Censorship and closed minds do not always prevail!

College Majors Musical Theater Major
161

<p>Sarahsmom, just for the record, I have been misunderstood based on your post #158. I surely tolerate other peoples' faiths!! If a religion wants to believe in what it does, it doesn't matter to me. Everyone should find the religion that works for them. I don't wish to debate gay sex or marriage here. If a church believes what it does and preaches it, so be it. I don't have to belong to that church. However, I am not talking about pro gay, not pro gay, or this or that belief or religion either. I'm talking of ANY person no matter their religious beliefs (whether they worship Jesus, Allah, witches, atheist...) would hopefully embrace and accept those who do not hold similar beliefs, values, or are simply very different. They don't have to AGREE on the same beliefs. I'm not saying that at all. They should tolerate that others believe differently. </p>

<p>It appears that you are saying that some here don't want to tolerate other people's faiths. To the contrary, I want everyone to tolerate one another's beliefs, but not change one another's beliefs. That is a big difference! In fact, that is the point of this whole thing.....not to censor material that depicts other's beliefs because it doesn't mean that one must change their own beliefs if they are secure in their own beliefs. But why shut out material that show other people's ways? What harm can that be because the idea is not meant to keep anyone from their own dogmas. That's the point....to tolerate that others feel or act differently than your own faith. Just as I accept that this Church's leanings do not match mine (totally cool with that, as it should be), some of us are asking the leaders or followers in that group to tolerate that others do not feel as they do. It isn't meant to change them but simply allow awareness of other ways than your own. Nothing is threatened by that. It's like....love thy neighbor who differs from you. I accept that this church doesn't believe what I do. Let them allow others to be exposed to accepting that others don't believe what they do. What harm is it to watch a play that depicts those who follow a way that is different than your church follows? It isn't gonna rub off or something. </p>

<p>Plus in this particular piece, the irony is about accepting those who are not like one's own.....it could be another race, another religion, another sexual orientation, etc. It is not about debating what each religion believes in. That is their right to follow the teachings of their church. I don't see the harm in exposing people to those who are different. That is not the same as dictating to them a particular belief system. It is just not closing them off to others who are different from their group. I want to learn and accept who they are and I'd love for other groups to do likewise.</p>

<p>Just like I tolerate that this church's leanings are not aligned with my own, I would hope they'd tolerate films, books, plays depicting leanings that are not aligned with them. That is what I mean by tolerance....NOT their right to believe in what they want (I do believe in tolerating that right).</p>

<p>PS...like you, I don't hate ANY churches. That is very far from the point I, or some others are trying to make. They can worship or believe whatever they want. I'm talking about tolerating that others outside their church who are different and do not have to be censored. It is only exposure to others. Nobody is trying to change their church.</p>

<p>If I were to invite a friend of a religion who was different than my own, to my place of worship, I wouldn't be trying to get them to follow it, but t hey'd learn about my culture and religion. I might visit their church and learn about their ways. Nobody is threatened by doing that. We respect one another's differences. But to be closed off from exposure, has no benefit and I think is not good for humanity.</p>

162

<p>It is abundantly clear that some who are posting on this thread either are incapable of comprehending or have chosen to disregard certain fundamental distinctions in the views which have been articulated. It is one thing to argue that one has the right to form their own morality and set of values by which to live within the sphere of their own lives. That is anyone's right. It is an entirely different matter, however, to claim the right to impinge on the sphere of another's life simply because their sense of morality, set of values and related behavior, undertaken within the confines of their own lives, are inconsistent with or even offensive to yours.</p>

<p>It is inconsistent with essential concepts of liberty and personal privacy to claim the moral imperative and therefore justify taking positions and engaging in actions designed and intended to deny to others their basic freedom and ability to lead their own lives in a manner of their choosing. Your right to live by your beliefs ends at the borders of my life as does mine to yours. Those who seek to interfere with gays entering into same sex marriages, civil partnerships, public displays of affection otherwise viewed as "permissible" for heteros or to censor what others may read, view or hear demonstrate a marked double standard of claiming the right to impose boundaries on the lives of others while reacting with righteous indignation at the suggestion that there are boundaries to the reach of their "moral indignation".</p>

<p>What is particularly disturbing about this "dialog" is the abject refusal of some to admit that the weight and authority of various institutions in our society have and continue to be voices of such oppression. Whether it be "conservative" religious groups or political parties, regardless of denomination, the one thing they all have in common is the misbegotten belief that they indeed possess a "moral imperative" that entitles them to intrude into the lives of others who seek nothing more than the ability to lead their own lives in peace. </p>

<p>And for those who think that this peculiar view of the world does not continue to foster oppression and discrimination against gays, either you are deluding yourselves or are intentionally engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The right of gay couples to form a union through marriage or otherwise under law is still being fought as are the battles to have one's "life partner" treated as a dependent or spouse for such essential benefits as health care coverage or as a spousal beneficiary for purpose of pensions, disability benefits, Social Security benefits, rights under the Family Medical Leave Act and many other areas of protections and rights given to hetero couples. In the area of domestic relations, the battles are still being fought over the right to adopt kids or to even maintain custody of one's own kid against claims asserted by a gay parent's hetero ex-spouse. To the extent that any progress has been made in these areas, it is the result of the voices of those who are willing to question and criticize those institutions that promote inequities or prejudice, whether it be our religious institutions, government or laws and who by doing so have forced us as a society to recognize and address inequities and prejudices where they are found.</p>

<p>The relevance of all of this to the incident at hand is very simple. Far too often the vehicle used to foster a continuation of oppressive or prejudicial views and policies is through the censorship of books, movies, theater and even the news. The limitation of communication and the exchange of ideas is an effective tool to quash change. Religious doctrine and political policy (which far too often is really just religious doctrine in disguise) often serve as the rationale to justify what is really nothing more than prejudice. That is precisely what happened here. While the Bishop may have had the authority and "legal right" to cancel the play, he did so inconsistent with local sentiment of the local administrators, parents and other members of the local church community who had originally approved the production. It was censorship, pure and simple, designed to curtail the communication of ideas driven by a "moral imperative" that is intrinsically prejudicial and discriminatory.</p>

<p>Am I lecturing, you betcha, and unapologetically so. To do otherwise is to condone notions of intolerance that through the ages, if left unchecked, have resulted in a multitude of real sins.</p>

163

<p>Well said, Michael!</p>

164

<p>I've been following this thread with both interest (and horror) over the last few days. Michael has expressed my thoughts on the subject, perfectly; without me having to actually string sentences together or lift a finger to type! :) Thanks!!</p>

<p>Anyone familiar with Unitarian Universalism? A liberal religion, with 7 guiding principles. Key word here is guiding; Unitarians are even free to believe or not believe in the principles. The first principle is:</p>

<p>We believe in the worth and dignity of ALL people.</p>

<p>A nearby Unitarian church recently held a staged reading of The Laramie Project. It was extremely well attended (and there were no protests)</p>

165

<p>My thoughts exactly Michael, although I don't think I could have expressed them so eloquently! Well said!</p>

166

<p>Michael: You are apparently "incapable of comprehending" (your words) how religiously affiliated SCHOOLS work. :) Also at issue is the fact that the students are minors. Public schools have their own agendas too. :)</p>

167

<p>I do not think this is only about parochial schools. Yes, schools pick their own curricula. One would expect a religious school to teach about its religion. One would expect them to teach the teachings of that church, whatever they may be. What we are talking about here is censorship of materials that simply expose one to works that depict those who either hold different beliefs, are a different race, religion, or sexual orientation, etc. A church or school can explose students or parishoners to those who are different without the church's own teachings being at stake. To not tolerate, accept, coexist, learn about, etc. those who do not hold similar views or are of a different religion, orientation, or race, is not a good idea for humanity itself. They can do what they want and censor exposure to materials that depict those who are not in their church or do not follow their church's dogma, but that doesn't make it right or a good thing. If any person, group, church, country, sect, etc., could come to some understanding of those who are not like themselves, which does not threaten their own belief system, the world would be a better place.</p>

168

<p>Hello soozievt----there is NO "censorship." Censorship implies that there is an ULTIMATE AUTHORITY as to what and what should not be censored.</p>

<p>Being a bright lady, I'm sure you realize that we are all just humans going along to get along. Your idea of what constitutes censorship, just because it's YOURS, does not make it the absolute authority on the matter! Religious schools therefore "censor" all the time (based on what they believe is the ultimate authority), as do public schools. As do you! Capiche? :)</p>

<p>Deciding about what's good for HUMANITY--and feeling YOU are the absolute authority as to what is right and good--whew!!</p>

<p>Frankly, the only answer you find acceptable would be to do away with ALL religious tenants, excepting the liberal and relativist ones (which you happen to agree with), which is what, of course, you wish ultimately to do.</p>

<p>For the record, I have no problem with CIVIL unions; however, I feel it is entirely inappropriate for people to insist that ALL religious denominations MUST be called upon to BLESS such unions. Fight for CIVIL rights and leave the churches out of it.</p>

<p>P.S. Assuming all people who are against gay marriage are "bigots" and "homophobes" (and calling them such) is not helping your cause (as Sarahsmom pointed out).</p>

169

<p>Gilbert: Of course I don't, because I just fell of the turnip truck, notwithstanding having represented many employees, including educational directors, in contract negotiations with religious schools, my wife having served as the vice-president of education at a religious school for 4 years and given the close relationships, both professional and personal, which I maintain with clergy, professionals and lay leaders at a religious school in my area. I also am oblivious to public schools having agendas, notwithstanding having served as the president and in other official capacities for a variety of Parent Councils, PTO's, Educational Foundations and in other positions in my public school district, having run for school board director, having been appointed to committees by the superintendant of schools in my district and having served as an advocate for parents of children with disabilities.</p>

<p>Your post fails to address the root issues raised by mine and understandably so, because anyway you dress it up and try to make it look pretty (i.e. respectable), prejudice is still prejudice and censorship is still a tool of maintaining prejudice regardless of how you attempt to rationalize it.</p>

170

<p>To address the "root issues" would mean addressing the Bible--something I am not qualified to do, by any means.</p>

<p>However, I do trust religious and theologians to do so, many of whom disagree vehemently with gay marriage. I have read them, and I happen to agree.</p>

<p>I would urge you to fight for civil unions across the country (a political, not religious, battle); as I said, calling people of faith names will not help your cause.</p>

171

<p>I haven't called people of faith names; I'm a person of faith too. I do call people who use faith as a mask to conceal acts of prejudice names, though. It's fun :) . I also have respect for "people of faith" who are willing to stand up and fight for full legal parity for same sex couples, with the full scope of rights and benefits accorded to hetero couples. I respect their faith as well as their courage and honesty. Unfortunately, there are not enough of them. It seems that for many, their prejudice, cloaked in the respectability of "faith", gets in the way.</p>

172

<p>Gilbert, I can tell by your response that I have been misunderstood. I have no interest in debating what any particular church believes, preaches, teaches, etc. and i also am not debating gay rights or issues. </p>

<p>I do understand how schools work, having been a public school teacher for years and having taught at both public and private colleges. My husband has been a school board member for years, and I have a graduate degree in education. </p>

<p>A school, whether public, private or parochial can set its own curricula. No problem. I do not need to agree with it. That is not the same as not allowing exposure to literature or plays or works of art that depict those who do not follow the same religious leanings. It is about AWARENESS...which is not the same as preaching to do what others do but to not close off EXPOSURE to those who follow other religions, cultures, beliefs, etc. I see no harm in exposure to those who do not follow the same beliefs. I can read a book or see a play about those who hold views that are totally contradictory to my own but that doesn't put my own beliefs or religion at risk to do that. I am NOT debating what the church chooses to preach. I may disagree but it is their right to teach whatever belief or rule that they wish. I don't see exposure to those who are different than their religious beliefs as putting anything at risk to them. Are they not secure in their own teachings? I'd want my kids to learn about what another church believes and it would not keep my kids from believing in their own religious beliefs or values.</p>

<p>I am not for removing books and plays that depict those who do not hold the same beliefs as one holds for themselves. What is the fear? Be secure in your self and your church. Watching a play that has characters that do not follow your church's teaching is not going to put your church's teachings at risk. Should we all just learn about our own people? I think understanding others' religions, cultures, sexual orientations, races, etc. can only be beneficial. That is not the same as agreeing with one another or changing our own values or beliefs or religion. Should we only learn or read or watch things that depict those with whom we agree? THAT is what I am discussing....NOT gay rights..NOT the church's teachings....NOT the curricula they set. I'm talking of censoring exposure of books and plays that depict those who do not follow one's own group's ways. </p>

<p>One definition (not my own which you claim I am creating my own definition!) of censorship is:

[quote]
deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One definition of a censor is:

[quote]
A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My point is that a religious leader or school leader is censoring material that he/she wants to suppress because he/she/they find it objectionable. I am maintaining that one can read or watch works that do NOT align with one's own ways and not be swayed to change one's religious beliefs. To not allow one to view other ways is harmful to society as there is no understanding of others who are not the same religion, race, orientation, nationality, sect, etc. Exposure is not the same as AGREEING and CONDONING. I am not advocating for any church to change its beliefs or teachings. Who cares that I don't agree with their beliefs. Not my business. But I am speaking up against censorship which breeds fear of those who are not like our own. There is harm in that whereas I do not see harm in simple awareness of others who practice what I may not agree with. It doesn't change my own belief systems or threaten my religion's culture. Suppression of books and arts that depict a range of beliefs only puts up walls to our understanding and tolerating those who are not like ourselves. </p>

<p>You keep bringing up gay marriage and the beliefs of the church and that is not what i am talking about (not to say YOU can't talk about it) but it seems like you are responding to me about those issues and I am not even talking about the beliefs or rules of the church which is not my purview. I'm talking about censoring which closes minds off from anyone different than their own church, race, culture, etc. Hard to love thy neighbor if you can't learn about others' ways in an attempt to understand and tolerate, which is not the same as condoning.</p>

173

<p>Gilbert wrote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Frankly, the only answer you find acceptable would be to do away with ALL religious tenants, excepting the liberal and relativist ones (which you happen to agree with), which is what, of course, you wish ultimately to do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please do not assign me motivations or intent. Not only are those not true, that is a form of control. </p>

<p>For the record, sorry if you don't get the repetition in my posts apparently, but I do not wish to do away with anyone's religious tenets! I was not debating their tenets. I was discussing censorship and intolerance. If they want to allow this or that behavior, and their followers are fine with it, so be it. I don't see a need to censor materials that depict those who don't follow their tenets. That doesn't mean I want to do away with their religion or tell them what to believe. Those of different religions, sexual orientations, race, or cultures can embrace one another by learning about one another and not closing off access to understanding and tolerance, while not having their own religion be at stake. I don't feel threatened when I watch a play that depicts beliefs or ways that I disagree with. I learn of those who are different but it doesn't mean I must be swayed to not maintain my own beliefs. I see censorship as putting up a wall.</p>

174

<p>By the way, I wish to not be accused of calling names about a person. I haven't done so. </p>

<p>If someone even in my own religion wanted to censor a book or a play, I also would stand up and say that is not a good thing to do. </p>

<p>I am not against any particular religion. I would not think to call a person a name. </p>

<p>I am against intolerance and I am against censorship of books, films, art, plays. I do not care what group the person belongs to that chooses to act in those ways. I am against intolerance and censorship, not individuals, and not any particular religion that isn't my own. I tolerate that they believe differently than I do. But I also wouldn't want anyone to close themselves off of exposure of those who are not like themselves. One can learn about others' beliefs without having to change their own religious beliefs.</p>

175

<p>You repeatedly ignore that we are dealing with minors here.</p>

<p>Parents, not you or Michael or mythmom or the state (public schools) get to decide how all children should be educated. Even homeschooling is legal in this country. </p>

<p>If parents wish their children to be educated within the guidelines of their religious faith, and this faith happens to include the idea that same sex marriage, (or even homosexuality itself), is something they do not wish their children to approve of, THEY have the right to GUIDE (or in your words--"censor") what their children see, hear and read in order to influence their thinking on the matter until their minor child reaches the age of 18.</p>

<p>PARENTS, not you, the public schools, or people on this message board, have the RIGHT in this country (which has, by the way, been challenged legally again and again), to forbid parents from raising their children as they wish.</p>

<p>This may offend your sensibilities and sensitivities, but that is the law.</p>

<p>I understand you are trying mightily to spin this that these people are bigots and homophobes (I consider this "name calling" btw), but you have no idea what is in the heart of these people.</p>

<p>Perhaps you could explain to me why you can't just leave religion, and the education of minor children, out of it. I really can't see why parents should have to give up control of how their children are raised to your personal viewpoints. </p>

<p>Frankly, I see shaming (implying people are intolerant, bigots and homophobes) as a tactic to get people to change their minds.</p>

<p>I do not view this as honorable.</p>

176

<p>It's OK, Gilbert,....you don't appear to understand my point. I can tell by your response. I agree that parents can raise their children any way they wish. I don't have to condone their ways. Likewise, others don't have to condone the ways I may agree with. I am not talking about condoning or agreeing. I am only talking about awareness, exposure, and tolerance, NOT agreeing and condoning. </p>

<p>You are bringing up that parents have a right to raise their kids with whatever belief systems they wish. Yes indeed. I agree. Curiously, the parents at that parochial school were fine with letting their kids be in a play that depicting characters whom their church may not accept. I don't think they were giving up their church to do that. Even the administrator of their school allowed it. Apparently, by the mere fact that the parents are STILL having their kids participate in or see this play is an indication that yes, they are raising them as they wish. They appear to not want to censor the work but are still followers of their faith. By depicting characters in a fictional story, doesn't put their faith at risk. They don't have to agree with those whom they are depicting. My own child has worn a swatiska in a play in which she performed. It is a symbol of Nazism, a movement that annihilated six million of her faith. By depicting this character, she was not condoning or being swayed. She was exposed to others, not from her own "group". She was in another play in which Jesus was celebrated and worshipped. That goes against her religion. But she was exposed to it. She was in another play that dealt with witchcraft. Certainly not her belief system. But she was exposed to it. None of these things put her own faith at risk. I think when one group doesn't allow exposure to other points of view or other types of people, we all lose. </p>

<p>Again, I am not even getting into that particular hurch's views on homosexuals (which you seemingly THINK I am trying to discuss or put down...I'm not). I do not wish to debate that issue. I am discussing being intolerant of any works of literature or art that depicts anything or anyone you don't agree with. They can censor all they wish. Doesn't make it right. This isn't about their religion (for me). It is about the concept of censorship. Had this group been from my own religion, I would have STILL opposed the censorship of a play or book just because characters in it or ideas in it didn't match my own. </p>

<p>As far as the parents at that school.....they obviously didn't go along with the censorship but they still belong, and follow (rightfully) their church. I wish the leaders of that church could see that their religion was not threatened by allowing works depicting others that are not from their faith or ideals. These parents obviously did not go along with closing their kids' eyes to those outside their faith or own culture. Like you say, parents can raise their kids how they wish. These parents certainly did that and did not keep their kids from participation. The principal didn't either until this person stepped in. I wonder why the school administrators allowed La Cage origingally if it is so awful to expose kids to this play?</p>

177

<p>Can someone just tell me where the line is drawn, because I think that churches might be more open gay marriage if there was some way of knowing where all of this ends. What about the North American Man/Boy Association? They feel persecuted and judged, looked down upon. Is it going to be ok for men to marry nine year old boys? What about bigomy? After all, if sodomy is ok, why not bigomy? Much of the anxiety around this issue is fueled by fear. Where does it end?</p>

178

<p>Oh, I forgot. What about porn in church. After all, porn is seen by many as an art form. There could be a Jesus in drag day, what fun!</p>

179

<p>Questioning where the line is drawn should be drawn, if at all, is important, imo.</p>

<p>Sorry for that one mangled sentence in my post (too late to edit). </p>

<p>"The parents of that school"....do you know how many parents? No. I don't believe numbers have been given. To say "the parents" points your statement in the direction of propaganda, sorry to say, because you are implying (as Michael did) that the Bishop is some kind of conservative reactionary, when all he is doing is his job.</p>

<p>The school was founded in a certain religious tradition: the Bishop has an obligation to uphold that tradition, which he did. If "the parents" don't agree with it, they can remove their children from the school.</p>

<p>Well good night and peace to all!</p>

180

<p>Gilbert, it is you who are ignoring a couple of things. I'll point them out succinctly:
1. Parents controlling how their kids are raised - Yup, they have that right. In fact, as I understand all of the articles that appeared about the canceling of the play at issue, the parents at the school had made the decision to allow their kids to participate in the play and had supported the production. Their decision was overruled by someone who was not a parent of the kids and the play was canceled despite their wishes and without any dialog with the parents before the decision was made. I guess parental control only applies sometimes - like when it suits your agenda. And what about parents who want to raise their kids to believe that even if they are gay, they are still entitled to all of the benefits of a free society, including forming relationships with whom they please, as long as they are responsible, productive members of society. But then these kids run into the kids of the parents who have taught that gays are really second class citizens not entitled to the same freedoms and rights of others because a gay "lifestyle" violates certain religious or "moral" principals to which the gay kids and their parents don't subscribe. Bit of a problem, isn't it.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>People have the right to lead their lives and raise their kids in accord with their own religious beliefs without being called a bigot - Yup, you're right again. See, we do have a lot in common. As long as it remains within the zone of one's own life. As soon as one's religious beliefs or sense of "morality" gets pushed into the zone of someone else's life and is used as the basis to interfere with that person's life or to deny them the same rights and benefits as you, that's when you become a bigot. Forcing someone else to conform their lives to your sense of morality, whether based on religious tenets or messages from Mars, is just plain wrong, unless, of course, you think the Spanish Inquisition was just good sport. </p></li>
<li><p>Why Can't I just leave religion out of it - Third time's a charm, right again. I've got mine, you've got yours, let us lead our respective lives consistent therewith and go our ways in peace. Sounds good to me. Except for those who believe "I've got mine and you better too" and then use their religious beliefs as the basis to argue that a minority group should be denied the same secular and civil rights, the same opportunities in society, as those within the "fold". Sorry, been there, experienced that and am intimately familiar with a long history of that song and dance. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>This discussion has never been about bashing one religion or another or those who are of "faith". For me, it's about using religion as an excuse, rationale or justification to meddle in the lives of others. I don't like it even when it's for my own good - like the Salem Witch Trials.</p>

<p>As to the specific incident that kicked off this discussion, my objection all along was that even though the parents and local school authorities involved had approved of and were supportive of the production, the Bishop waltzed in and yanked the rug out from under them. No discussion, no dialog, no effort to find a way to accommodate the interests of all stakeholders. The use of censorship based on religious grounds to destroy what could have been a great educational opportunity to guide the kids involved to look at a complex issue from a diversity of viewpoints, including the teachings of their religion. Instead, all they learned was that those in power often act with dictatorial purpose.</p>