corpus christi--controversial play causing trouble

[KateBush]

Does anyone know anything about Corpus Christi which is being put on at the Crawford soon?

What is it about thhis play that's so bad?

I hear that some members of the Crawford Arts Centre are being harrassed by extremist-christians. Surely that's inexcusable?

[Bryn]

It portrays Jesus and his diciples as homosexuals, and his mother as a drunk. Unfortunately, that's about as far as the protesting christians are seeing. The play actually has a very moralistic message about acceptance, and I really think they should see it before they judge it to be blasphemous.

[hr]http://bryn.ipfox.com

[Chester the Snowcat]

[s]Bryn wrote on 15:42, 3rd Dec 2004:[/i] Unfortunately, that's about as far as the protesting christians are seeing.... I really think they should see it before they judge it to be blasphemous.
[/i]

How do you know they haven't seen it before or read the script? If a play was written with the religious leader of another faith portrayed in this way, the equal opps people would be up in arms.

And by the way, Christian is spelt with a capital C. Show some respect.

[fat bastard]

[s]Chester the Snowcat wrote on 15:49, 3rd Dec 2004:

And by the way, Christian is spelt with a capital C. Show some respect.




putting a capital in christian doesn't mean you have any respect, it means you bow to convention, i'm afraid

[Steveo]

[s]Chester the Snowcat wrote on 15:49, 3rd Dec 2004:
And by the way, Christian is spelt with a capital C. Show some respect.


Get off your high horse first, then we'll talk about respect.

There is no excuse for harrassment, the play should be shown, people can make their own decision to see it or not.

[hr]
[s]Strangers passing in the street....by chance two seperate glances meet[/s]

[Chester the Snowcat]

[s]Steveo wrote on 15:54, 3rd Dec 2004:

Get off your high horse first, then we'll talk about respect.

There is no excuse for harrassment, the play should be shown, people can make their own decision to see it or not.




I didn't dispute whether the play should be shown or not. What I am bothered about is the fact that people find it offensive that Christians want to defend their religion against something which deeply offends them.

The point of spelling Christian correctly does bother me in the same way that using lower case letters for Islam, God, or even Scotland.

[KateBush]

Did Catholics go mad about the Magdaeln sisters being shown at the cinema? No. Even if there WERE a reason to disapprove of this play, surely harassing ( nuisance phoning/emailing) people connected with it is against the law?

[KateBush]

[s]Chester the Snowcat wrote on 15:49, 3rd Dec 2004:
[s]Bryn wrote on 15:42, 3rd Dec 2004:

And by the way, Christian is spelt with a capital C. Show some respect.
[/i]

bugger off. with a capital b.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

When we say christians are we talking about christians at large or the CU?

[md25]

Evangelical ones, who are the over-vocal, over-zealous and over-exposed minority giving the rest of Christianity a bad name.

[big_phil]

The problem is not what is being shown-it is where it is being shown...at the old boys brigade hall (which is a Christian place).

[Marco Biagi]

Um, I think you'll find it's the Crawford Arts Theatre (9th, 10th, 11th December, tickets £5 to students and available now from the Crawford...).

Also, I'm disappointed but not surprised by the response of some more narrow minded Christians. The play is awkward to some because it turns the theology around and draws some awkward parallels between the persecution of homosexuals by Christians and the biblically-canon persecution of Jesus by mankind. Those parallels are awkward precisely because they are valid. The playwright himself is actually writing from a theistic standpoint - "he is our God as much as he is yours".

Also, this does 'insult' an important figure of two major religions. Islam views Jesus Christ as a prophet, albeit not the last one, and one radical Islamic group in the UK issued a fatwa against the playwright after the play was first performed in London. Sadly, intolerance of homosexuality is something universal to the 'religions of the Book'. It's amazing to be part of the one group that can unite conservative Jews and conservative Muslims. Still, at least in Israel homosexuality isn't illegal, as it is in the Palestinian Authority.

Oh, was I not supposed to say that? Is there some article of leftist faith that says I'm only supposed to criticise Christianity? Because I'll happily say that the treatment received by homosexuals (and women) is far worse generally in Islamic countries. That said, it's only because the Islamic countries tend to have a more institutionalised church than the countries with a Judaeo-Christian heritage, and given the chance I'm sure the churches here would take a different view. Witness Ireland being forced to legalise homosexual acts, largely against its will by the EU, in 1993.

[Oirish_Martin]

[s]KateBush wrote on 15:58, 3rd Dec 2004:
Did Catholics go mad about the Magdaeln sisters being shown at the cinema? No.

Actually, yes.

You will remember that Ireland did only legalise gay acts in 93, according to someone else. Some Roman Catholics + Magdalene Sisters = shit + fan.

And not to soundy too bitchy or overgeneralising, but I think in general if this was going to be shown on TV, it would be, fine. I really don't care. But if it was criticising the Muslim faith, they wouldn't, as the risk of getting firebombed is higher. That's just...annoying and hypocrisy of the highest order I'm afraid.

[novium]

[s]Marco Biagi wrote on 18:13, 3rd Dec 2004:
Islamic countries tend to have a more institutionalised church




I wouldn't say that they are more institutionalized. Actually, I'd say the opposite. There's very little organization. It seems to be made up of many little denominations all over the place...in comparison to say, christianity, which has little seperate denominations but also has huge denominations- huge institutions- like the Catholic Church or the Anglicans or the Luthrans etc etc etc.

[Marco Biagi]

Okay, fair, let me rephrase that to 'has more political power'. The churches are just as generally conservative; the politics are less so because the churches have slightly less power on average in the Judaeo-Christian world.

[Eliot Wilson]

With the best will in the world, if, as has been suggested above, Jesus is portrayed as a homosexual in this play, you can see why that would upset people who adhere faithfully to a book which considers homosexuality an abomination. It may not be my opinion, but I can see why people might hold it.

Of course, if there are things other than legitimate protest going on, that may be another issue.

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[novium]

[s]Marco Biagi wrote on 01:01, 4th Dec 2004:
Okay, fair, let me rephrase that to 'has more political power'. The churches are just as generally conservative; the politics are less so because the churches have slightly less power on average in the Judaeo-Christian world.




Ok, I understand what you're getting at now:)

[EviLTwiN]

if descrimination is ok as long as it's because you are following a book of stories, then I think I'm going to write a book that says people who watch soaps are evil, so I can descriminate against them and feel like it's a valid and defendable opinion!

[hr]IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwintrooper.jpg IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinold.gif

[Eliot Wilson]

So how do you distinguish between those opinions that are valid and those that aren't? The ones you share are valid and the ones you don't aren't?

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[EviLTwiN]

I don't think that any opinion is valid, not even mine!
It's so much more interesting to be undecided.

Although I have to say I do have a tendancy to veer away from opinions which descriminate against certain people in a bad way, regardless of how wide-spread the cause of the descrimination is.

After all you have to have some way of judging if opinions are acceptable, otherwise you wouldn't be able to condem extreme views such as nazisism or white supremisists.
What criteria would you use for saying that these opinions are wrong? (i know some people like to think no opinions are wrong, but lets forget those people a minute, or maybe forever).
Personally I would say they're wrong because they descriminate unfairly (note you don't have to be violent to be a nazi or white supremisist).

I try to be consistent with my dislike for descrimination, even if it is an "upstanding part of the community" that is committing it.


EDITED for the spelling bee

[hr]IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwintrooper.jpg IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinold.gif