<p>I am not usually one to bow out of a discussion on this particular topic because it is one that is near and dear to me, and has been, for my entire life. However, this will be my final post here. Sarahsmom, you have made your views crystal clear, both here and in the post Susan referenced. Your dear gay friend whom you supposedly loved in this thread, curiously became a pervert in a discussion on another thread. I've come to the conclusion that you are not interested in a rational discussion. You don't even read what people post in the course of the discussion, which is painfully obvious by your hurtful comments about Father Judge. You should Google him and read about the wonderful life of service, acceptance, and compassion that he led. You might actually learn something. That's it for me.</p>
<p>Sarahsmmom,
That is why it is good to have a discussion then, so you can clarify what you meant and I am glad you have done so. I was trying to reconcile the statement that you support gay marriage with the statement about a gay/bisexual man on another thread but you have now clarified what you meant. Thanks.</p>
<p>Alwaysamom,
So, I've only known one crossdresser in my life? I work in theatre, please. I'm sorry I missed the last sentence of that post about your friends death. It was an honest mistake, but the truth is that he was one of a very few priests with this view. It is not the general teaching of the church.</p>
<p>As someone who posted only briefly in this thread, I would like to make a few observations:
1. The debate has boiled down to Catholic beliefs - but the religious organization which was involved in banning the show was Episcopal, not Catholic.
2. Although some of you involved in the rather heated exchange of opinions may not see it this way, as a dispassionate bystander, I absolutely feel that sometimes the tone of certain posts has been "preachy", or condescending.
3. While I certainly applaud the notion of considering viewpoints other than my own, I prefer that thought-provoking intellectual or political discussions be face-to-face rather than over the internet. It gives me more - personal interaction, tone, facial expression. Less chance for misunderstanding, more chance for real dialogue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The original issue was whether EXPOSURE to portrayals in books or plays, etc. should be censored if those depicted in the pieces hold different beliefs, values, orientation (not sure where the line is drawn) etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The answer is yes in this situation. In the eyes of the church* allowing the play to go on among school children would be condoning the implicit behavior of the main characters in the play (that they have acted sexually on their sexual orientation) which in the eyes of the church is a sin. To allow this play to go on would be the same as putting on a play which "wink winked" at murder, thievery or adultery. </p>
<p>It's pretty simple--isn't it?</p>
<p>*many mainline Christian denominations other than Catholicism, btw.</p>
<p>I happen to disagree that reading or watching works the depict those different than yourself is the same as condoning what the characters do. I can read about racist acts, for instance, and not condone them. I can see violent works and not condone them. I can watch a play about Nazi annihilation and not condone it. I can watch a play about gays and if my church doesn't condone it, I can still be exposed to those who are different. This particular play was about accepting others who are different. I do not believe that watching or producing or acting in a play is the same as agreeing with or condoning the actions of those depicted in the work.</p>
<p>I was referring to the work of art itself condoning the action. </p>
<p>I.e. - the play would "wink" or glorify an act of murder, a couple who commit adultery, or portray some lovable burglars--all of whom live happily ever after. </p>
<p>This is not the same as watching a play in which these characters come to some sort of "lesson," if you will, within the plot of the movie, play or book.</p>
<p>Since you are interested in learning about other viewpoints, I am simply trying to explain the probable rationale of this particular bishop for not choosing to put on this play for school children.</p>
<p>I apologize if I am not making myself clear--perhaps it's because to me it is pretty self-evident.</p>
<p>MusThCC,
It is very true that it is much easier to understand someone/express yourself when you are face to face, but I think that there is real value in participating in this kind of discussion.
Gilbert, Thank you for your participation, it is pretty simple. It is also pretty clear that judgement goes both ways.</p>
<p>Soozie, You've made your views very clear and I respect them.</p>
<p>"It's pretty simple" - well apparently it's not.</p>
<p>In a major article in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer, it was reported that the Episcopal Church is at risk of a schism due to conflict between Anglican Bishops and Episcopal Bishops in the United States. The rift is so severe that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be arriving in New Orleans on Thursday "hoping he can hold together the increasingly fractured world Anglican family." The issue at the heart of this - the consecration of "openly gay bishops" in the United States! In 2003, the Episcopal Church in the United States consecrated its first openly gay bishop and the current spiritual leader of the American church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori supports not only the consecration of gay bishops but also the blessing of same sex couples.</p>
<p>So, I would suggest that a couple of things are manifest and compelling:
1. Apparently the "acceptance" of gays, as promoted by the elected leaders of the Episcopal Church in the United States goes beyond mere acceptance of them as human beings and also includes recognizing the sanctity and privacy of intimate relationships. The notion of consecrating an "openly" gay bishop and "blessing" same-sex couples requires an honest recognition that gays are going to have private intimate relationships and that acceptance means the whole person, not simply the label attached to them. So those who would argue that the case at hand was nothing more than a religious institution enforcing its own strictures, well it's not that simple.
2. The Bishop who caused the play to be yanked from the school is apparently among a conservative minority within his own church in the US and was acting based on his own personal beliefs, not the established doctrine or policies of the US Episcopal Church and its leaders at the highest level. He was apparently pushing his own agenda, not that of the leaders of the US Episcopal Church.
3. Doctrine and policy are not static - or at least should not be. They must change and evolve as society and our culture do. The evolution of policy within the US Episcopal Church did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred as the result of dialog, communication, the sharing of ideas, listening with an open mind to differing and often controversial points of view. And very often, the arts are in the forefront of this process, presenting opportunities to experience a different perspective through a medium that impacts on our intellect, our senses and emotions. Art challenges us to engage in reflective thought and discourse, often reflecting both where we as a society are going or urging us to move in a particular direction. Kind of like what the play at issue in this thread was really all about. To bad that there are those whose dogma doesn't afford them the flexibility of thought and reason to be open to this.</p>
<p>It's really just that simple.</p>
<p>I'm not that interested in debating religious beliefs or even gay issues. My interest here was with the original topic and my point of view is that I don't believe in censoring books and plays. I think it closes minds and is a statement that one can't view others who are different for fear it might mean the behaviors, lives, or beliefs might be considered condoned. </p>
<p>From what I am reading here, it sounds like there is some disagreement even within the Episcopal Church. What I found quite odd was that the adminstration of this school allowed the students to rehearse this play and so it wasn't the big no no for all who run the school. After they already were participating in the activity, a Bishop yanked the production. So, there was some disagreement even amongst those who run this parochial school. That part is what I was discussing.....not who believes or condones this or that. I still find it ironic, however, that this play's theme had to do with acceptance and to think about our differences. I accept that others think differently about their beliefs. What I don't accept is closing off exposure and awareness to those who hold different beliefs. I feel a lot of strife in this world is due to religious groups who are not willing to accept or exist side by side with those who hold different beliefs. This play really addressed this whole essence. It is not about whether you support homosexuals. I don't wish to debate that, or anyone's religious beliefs because they have a right to them. But censoring art that allows all to experience a range of beliefs and to accept the differences is not a good thing, in my view.</p>
<p>MichaelNKat, </p>
<pre><code> I think that it's fine that the church is meeting and trying to rethink it's policy. You stated that "doctine and policy are not static and should not be." Tell me, how should the church conduct themselves? Should they massage their policy and doctrine to fit whateve behavior is popular?
</code></pre>
<p>In terms of relevance to the MT Forum....many who participate here or are parents of students pursuing this field, need to think long and hard about what art is and the wide range of material they may be called upon to both read, watch, and act in a play about. Most colleges do not stick with shows like Wizard of Oz or Bye Bye Birdie (no offense to those great shows....my D has been in both and loved them and they are classics). But they likely will be working on plays and musicals depicting a range of beliefs, lifestyles, emotions, values, morals, and behaviors. They do not have to participate. But it will be expected at most programs and will be part of their exposure to theatrical works. I can think of plays at my D's school that have drug cultures depicted, or child prostitution, or gay relationships, hate crimes, or racial issues, premarital sex, or witchcraft, etc. If one is not comfortable with reading, watching, or being in plays that deal with such issues or behaviors, it is going to be more difficult to participate.</p>
<p>EDIT...Sarahsmom, I cross posted with you and my post is not in response to yours but just a general thought not responding to any particular post.</p>
<p>What you say is very true, soozie. While is school students may have to participate in plays that they feel are against their core values, but once out of school, you can certainly choose which plays you care to participate in.</p>
<p>Sarahsmom42, I have no interest in a theological debate on this forum. Suffice it to state that there are material differences between chasing what is "popular" at the moment and evolving doctrine and policy based on better understanding of the diversity of life, the human condition, and the needs of our society. Are you seriously suggesting that the world's religions should remain static as the world around them and the needs of our society change? A rhetorical question, no need to answer.</p>
<p>And the point of my last post was very simple. The censorship at issue was justified by some on the basis that it occurred within the context of a religious institution which somehow made it acceptable. It appears, however, that reliance on "religious doctrine" in this case was fallacious and that, in the final analysis, censorship by any other name is still censorship and impedes the growth of our society and culture, including institutions that formulate doctrine.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what comes of this church.</p>
<p>I believe the first openly gay ordained Episcopal Bishop was Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. Recently the Diocese of Chicago elected an openly lesbian bishop.
In addition, at least 250 Episcopal churches have left the U.S. Episcopal church, and either placed their congregations under African Anglican authority, or have gone independent. I don't think it is correct to say that the Bishop in this case is necessarily part of a "conservative minority."</p>
<p>There are so many contradictory and backward ideas in the Bible, and we have certainly evolved away from some of its dictates (working on the Sabbath a capital offense for example.) It's perfectly acceptable to say the Bishop made a bad call, no matter what his position. We all make mistakes.</p>
<p>Since homosexuality is a human variation with the same incidence as left-handedness I don't understand how churches can have positions against it. People used to persecute the left-handed too. Many animals also commit homosexual acts. </p>
<p>For me respect for other religions does not take precedence over respecting my fellow human beings. Comparisons of homosexual love to criminal acts are inappropriate because criminal acts have victims. It is hard to respect a church that does not embrace inclusiveness.</p>
<p>Sarahsmom: You're right. I don't have to worship there, but I can say I think it's misguided. I cringe at the continuing hurt done to those who are made differently from me and always have the image of Matthew Shepherd before me. I don't think the Bishop would ever commit acts like that, not at all, but a lack of acceptance wounds in a different way.</p>
<p>It's not that he doesn't have the right to ban this play, it's just disappointing to me that he would want to.</p>
<p>Mythmom,
I come from a huge Catholic family. For me, peace came with accepting that I don't have to change their world to fit my needs or views, I can go to another church. They don't try to get me to come back (well, my mom used to) and I don't tell them that what they believe is wrong. There are many paths to having a healthy spiritual life. IMO spiritual life can be nurtured in many settings. Live and let live I guess.</p>
<p>Sarahsmom42: I understand your point, I really do. And there is a lot of wisdom and tolerance in it, but I can't see things that way. Here's why:</p>
<p>In Africa 1 - 2 million girls undergo FGM (female genital mutilation) each year. Some argue this is part of the belief system of those cultures. (Some see it as Islamic, but it's really a holdover from tribal cultures.) I see this as wrong, no matter what their beliefs are, and I will keep trying to support efforts to eradicate FGM.</p>
<p>Before the Civil War millions of people in the American south were held in bondage. Abolitionists considered this their business, and I agree with them.
It was.</p>
<p>When babies were bering Napalmed in Vietman it was business.</p>
<p>And religious bias against homosexuals is my business too, in my mind. Your right; I probably can't fix it, but I'm going to continue to try.</p>
<p>I understand the live and let live philosophy. I really do. I understand that it comes from respect. But it's my world, and if people are suffering or oppressed in it, I think it is my business and my task to try and do something about it. Eugene Debbs said, "As long as there are those in prison I am not free." That just about says it all.</p>
<p>I don't obnoxiously go door to door to proselytize, far from it. I don't accost conservative religious folk, not at all. But on a forum like this, in my classroom, places where I'm placed to give my opinion and try to make this a less oppressive world, I'm going to give it.</p>
<p>And their may be a logical contradiction of being intolerant of those who are intolerant, practically, I don't think there is. And I am not intolerant of these folks, just their beliefs that exclude and oppress others.</p>
<p>JMO. And I think the difference in these posts is probably a fundamental difference in philosophy.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Mythmom, you have wowed me with your articulation of the philosophy which I also share with you. While some may see it as intolerance of another stance, what it really is in a nutshell is intolerance of intolerance! We can let live and respect other viewpoints or beliefs as belonging to people whom we respect that are different from ourselves, but at the same time not be tolerant of the actual views if the views represent a philosophy of intolerance. It is others' rights to hold those views. But it is also the right of others to advocate to eradicate biases or oppression in society. You wrote:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not intolerant of these folks, just their beliefs that exclude and oppress others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is exactly how I feel. I really respect other religions and those who follow them. But I don't have to be tolerant of beliefs or actions (such as the censorship of this play) which exclude or oppress others or demonstrate intolerance. While it likely won't make a difference what I think, I do think that change can be effected by those who take a stand to not tolerate intolerance, no matter the religious beliefs of those who are intolerant. In this particular case, the community did take a stand, and that community included parishoners, parents, students, teachers, and local theater groups, and put the play on anyway....a play that ironically deals with tolerance and acceptance.</p>