everyone minimises the amount of taxes they pay, and no one pays more than they have to. U2 is no exception, and singling them out for special criticism because of Bono's philanthropic work (what does that have to do with taxes anyway) is ridiculous. How many people here pay their government more in taxes than they have to? That's right, NONE.

And of course the notion that Bono should throw his bandmates under the bus and say it was all their idea...or the suggestion that they ALL don't want to minimise the taxes they pay is absurd.

 

[lov12113]

There's a lot that I identify with here. The God of the OT is frankly psychotic a lot of the time- controlling, paranoid and abusive. And Jesus says some sweet things but his issue are complex; it's not all sweetness and light. The thing is that modern non-fundamentalist Western Christianity does in fact promote a certain kind of cherry-picking, which we call common sense. But neither the Bible nor classical Christian doctrine actually teach that common sense should be used to moderate one's Christianity. So those who do use scripture as their final arbiter can rightfully say that Bono is less Christian than them, and more liberal Christians can fairly label that position as a kind of idolatry, worshipping the Bible rather than God.

For me, it's rather like gvox said. If all we are using Christianity for is a final result of kindness, generosity and ethical behavior- hell, I can justify those things through reason and common sense. I don't need the sorts of acrobatics that it would take to make me feel good about the god of the Bible.

And I totally hear what Peterrr what saying earlier- sin and redemption are essential to orthodox Christianity, and the doctrines of redemption and salvationism are pretty disgusting to someone who doesn't believe in fallenness. If those are not morally objectionable to you than Christianity may be a good fit. And if they are, there's not a reason in the world to spend time on it.

But in this case with Focus on the Family, Bono is rather like God himself: inscrutable. Bono will do what he will do, and how can we know the whys and wherefores? We just like him or we don't. For me, I'm deeply uncomfortable with it, but I do like him and I probably will.

Fundamentalists usually take a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is contrary to accepted, othodox Christian scholarship. Most current scholars understand the Bible to contain different kinds of literature. The different books of the Bible have to be read in the context of their literature type. Psalms, for example, is poetry. Proverbs is wisdom literature. Revelation is apocalyptic. The gospels are a cross between history, biography, and personal experience. What this means is that not all books of the Bible can be read literally. Scholars have found evidence that Revelation, for example, was written as "apocalyptic" and not meant to be taken word-for-word literal, because other ancient apocalyptic texts from that era have made it obvious that that type of literature is meant to be read symbolically. Whereas scholars accept that the Gospels are meant to be taken more literally, while a book like Jonah is probably fiction entirely. This is different than what we are used to in western culture in 2013, where we read texts on a more literal level. (I.e. you can read a book by Stephen Hawking and expect that he is talking literally and not symbolically).

Fundamentalist Christians tend to interpret more of the Bible literally, and often have more harsh and judgmental stances on issues. They often "cherrypick" scriptures to justify their point. Accepted biblical scholarship warns against the "cherrypicking" method because scriptures are taken out of context and used to say what they are not really saying.

I'm a seminary student that studies the Bible, so I had to throw in my 2 cents. But i respect other views on this subject.

 

[david]

I just want to say I enjoyed the program.

 

[jeevey]

Fundamentalists usually take a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is contrary to accepted, othodox Christian scholarship. Most current scholars understand the Bible to contain different kinds of literature. The different books of the Bible have to be read in the context of their literature type. Psalms, for example, is poetry. Proverbs is wisdom literature. Revelation is apocalyptic. The gospels are a cross between history, biography, and personal experience. What this means is that not all books of the Bible can be read literally. Scholars have found evidence that Revelation, for example, was written as "apocalyptic" and not meant to be taken word-for-word literal, because other ancient apocalyptic texts from that era have made it obvious that that type of literature is meant to be read symbolically. Whereas scholars accept that the Gospels are meant to be taken more literally, while a book like Jonah is probably fiction entirely. This is different than what we are used to in western culture in 2013, where we read texts on a more literal level. (I.e. you can read a book by Stephen Hawking and expect that he is talking literally and not symbolically).

Fundamentalist Christians tend to interpret more of the Bible literally, and often have more harsh and judgmental stances on issues. They often "cherrypick" scriptures to justify their point. Accepted biblical scholarship warns against the "cherrypicking" method because scriptures are taken out of context and used to say what they are not really saying.

I'm a seminary student that studies the Bible, so I had to throw in my 2 cents. But i respect other views on this subject.

I was a Bible student, too. In my opinion non-literalists have a tougher job than fundies because they have this tension between taking the Scriptures seriously enough to be authoritative, and maintaining enough freedom of perspective from them to work around the unsavory aspects of God's character. The passages that are least flattering to God are always the ones that are found to need the most latitude in interpretation. It's a fine line that I don't miss walking at all.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I acknowledge the point of your post was to be humorous. However, I disagree with this sentence. Bono (and really, the rest of U2 because this isn't just Bono) are NOT tax cheats.

Do you own a house? If so, you can deduct interest from your mortgage. Is that a tax cheat? You can deduct charitable donations. Is that a tax cheat? If you get profits from stock, you can redistribute them to either pay less taxes or no taxes. Is that a cheat? All of these are allowed under U.S. law. This is why Mitt Romney, and people like him, can pay 15% tax while making far more money.

Bono, and U2, are doing what MANY artists have done. It is legal and not a tax cheat.

The question is why is Bono asking for people to forgive debt when it will cost taxpayers. The answer is three-fold. First, taxpayers already paid for the original loan - the money was given away to 3rd World nations long ago. So he's not asking people to pay more. Second, this debt will NEVER be repaid. But by forgiving the debt, the people of these nations have a chance to move forward - not be burdened by debt from money that was essentially stolen by dictators. Third, Bono pays lots of taxes. In every city he tours, there's a city tax, county tax, state tax and federal tax. He pays more in taxes that we'll probably earn in our lifetimes.


As for the creationism vs. evolution debate - why can't there be both? Hawking has stated that the laws of physics allow the creation of everything from nothing; therefore, God is not required. I am not a theoretical physicist nor do I have the intellect of one. But I often question this "laws of physics" part. Laws as defined by whom? I still support the notion of both. And if one believes in the paranormal at all, an existence beyond this life is possible. So...


Christianity has indeed changed considerably over 2000 years. It is like the English language: it takes ideas from other sources; is constantly expanding; and is constantly growing. Another similarity is that both can be heavily abused. But in the end, Jesus gave just one command - to love one another. And to me, THAT is what Christianity is really all about. To really follow that one command, one has to forgive and be forgiven, to give and to receive, to love and to be loved. Alas, abuse and close-mindedness sadly dominate too many minds.

Doc - if you realize that my post was meant to be humorous - why did you ?

Of course I own a house. In fact I own a mansion. But that's not the point. My entire post was satire. Im only telling you this because ive been drinking since half past noon and I love you.

XOXOXO

 

[gvox]

. It's a fine line that I don't miss walking at all.

Totally identify with this. What an utter waste of time and energy. I actually sometimes resent it.

 

[more matey]

Just skimmed through this thread having just had this interview pointed out to me by a friend - got to say I'm always pretty amazed when people post on this site with such strong anti-faith views simply because I would not necessarily expect people with such strong beliefs to like U2 - songs like 'Gloria', 'Magnificent', 'Yahweh', 'Grace', etc. must surely be irritating/annoying to listen to knowing that Bono is talking from his point of view as a Christian.

 

[last unicorn]

I am convinced Bono is very well aware of the nature of people and institutions he associates himself with when it comes to campaigning. And I'm also very sure that the band aren't always happy with these decisions, he's talked about that in the past and the band has also said so on numerous occasions. Now while we all know or should know what Bono and U2 stand for and why Bono is doing what he's doing (meeting with Bush, evangelicals etc.), I'm sure it looks a bit fishy to people who like to see everything as either black or white.

If I didn't know as much as I do about Bono and the band I would be outraged by him talking to these folks (and yes, Focus on the Family is indeed a horrible program), but I've learned to come to terms with the fact that Bono is a truly complex individual who is willing to talk to everyone and anyone without automatically agreeing with all of their views. He's just looking for common ground with these people and tries to give credit where credit is due.

There's no clear category for Bono to be put into and many people hate that because they like and need clear structures and systems, but someone who's involved in bi-partisan political work and talks to everyone from right to left - hell, even to people who, ideologically, go against many of the things U2 have been known to be committed to - is very difficult to handle. I have my troubles with that as well, but I try to understand where Bono is coming from and what he's trying to achieve. Doesn't make the other side "better" or more acceptable, but maybe it makes his decisions a little bit more plausible and tolerable. Still, it's hard. I consider myself a very spiritual person, that's one aspect that connects me to U2, but I have a huge problem with Christian (or any religious) fundamentalists. I dropped out of church because of that and witnessing Bono visiting the Pope was a really irritating thing for me. But one thing I learned from Bono is that you have to talk to everybody to get things done, even if it means that you're making unpopular decisions. I think that makes him really brave - braver than most politicians - but it also earns him a lot of flack, which he's perfectly aware of.

I also don't think it will turn those away who really follow Bono and U2 and are commited to the band and know everything about them and their history. Now if he'd suddenly come out with a whole new view on things like, let's say, gay rights, or similar issues that the religious right has strong views on, that would be a whole different story, but that won't happen because it's now who Bono is. I think deep in his heart he has strong convictions and also a private opinion that he keeps to himself because he doesn't want to spoil it with certain people.

 

[jeevey]

Just skimmed through this thread having just had this interview pointed out to me by a friend - got to say I'm always pretty amazed when people post on this site with such strong anti-faith views simply because I would not necessarily expect people with such strong beliefs to like U2 - songs like 'Gloria', 'Magnificent', 'Yahweh', 'Grace', etc. must surely be irritating/annoying to listen to knowing that Bono is talking from his point of view as a Christian.

Well, there are several reasons for this, for me. First of all, Christianity has a strong imaginational, mythic quality which can be appealing no matter your personal beliefs. It taps into universal mythic themes that are meaningful to everyone. Some of us have a childhood background that makes the Christian imagery and language in U2 very accessible, even comforting, even when we rationally reject the premises. Also, the band are clearly beautiful human beings who are trying to live well, which is a lovely and appreciable thing no matter where you find it. And lastly the music is just good without being didactic and hamfisted. They're using their faith to make beauty, and there's no reason to reject that just because we don't personally share the religion.

Gvox, lost faith fist bump!

 

[OpenG180]

I am convinced Bono is very well aware of the nature of people and institutions he associates himself with when it comes to campaigning. And I'm also very sure that the band aren't always happy with these decisions, he's talked about that in the past and the band has also said so on numerous occasions. Now while we all know or should know what Bono and U2 stand for and why Bono is doing what he's doing (meeting with Bush, evangelicals etc.), I'm sure it looks a bit fishy to people who like to see everything as either black or white.

If I didn't know as much as I do about Bono and the band I would be outraged by him talking to these folks (and yes, Focus on the Family is indeed a horrible program), but I've learned to come to terms with the fact that Bono is a truly complex individual who is willing to talk to everyone and anyone without automatically agreeing with all of their views. He's just looking for common ground with these people and tries to give credit where credit is due.

There's no clear category for Bono to be put into and many people hate that because they like and need clear structures and systems, but someone who's involved in bi-partisan political work and talks to everyone from right to left - hell, even to people who, ideologically, go against many of the things U2 have been known to be committed to - is very difficult to handle. I have my troubles with that as well, but I try to understand where Bono is coming from and what he's trying to achieve. Doesn't make the other side "better" or more acceptable, but maybe it makes his decisions a little bit more plausible and tolerable. Still, it's hard. I consider myself a very spiritual person, that's one aspect that connects me to U2, but I have a huge problem with Christian (or any religious) fundamentalists. I dropped out of church because of that and witnessing Bono visiting the Pope was a really irritating thing for me. But one thing I learned from Bono is that you have to talk to everybody to get things done, even if it means that you're making unpopular decisions. I think that makes him really brave - braver than most politicians - but it also earns him a lot of flack, which he's perfectly aware of.

I also don't think it will turn those away who really follow Bono and U2 and are commited to the band and know everything about them and their history. Now if he'd suddenly come out with a whole new view on things like, let's say, gay rights, or similar issues that the religious right has strong views on, that would be a whole different story, but that won't happen because it's now who Bono is. I think deep in his heart he has strong convictions and also a private opinion that he keeps to himself because he doesn't want to spoil it with certain people.

I think this is a good post. But i keep asking: what exactly is Bono trying to achieve by talking to people like Focus on the Family? Is he under the illusion he will change those peoples views on certain subjects? That would be both naive and presumptuous...

 

[lemonfly]

I think this is a good post. But i keep asking: what exactly is Bono trying to achieve by talking to people like Focus on the Family? Is he under the illusion he will change those peoples views on certain subjects? That would be both naive and presumptuous...

This is the core issue for me. Bono can talk with whoever he wants ofc, but if his goal really was to "re-educate" in one solitary broadcast, then I think it was quite naive, presumptuous (and a tad arrogant) on his part. FOTF enjoyed a boost to their profile by having an international celebrity with a huge worldwide fanbase on their show. What exactly Bono achieved from that interview is...debatable.

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

He should stick to music and scream around like he used to until 2001..... Big theories about family and religion just get on my nerves and I don t give a damn.

 

[gvox]

Well, there are several reasons for this, for me. First of all, Christianity has a strong imaginational, mythic quality which can be appealing no matter your personal beliefs. It taps into universal mythic themes that are meaningful to everyone. Some of us have a childhood background that makes the Christian imagery and language in U2 very accessible, even comforting, even when we rationally reject the premises. Also, the band are clearly beautiful human beings who are trying to live well, which is a lovely and appreciable thing no matter where you find it. And lastly the music is just good without being didactic and hamfisted. They're using their faith to make beauty, and there's no reason to reject that just because we don't personally share the religion.

Gvox, lost faith fist bump!

Pretty much sums it up for me. I don't need religion or theological study to feel spiritual. If anything, U2's music has helped me move away from that, not into it..and it's very liberating.

I have no issue with a broader feeling (and expressions thereof) of spirituality, which is what I get from the songs.

Jeevey!

 

[BVS]

I think this is a good post. But i keep asking: what exactly is Bono trying to achieve by talking to people like Focus on the Family? Is he under the illusion he will change those peoples views on certain subjects? That would be both naive and presumptuous...

This is the core issue for me. Bono can talk with whoever he wants ofc, but if his goal really was to "re-educate" in one solitary broadcast, then I think it was quite naive, presumptuous (and a tad arrogant) on his part. FOTF enjoyed a boost to their profile by having an international celebrity with a huge worldwide fanbase on their show. What exactly Bono achieved from that interview is...debatable.

My first reaction when I saw FOTF was because honestly I detest them. As a Christian that's been on the fence for quite a while, I always found groups like this more damaging to Christianity than any other religion or non-religious group. I, very similiar to Bono probably(one of the reasons I was drawn to U2) would probably be labeled a "liberal Christian" or "unorthodox" and all my life I've been told by these groups and even people in here that my beliefs are contradictory to my faith which I always found maddening and saddening. BUT there has been sloooow change in these groups, these groups would not have touched anything AIDS related just 10 years ago, some were even scared to touch anything related to Africa.

I don't know if this group gained anything by having Bono on there, like I said these groups hate Bono just as much as people who comment on YouTubes. I've even read it in here, "I can't believe Bono can call himself a Christian when his views are so liberal". Hell we even had a member who joined and that was her sole purpose, she posted some 100 something posts before finally getting banned. So I think if Bono can have the leader of such a group speaking his praise and saying that Christians are some of the worst judges and should do more rather than just talk, then he may slowly be changing something.

Now their views on the death penalty, homosexuality, and almost everything else may still be abhorrent but if they get over this fear and hatred of liberal Christians like Bono, they might just drop their guard a little and start to have real dialogue with us.

I've actually seen one of my dear friends who used to be a big time FOTF type make a huge transformation, she spends half of her year in Africa now, she's even prayed with Bono on the side of the mountain and even has a friendship with Mandela. She said one of the most surreal moments in her life was that prayer with Bono because she said he used his phrase "a child born in shit" and she's never heard anyone cuss in an out loud prayer and how it really had people talking throughout the day(in a good way).

 

[lov12113]

I consider myself a moderate Christian. The problem with being a moderate is that you can see the ugly on both sides. There is a lot about Focus on the Family that is well-intentioned, but still ugly. That being said, I strongly support having a dialogue with those you don't agree with. Bono clearly has no problem talking to, or having a dialogue with, those he doesn't agree with. To me, that takes more guts and character than labeling everyone you don't like as "whackos" or "idiots" and not talking to them at all. And make not mistake: having a dialogue with those you don't agree with can cause positive change. It make come slowly, or incrementally, but it can happen.

 

[lov12113]

I am a Christian, and I appreciate that U2 has music that appeals to a wide audience and not just Christians. That is one of the things I like best about them: they are true to themselves. They are good people, true to their faith and their passions, but they are not exclusionary. They do not try to make music that excludes anyone. Instead, the opposite is true. They want to make honest, real music that anyone can listen to and enjoy. That, indeed, might be one of the biggest differences between Bono and Focus on the Family: FOTF tends to come from an exclusionary angle, Bono does not.

 

[zoocarolina]

I liked Bono's comments that he still believes in the church, but does not feel comfortable in it. I'm not sure if that's because it has become so fragmented (like he said) or not or he just doesn't want to box himself in, but I applaud him for "bouncing" around and not really caring who he associates with to get the message across.

Sort of reminds me of someone who has born in Bethlehem ... and that's not to give our friend that messianic complex, just an observation that he is indeed trying to imitate which is all one can ever hope to do.

I love when people claim to be fundamentalist/hard line/whatever bc I think we all fall short of the glory and it's not "unorthodox" to realize that guess what my shit stinks just like yours.

Once you realize that, it's a bit liberating to know that you can't go at it alone and you're not perfect and never will be. But you've got to keep on trying .....

 

[Nick66]

I consider myself a moderate Christian. The problem with being a moderate is that you can see the ugly on both sides.

Revelation 3:16

Bono clearly has no problem talking to, or having a dialogue with, those he doesn't agree with. To me, that takes more guts and character than labeling everyone you don't like as "whackos" or "idiots" and not talking to them at all. And make no mistake: having a dialogue with those you don't agree with can cause positive change. It make come slowly, or incrementally, but it can happen.

Well said.

 

[lov12113]

Revelation 3:16

Wondering what your are trying to say here with this reference. Care to elaborate?

 

[Rachel D.]

It seems like Bono is trying to re-emphasize his Christian faith lately; first he mentioned it to Charlie Rose, then to Focus on the Family, and especially when he talked to Gay Byrne. I'm glad he's doing it, but why now? I've seen so many interviews over the years where people have tried to get him to talk about it and he didn't seem to want to go in-depth. Maybe Gay Byrne just asked all the right questions. It makes me wonder what the lyrics will be like on the next album.

 

[jeevey]

It's interesting that he's doing all these interviews that could be viewed as polarizing just before an album runup. It seems a little counter intuitive, doesn't it?

 

[digitize]

It's interesting that he's doing all these interviews that could be viewed as polarizing just before an album runup. It seems a little counter intuitive, doesn't it?

Perhaps, but I certainly prefer it to the usual hype. It's really interesting material.