Scott Ian: 'Call Me When King Diamond Is Elected Pope, Until Then, Who Gives A F--k'

Anthrax axeman gives his thoughts on the recent Pope Francis I election.

Ultimate Guitar

Yesterday's white smoke from the chimney above the Sistine Chapel in Vatican marked the official election of the new pope. As the successor of recently retired Benedict XVI, Pope Francis I was introduced as the new papal leader.

Reactions from all around the globe were almost instant, with various rock and metal musicians also giving their own opinions. Apart from Ozzy Osbourne connecting the Vatican's white smoke with Black Sabbath track "Sweet Leaf", Anthrax guitarist Scott Ian has posted quite an eye-catching tweet via his official Twitter page. And it seems that he doesn't care too much about the whole situation, unless King Diamond is involved that is.

"Call me when King Diamond is elected Pope. Until then, #WhoGivesASh-tWhoGivesAF--k", said Ian.

The guitarist obviously isn't afraid to state his mind, and his recent quotes regarding the music industry can only confirm it.

"I really don't give a s--t about the industry... I can only hope that the whole industry collapses and has to start over, or figure out something else."

Another thing Ian isn't too fond of is the dubstep music, which he considers a "little phase of crap which will be gone in the next 18 months".

"I thought dubstep was reggae when I first heard that genre description. I was like, Wow, reggae's making a big comeback, huh? And then someone played me some dubstep thing. And I was like, 'What the f--k is this?' So no. I'm not a fan of that name of music. [Laughs.] Nor am I a fan of DJs or any of that stuff."

Call me when King Diamond is elected Pope. Until then, #WhoGivesASh-tWhoGivesAF--k

Scott Ian (@Scott_Ian) March 13, 2013

165 comments sorted by best / new / date

    although i love his comment (king diamond is awesome), first non-euro pope in over 1,200 years was somewhat interesting to hear about. and thats where my interest ended
    the reason for the popes departure was that he wanted to spend more time with the kids...
    Sammy Mantis
    Why did he bother going out of his way to comment on the matter if he doesn't care?
    social media disorder, it's quite common in the free world these days, didn't you know?
    Because it's probably all over his Twitter feed... it takes seconds to comment... not exactly going out of one's way. Would someone please dust Vatican City with some anthrax?
    I found the tweet to be really funny. And come on...who doesn't support King Diamond for Pope?
    Breaking News: Ozzy sees smoke and instantly thinks of drugs. Good old Ozzy, never changes!
    Apparently many people. Even if you hate religion/catholics/the pope you could show a little more respect.
    Scott Ian's grandfather was an Orthodox Jew and Scott spent many days in a Synagogue which he has said always made him happy. Would he appreciate everyone bashing on Jews? Didn't think so. He's a hypocrite. His father in law (Meatloaf) has also spoken out as a "Christian". Scott Ian isn't too bright.
    Uh, if anyone's not bright, it's you. You can respect people's individual beliefs without extending that respect or consideration to the institution behind it. If a Christian is offended because someone asked "Who cares?", they have a lot of thinking to do. If people cannot separate their personal identify and beliefs from criticism of a religion, that's on them. Just because people like you want to frame the argument so that anyone who says anything remotely bad about religion is doing it from a position of hatred, intolerance and ignorance doesn't make it so. Asking "Who cares?" about the pope is not the same thing as Jew bashing. That's a terrible false equivalency, and you should be feel bad for making a bad argument. You can't just cite facts with absolutely no rational argument and then act like that's evidence against the dude. "Oh, Scott had a Jewish granddaddy, how could he criticize any religion? This is exactly like hateful Jew bashing. Oh Scott knows Christians in his personal life, how could he make such a damning, hateful comment about so many people he knows? Oh Scott wouldn't like it people said something nasty about Jews, oh no!". And then there's that nice little Liberal jab below this. Because that's what people like you are good at: you draw lines, act like both sides do the same things so it's a complete wash, and act like there's no burden on you to make a rational argument.
    My Last Words
    Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: The Internet! Sigh
    I don't see anything wrong with free porn and opinions. Some opinions are well thought out, some are stupid, both are complete jerk offs, so it completes the internet circle.
    Why should he or even myself care? It's an outdated religious institution that is one of the richest organizations in the world. Why does anyone HAVE to show respect? Just because somebody has religious relatives DOES NOT mean they themselves have to be a mute on their opinions of an organized religion. People routinely make fun of other religions like Scientology or Mormonism (which I think are ridiculous too), but as soon as it comes to their own religion they are like, "Woah man, don't be so disrespectful. I believe that to be the truth." I say bulls--t. I'm allowed to have the opinion that those religious beliefs are crazy just as you are allowed to believe that anyone who doesn't believe them is doomed. Besides, how does saying that he doesn't care show disrespect? I could give a flying f--k who the pope is, does that make me disrespectful? It's the stupid argument that everyone has to respect your religion with either silence or support. I will give neither. @BigMikeBDD So? Why does the fact that his father was Jewish mean that he HAS to respect Catholicism or even Judaism? How does that make him hypocritical? Unless he is a devout Catholic then he really has no reason to care. Also there is a difference between Jew bashing (calling them stereotypes such as calling them greedy) and being critical of their religion. No where did he state that all Catholics are evil morons. All he said is that he doesnt care. And because his father in law is Christian (which doesn't necessarily mean Catholic) does not mean he has to adhere to that religion, or even refrain from criticizing it. That is stupid. (Also to note is that most Protestants typically dont like Catholicism because of their history, so being Christian doesn't automatically mean that you like Catholics.) Your claim that he isn't too bright because he doesn't care who the pope is because he has religious relatives (who arent even Catholic) is stupid. It's more of this "if you don't have a religion I wont respect your opinion until you become religious" crap I hear all the time. Everybody is allowed to ridicule atheists as much as they want (and they should be able to), but as soon as you make fun of their religion they get offended as if you just burned down their church/ temple/ place of worship etc...
    When its basically shoved in your face that you should care and 'show some respect' everyday...via news and people always asking what you gets tiring and eventually you gotta tell people "F*** off i dont care"
    respect to pedophiles and people who hide them? Also the millions of people who were MURDERED by the church over thousands of years.
    Not that I'm religious at all, but I think approximately 1.2 billion Catholics give a f*ck to answer his question.
    You've got to admire Scott Ian's badassness, but some people apparently do give a f*ck about the Pope.
    Yes indeed. About 1.2 billion people. And I honestly think they don't give a f*ck that he doesn't give a f*ck, because I sure don't care what he thinks. As long as he doesn't rant about it I'm fine.
    The Pope is a highly influential force in the Catholic world community and has a pretty significant role in world politics, so yeah, I do give a a f*ck.
    Boo, Ozzy's reaction was way more creative. On topic: I care about religions as much as a fish cares about an iPhone 5.
    Thank god people got a new pope when did. An extra day of not having one might have actually made people realize they don't need one.
    I just can't believe people still believe in religion. All the money these guys have building churches could freaking feed the planet. But hey maybe that something Jesus would have thought of.
    Hey, in case you weren't aware, the Catholic church is the largest charity in the world feeding millions and millions of people.
    If you read up on the "honourable" mother Theresa you would find she wasn't as charitable as you'd think. The majority of donations that she was given went not to better care for her patients (most of who were forced to stay in awful living conditions and weren't given anesthetics) but were given to the church. The church claims to be the biggest charitable organization in the world but most of that money is wasted on promoting their religion through "missions" that don't really help all that much. They go to third world countries, hang around for a while while building a building or two, try to convert the locals (as if they hadn't heard of Christianity already) and then leave feeling good about themselves. It's not just Catholics either, many Christian charity organizations run this way. How do I know? I have many family members who are active in them. Massive organizations, not just some small groups. I have an uncle who went to Argentina (cant even be CONSIDERED a third world country other than they have poor people living there), he spent 5 years doing charity. Most of that was spent building a church and converting people who have already heard of Christianity to Christianity. (As if South Americans have never heard of Christianity before)
    My Catholic high school took a group on trips to Honduras every year to help American doctors translate their patients' words, because there were few to no domestic doctors in the town. But apparently it didn't help all that much. They also went to India every summer to live in the slums and build homes and feed people. But apparently it didn't help all that much.
    Have you seen how much gold is in the Vatican? They're like the exact opposite of a charity!
    FFS, I just get pissed off when people have a go at the Church for the size of the Vatican. Yes, it is valuable, but you can't just strip the gold off the walls, it's a World Heritage site. It's like saying that the ceremonial mace/crown jewels should be melted down and sold, because in this form they're not directly helping anyone. Things like the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel are just works of art, painted hundreds of years ago. Also, as somebody above said, the Church already gives vast amounts of money for aid in impoverished places. Wish people could stop being so ignorant.
    What about all the vaults all across the world from all of the Crusades and wars and just hundreds of years of oppressing artists and scientists? There is likely more money hiding in Catholic church basements than can be imagined... Also, correct me if I'm wrong but don't churches hold some of the most valuable land in the world? Take a look at where some churches are located and wonder why they wouldn't sell the land and give the money to charity and move the church to a less valuable piece of land? Oh ya, because they care about their religion, institution, and power, and not so much about helping hungry people. All of that is done with an alterior motive, to get more Catholics. How can you be so ignorant? Oh ya and the alter boys... THAT ALONE should condemn the church, and anyone who doesn't condemn these acts, if there was a god, would be condemned to hell too. TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY!
    Oh, so nothing in the Smithsonian has been taken as spoils of war? Everything in the British Museum was taken legally, with full consent from everybody (*COUGH* Elgin Marbles *COUGH*). The Vatican Museums are just another set of museums, it makes no difference if these artefacts are there or in another museum.
    exactly, all people can do is run their mouth instead of actually doing something. people don't realise just how much some people depend on the church's donations [namely millions of africans], even if you hate the religion it gives these suffering people some hope and motivation at-least. PS I thought Ian's tweet was hilarious
    The first thing the church does in Africa is to convince a large chunk of people there that they will have an afterlife full of fire and hot pokers. and the only way they can stop it is by worshipping an imaginary wizard in the sky. Next thing they do is tell them not to use condoms as a cheap form of contraception, which creates rampant AIDS and HIV. They then run in with their charities, and claim what a good job they have done, and dance around claiming how well the church looks after the people of Africa. That's like me setting fire to a small child, then run in with a bucket of water claiming I am a saviour and, just, the greatest guy ever. It's bullshit.
    Get your facts right, the Church says that you don't need contraception because you should only have sex with one partner, abstinence is the most effective way of not spreading HIV! Now, I don't agree with this aspect of the Church's teaching, personally I don't think it matters if you have sex before marriage if it's with someone you love etc. etc. BUT if people followed exactly what the Church teaches, the AIDS problem would be much, much smaller. Again, so much ignorance when it comes to religions.
    you don't get it do you, unlike western society sex before marriage is looked down upon and is only encouraged for reproduction purposes. you can't use condoms if you want to have kids which many of these people do it's not about people having sex just for the sake of it, they don't have that privilege with aids. Like chrisa94 mentioned above, the church stresses abstinence which is really the best way to fight the aids epidemic.
    lol they push both abstinence and contraception in varying states in America, yet you still see dozens of pregnant teenagers, even freshmen in high school. How the hell do you think its gonna work in Africa, where sex is probably the cheapest, most entertaining thing for all the millions of unemployed people living in poverty. Not saying its right, but expecting to cure HIV/AIDS with abstinence is kindve an unreasonable solution. If it was it wouldve probably happened by now..
    They don't do it to push an agenda in this day and age. I'm Catholic, and I've always been taught that charity is good, because it means looking after someone else who has it worse than you do. It's more about following the example of the "imaginary wizard man" than forcing people to believe in him.
    Considering the fact that Scott is Jewish, I wouldn't expect him to give a crap about who is Pope.
    Ugh. Never, ever get religion in music news again. If not for my sake, then do it for the sake of preventing pointless discussion and flamewars.
    You mean apart from the huge percentage of people in the world who are Catholic, then?
    The Catholic Church is one of the most evil institutions to ever pollute the face of the Earth. They elected a new Molestor-In-Chief (AKA Pope). Wonderful. Now please stop existing to that the world can heal and move on from you and the hideous and unforgivable things that you've done to humanity. Thanks.
    I was raised catholic, but changed when I began questioning religion and god all together - today I despise the church and it's agenda a lot... However, despite my stance being in the same direction, it doesn't change that your comment is probably the most exaggurated hatefull comment I've seen in a while - seriously, geez! I can think of many religions, institutions and organizations much more fitting your description than the church. As said by BigMikeBDD, your comment is quite ignorant, and very narrow-minded. There are countless other religions just as, or even more guilty than the catholic church in doing "hideous and unforgivable" actions. As said, I don't like the church at all, however, I form my opinions based on looking on good and bad, and comparing - if your resort to basing your opinion on them entirely of the wrong things they have done, then you are no better than the religious people themselves.
    You're right, many other religious organizations are guilty of doing terrible things... which is why I despise most organized religion. Calling someone "ignorant" because you don't agree with them isn't right and calling someone "hateful" because they call out an organization that harbors and hides sex offenders isn't right either. It's ok to disagree with me but there's no need to call me "hateful" or "ignorant". They're both becoming words that people don't know how to use anymore... they use them just to get a rise out of people.
    I called you ignorant because you assume (or heavily imply) that the entire church harbours and protects the priests who did the horrible acts. There is a vast majority of both average churchgoers, priests, and bishops within the catholic church who are absolutely furious about how the church officials handled the matter, and you're letting the acts of a smaller group of individuals paint the image of the entire church. I then called you hateful, because you directly called the new pope "Molestor-in-chief" - Again, referring to the ignorance, you probably don't know much about this pope, and almost certainly don't know what his reaction to the scandal is, you just again assume he's done something the same, and will also harbour the sex-scandalized priests. If you are unhappy with the new pope, that's fine, but calling him the "Molestor-in-chief" is really uncalled for, and not nessecary.
    I totally agree. Often as soon as people see a negative point about their religion they instantly go on the defensive and assume that we're nasty people who hate god and want to live a life of debauched sin. Instead, a lot of us are just folk who don't believe in god because of the lack of evidence and see no reason why any of the thousands of religions and denominations that have existed throughout time are any more valid than any others.
    I partially agree. It can get hard to critcise though because the second you do you get bombarded with cries of "SHOW SOME RESPECT!". It's interesting how any idea, be it political or social or creative can be argued against and discussed but for some reason when anyone tells a harsh truth against religion... people get outraged. The Catholic church does some good I'm sure, however it's the bad that I get concerned about.
    Nobody approves of what happened. But this isn't only with the Catholic church. This is everywhere! In fact, if we want to talk numbers, the rate of molestation in the Catholic church was at 1.5%. The rate of molestation in the US is at 5%. The media would like you to believe otherwise. I volunteer in a soup kitchen in a Catholic church that feeds dozens. I package meals up for poor people at Thanksgiving and Christmas all in a Chatholic church. People need to stop viewing every Catholic church as a place of tragedy. 99.85% of Catholic churches are places of giving and kindness.
    Don't try and mitigate what the Vatican did by saying that the average is higher elsewhere. I'm sure that you may be a good person and that a lot of Churches are happy places that provide people with a community and sense of worth. However. There isn't any positive thing that the church has done that a secular group hasn't.
    Not doing that at was terrible. I'm trying to say what people are doing, the media...etc is trying to say the Catholic church as a whole is like that. And you may be right as far as the church not doing something that a secular group hasn't. But a secular group gets praise for it while the church's involvement and efforts are often ignored.
    I don't believe for a second that the media is against religion. I often find that the media seems to be afraid to criticize religion in case of offending people, be those people Christians or in particular Extremist Islamists. I think what the media (in general) did was report the truth. And new and unpleasant truths are being unveiled every week about some cardinal or priest. Now I don't automatically blame the church for what one or several of it's members do, however when that same organization hides, protects and transports these people I do have to start questioning that organizations goodness.
    I agree that they did hide this at one time. I don't agree that it continues. They hid it out of fear and it was 100% wrong. I don't believe if the Vatican or anyone else knows about it, because of the backlash that happened, that it will still hide it and protect them.
    "I don't believe if the Vatican or anyone else knows about it, because of the backlash that happened, that it will still hide it and protect them." They hide stuff all the time, and there's usually little to no backlash. Even the pedophilia stuff, there has never been as much continuous, extended coverage as there has been of say, Larry Sandusky. To this day the Vatican hides gay sex and financial abuse, and the news just skirts over it, at the most treating it like a headline of the day. Your premise only stands on the notion that the Vatican values transparency and honesty more than unchecked power and that the media has an actual interest in keeping you informed.
    I'm just saying that if any other organization that has political influence yet pays no taxes like the Catholic Church was found guilty of hiding and harboring sex offenders they would be (rightfully) universally hated and shunned. Yet so many people look the other way. Why?
    There's corruption everywhere. Associating it all with the catholic church is as blind as saying there isn't anything wrong with the church. By the way, I'm catholic and I disagree with tons of decisions the church has made. I'll never turn my back on them though.
    It was a minuscule few that did this evil act. The last pope immediately dealt with it. John Paul was too feeble to take a stand and that's why Benedict stepped down because he knew the church needed someone who could act swiftly.
    Ignorant comments from ignorant people.
    How is it Ignorant? Pope Urban VIII locked Galileo up in house arrest for his whole life for observational astronomy because it made him "vehemently suspect of heresy"?!?!?! The catholic church single handedly held science back half a century or more by doing this... how is that NOT evil?
    Georgius Agricola - 'father of Mineralogy' - Catholic Jean - Baptiste Lamarck - developed first coherent theory of evolution - Jesuit Gregor Mendel - 'father of Genetics' - Augustinian Monk Georges Lemaitre - first person to pose idea of Big Bang - Catholic priest Jean-Felix Picard - first to provide accurate measure of Earth's size - Jesuit I could go on...
    you should listen to Infant Annihilator's The Palpable Leprosy of Pollution if you are so passionate about this.
    I wish I could hang out with Scott just once, he seems like an awesome person to chat with.
    Why does Scott Ian have to act like such an ***** about things he "doesn't care about?" Does he assume the role of impartial/pissed off atheist because its the "metal" thing to do, and because his fans demand it? Scott Ian's bad attitude and intolerance about things like this only serve to perpetuate the stereotype that "metalheads" can be opinionated jerks. The election of a new pope means many things to many people, and disagreeing with it is fine. Looking for public validation by tweeting "who gives a ****" isn't right. For many reasons. Religion is a touchy subject, and traditionally, you should just leave it alone out of respect. Thats something I learned years ago, when I was still a teenager. As for the dubstep comment, why even bother saying stuff like that? Music is supposed to be an art of expression. Guys like Bassnectar, or Skrillex are just as relevant about the music they create as Scott Ian thinks he is. Tweeting negative opinions doesn't do anyone a service Scott Ian. You just seem like you're catering to the same ignorant people who are inclined to agree with you. Its easier to boast about things you hate, rather then try and like them, or at the very least RESPECT them.
    "Religion is a touchy subject, and traditionally, you should just leave it alone out of respect. Thats something I learned years ago, when I was still a teenager." Why not? There's being a dick and antagonizing people on an individual basis for their own personal beliefs, and then there's what Scott did. Why is it that no one cries foul when people are generalized or criticized for their political affiliation, taste in books/movies/television/etc, someone's sexual orientation, etc, but criticizing religion is completely off the books? It's literally the one defining aspect of people's lives that's supposedly free from any and all criticism in fear of offending others. I know what you're saying is "Don't be a dick to other people", and no sane person can take anything from that, but being an apologist is just as stupid and intellectually offensive. Religion doesn't get a free pass as institutions that want to govern people's moral code. If anything, that's 10x more reason to be critical of it. People are entitled to speak their minds.
    Zakk Wylde cares. And he beats the s*it out of Scott Ian in every way.
    LOL he definitely doesn't. Scott Ian is a rhythm guitarist and he could probably write a better solo with less dependance on superficial technique then Wylde.
    Scott Ian? Make a better solo than? HAAA. Honestly, Scott is a far better riff maker and rhythm player (kinda) than Zakk Wylde. Zakk's solos always blow my mind, although he does use similar techniques somewhat commonly.
    Zakk Wylde is overrated.
    Maybe. But on every list of great guitar players, he's always above Ian. So if Wylde is overrated, that makes Ian way overrated.
    lol this was probably the worst argument in this entire thread.
    Scott's role in Anthrax is to be a rhythm guitarist. He's not a shredder (although he probably could if he wanted to), so comparing him to Zakk is like comparing apples and another, really hairy fruit.
    Face R1pper
    The way people here are reacting to this is amazing. Scott Ian makes a comment similar to your standard Mustaine/Nugent comment, and they always get slammed here, and Ian gets idolized for doing what Mustaine and Nugent do all the time. People need more to adopt more consistent logic.
    How exactly would that be consistent logic when they're completely different situations? When Scott Ian starts talking about how he's against gay rights because he's not gay (and against cats because he's not a cat person) or starts making accusations about the president's birthplace, then you can moan. When he starts ranting about chemtrails being used by the government to control people, then you'll have a real point. lol you can't just pick two different things, act like they're the same, and then call people out for being hypocrites. It's almost as if the Nuge and Mustaine say baseless, flat out stupid shit, but nah. Probably just hypocritical, godless liberal atheists on the internet, at it again
    Face R1pper
    Just because they have different political positions doesn't mean they aren't doing the same thing.
    That's incredibly dishonest and you know it. It means that context, facts, and logic don't matter. Scott is giving a subjective opinion, that had nothing to do with a political know what, never mind. I really don't think you'd get it, because you're asking for consistency from what you consider to be one side vs. another. You can't have an honest conversation with people like you because everything is a wash. It doesn't matter whether I agree with Scott or disagree with Dave, because 'consistency' means I look at the context before I make up mind. If Dave Mustaine gave honest opinions, i.e logical opinions based on reason, regardless of politics, he'd get less heat. Likewise, if Scott went beyond giving an opinion and ranted about conspiaracies, making up facts about the church, then you'd have a point.
    Face R1pper
    *Looks at last three Ted Nugent articles* *Reads about Ted Nugent giving subjective opinions* *Looks at recent Dave Mustaine articles* *Reads more subjective opinions*
    Lol I tried. By all means, continue having no real point.
    Face R1pper
    I guess you tried, I'm just responding appropriately to your horribly constructed argument.
    There is a huge difference between, "I dont care" and "gay people shouldent get married because im not gay"
    Face R1pper
    Did you look at how much of a bias statement that was before you posted it? Don't even try to pretend that what he said was as simple as "I don't care".
    What is your definition of liberal? People seem to throw that word around a lot.
    Face R1pper
    A liberal is one who supports small government and individual freedom, and usually favors free-market economics. i.e., neither Obama nor Romney. In terms of the presidential election. Gary Johnson was the closest thing we had to a liberal.
    Rob Man
    Not Cool. If you feel this way (fine), but you don't have to be a verbal-dick just to get noticed in the media. Grow up Scott. You and your white-beard.
    It's a famous dude on twitter. He's as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. The only dick is the guy making someone's opinion about an institution a personal matter, and that'd be you.
    I'm a quiet Catholic from NY, but man I didn't think people would be that pissed as the southern Protestants are where I moved down south, damn...
    shame on JEW scottie,you where a lot cooler when you had hair and didn't talk,Thank God you got Joey back,because i didn't give a **** about Anthrax when ya'll didn't have him singing.Neither did alot of people talk about irony!
    I like John Petrucci because he spends his time shredding and rocking out with Dream Theater instead of wasting his time saying stupid crap like this just to get attention. Aside from actual musical skill, I have no respect for Ian, Mustaine, or Nugent because they feel the need to make these controversial statements.
    That didn't need to be said. Scott Ian is Jewish, I don't think anyone expected him to care.
    I'm with Scott Ian on this one. No one other than the cardinals could vote in the pope, no one could persuade anyone to choose the pope, and yet on every major news station at least an hour was wasted daily discussing a process that we have no part of, and won't affect any non-catholics.