Transexual Jesus sparks Christian Vigil

[andycal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm

"About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual."

Now, I'm all for free speech and that and I'm a level 7 atheist but don't you just get the idea that some people want to just poke people with sticks and throw stones?

[Last of the Fraggles]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm

"About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual."

Now, I'm all for free speech and that and I'm a level 7 atheist but don't you just get the idea that some people want to just poke people with sticks and throw stones?

Its part of a regular LGBT arts festival, if the Jesus Krispies don't like it, don't go. Nobody will miss them.

[Oliver]

Given the fact that Jesus for some very strange reasons had no children, of course he must have been a transsexual ... at least...

[CynicalSkeptic]

Now, I'm all for free speech and that and I'm a level 7 atheist but don't you just get the idea that some people want to just poke people with sticks and throw stones?

Controversy == free publicity.

[GreNME]

Transylvania-huh-huh...

So you got caught with a flat-- well, how bout that?

[AvalonXQ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm

"About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual."

Now, I'm all for free speech and that and I'm a level 7 atheist but don't you just get the idea that some people want to just poke people with sticks and throw stones?

The billing for the play seems to focus on the idea that Jesus, as the child of God, would never condemn gays or transsexuals.
This seems to me to be a legitimate and reasonable attempt to express a point of view; there's no reason to assume that offense was the intent.

[Marduk]

makes sense to me, if God created mankind in his image then God must also be a transexual.

and you know, stands to reason, Jesus, long hair, dress and beauty queen sash.....
:D

[andycal]

The billing for the play seems to focus on the idea that Jesus, as the child of God, would never condemn gays or transsexuals.
This seems to me to be a legitimate and reasonable attempt to express a point of view; there's no reason to assume that offense was the intent.

Y'know what, you're absolutely right. It's an argument I always come round to, this Jesus guy should absolutely be OK with everything seeing as he was (apparently) fighting for the little guy.

But it still makes me think that during pre-production a bunch of people sat round a table and thought "This'll really piss off the fundies" before sharing a giggle over a packet of crips.

Not that it's right or wrong to think that, but like has been mentioned in the Ian McKellan thread elsewhere - does this do anyone any favours?

[Trystero4]

You had me at 'Transexual Jesus "

[grayman]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/eccehomo.jpg

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/4/14/18/gay-jesus-offends-christians-10312-1239746908-44.jpg

[Hux]

He may well have been a transsexual. He might have been many things; He was meant to be all things to all men. But since no one can even prove He actually existed, his sexuality becomes trivial.

[AvalonXQ]

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/4/14/18/gay-jesus-offends-christians-10312-1239746908-44.jpg
hawt

Although transexual =/= gay...

[Nursefoxfire]

You know, if Jesus is depicted as anything other than the extremely Anglicized bearded long-haired hippie guy the west has turned him into, someone's going to get offended.

Religion = the "god"-given right to get righteously indignant over any view other than your own.

[grayman]

Jesus was a cross-dresser.

:stone028:

[Foster Zygote]

Jesus was a cross-dresser.

:stone028:

Badump - bump!

[MRC_Hans]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm

"About 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre over the staging of a play which portrays Jesus as a transsexual."

Now, I'm all for free speech and that and I'm a level 7 atheist but don't you just get the idea that some people want to just poke people with sticks and throw stones?Free speech implies the right to be offended, - and having to live with it.

Hans

[Trystero4]

Coolest part of this story...
"The protest was held outside the Tron Theatre"

[JoeyDonuts]

Coolest part of this story...
"The protest was held outside the Tron Theatre"

Is your avatar from Landover Baptist?

Brilliant. :D

[godless dave]

But it still makes me think that during pre-production a bunch of people sat round a table and thought "This'll really piss off the fundies" before sharing a giggle over a packet of crips.

Not that it's right or wrong to think that, but like has been mentioned in the Ian McKellan thread elsewhere - does this do anyone any favours?

Yes. I'm not sure they were being deliberately offensive, but deliberate offense serves several purposes, free publicity being one of them. Offending the easily offended also gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside, which is a noble goal as far as I'm concerned.

[Trystero4]

Is your avatar from Landover Baptist?

Brilliant. :D

Not sure where it's from. I just kind of found it. It's a little outdated though. Who wants a PS2?

[CurtC]

Is your avatar from Landover Baptist?

Mine is.

[Hokulele]

Jesus was a cross-dresser.

:stone028:


We need a tomato throwing smiley.

[grayman]

We need a tomato throwing smiley.

:duck:

[Hokulele]

I am referring to the thrower, not the throwee.

[grayman]

I am referring to the thrower, not the throwee.

But you throw like a girl...




http://www.goodha.com/FStore/Work_Files/2007/9/5/25/25_56203214.gif

[GreyICE]

Why not depict a transsexual Mohammad? It could only end well.

Seriously though, I do think there's a difference between 'not believing in a religion' and 'poking followers with sharp objects.' This kinda crosses that line a tad. On the other hand, I can't possibly think why I should care.

[Hux]

I am undecided on the issue. As much as I dislike religion I don't by nature, feel I have to prod it with sticks.

And then along comes screaming Muzzies and creationist idiots and the likes of Hamelekim and I cannot help but reach for the stick.

[andycal]

Why not depict a transsexual Mohammad? It could only end well.

Seriously though, I do think there's a difference between 'not believing in a religion' and 'poking followers with sharp objects.' This kinda crosses that line a tad. On the other hand, I can't possibly think why I should care.

I am undecided on the issue. As much as I dislike religion I don't by nature, feel I have to prod it with sticks.

And then along comes screaming Muzzies and creationist idiots and the likes of Hamelekim and I cannot help but reach for the stick.

It's a bloody tough one, this. I have a lot of very good friends who are Christian and as much as I'd argue with them to the end that they're basically indulging in a fantasy, I doubt I'd end the conversation by saying "yeah, and what's to say your 'Jesus' friend didn't engage in fellatio with pigs?"

Doesn't mean that the play shouldn't happen though, so it's really a moot point.

Good point about the Mohamed thing though, you get the feeling JC is an easy target.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Why not depict a transsexual Mohammad? It could only end well.

Seriously though, I do think there's a difference between 'not believing in a religion' and 'poking followers with sharp objects.' This kinda crosses that line a tad. On the other hand, I can't possibly think why I should care.

Presumably none of the plays actors were from a Muslim background so it would be a bit off of them to suddenly decide they wanted to make a statement by including a transexual Mohammed in their play.

Equally if it was a group of nominally Muslim folks putting on a play that portrayed Jesus as a transexual I think you would have an argument that this was designed to offend.

I'm always suspicious if someone throws up the 'you wouldn't dare do this to the Muslims argument' as it seems to suggest that somehow both religions have equal status in Western countries (specifically Scotland in this case) and that somehow both are equally influential. It also seems to promote violent over-reaction to things that offend you as correct and effective action.

[commandlinegamer]

Coolest part of this story...
"The protest was held outside the Tron Theatre"

Tron was an archaic Scots system of measurement; as the public weighing machine was called the Tron, it gave its name to streets and buildings, viz. Trongate and the Tron Church, etc. No lasers, lightcycles involved, unfortunately.

[Aepervius]

Seriously though, I do think there's a difference between 'not believing in a religion' and 'poking followers with sharp objects.' This kinda crosses that line a tad.

The problem is that with such a statement you seem to indicate there are indeed subject which are taboo cannot be talked seriously about or even mocked, because it could offend part of the population.

In my mind either you put ONE line on free speech,(beside the legally existing one like CP), and then you immediately generate a minefield of lines everywhere where some stuff offend or not offend this or that group OR you put none.

Which is why I say : no line. Get offended ? Well express it. But saying some group has the right of a line NOT to be crossed is a receipt for disaster. Why should those get a special pleading protection ?

How about we put a line saying atheist get offended by saying they will go in hell, and now every christian saying just that will have crossed the line and be AS offending as the theater group in the op ? See what i mean ?

Why not depict a transsexual Mohammad? It could only end well.


Why not a transsexual jesus ?

[The Fallen Serpent]

Why not depict a transsexual Mohammad?
Depicting a pedophile Mohammad is easier.

[Hux]

Look can we put this Shibboleth to bed once and for all. Mohammed was not a paedophile. Everyone did it in those days......

[The Fallen Serpent]

I'm not saying that he was or was not. I am just saying in terms of mocking Mohammed by labeling a specific type of sexuality pedophilia is an easier insult to make than referring to him as a transsexual. Not that being a transsexual is bad to me, but there are those who find the label offensive or insulting and therefore find this portrayal as mockingly offensive.

There is very little sexuality associated with Jesus in most of the modern interpetations of the writings. That makes any wild claims easier to apply to him than it is to apply those same claims to other religious figures.

The question might as well have been "Why not Zeus?" "Why not Odin?" "Why not Izanagi-no-Mikoto?"

This actually is not the first I have heard of Jesus being portrayed as a transsexual. This would have been the first time I have heard of Mohammad being shown that way. Though I certainly encourage it happening.

[Beerina]

Jesus was a cross-dresser.

:stone028:


http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/Gnurl/monopoly-go-to-jail-card.jpg

[The Fallen Serpent]

Jail is full of cross dressers!

[GreyICE]

The problem is that with such a statement you seem to indicate there are indeed subject which are taboo cannot be talked seriously about or even mocked, because it could offend part of the population.

In my mind either you put ONE line on free speech,(beside the legally existing one like CP), and then you immediately generate a minefield of lines everywhere where some stuff offend or not offend this or that group OR you put none.

Which is why I say : no line. Get offended ? Well express it. But saying some group has the right of a line NOT to be crossed is a receipt for disaster. Why should those get a special pleading protection ?

How about we put a line saying atheist get offended by saying they will go in hell, and now every christian saying just that will have crossed the line and be AS offending as the theater group in the op ? See what i mean ?
Oh please. You'll never find a bigger free speech advocate than me. So put away the strawmen, you were holding them in the wing waiting to be offended. It was a nice soapbox, now get down off it.

I'm simply saying that I have no responsibility to find every exercise of free speech tasteful, dignified, or productive. It's the difference between saying that Ayn Rand has no right to write, and saying that Ayn Rand was a lousy writer.

It crosses a line from 'commentary on religion and prejudice' to 'poking people with sharp objects.' There's lots to criticize about religion. This doesn't appear to be going for any of it. It's just Howard Sterning the show.

I can object to the means and methods people use to express themselves, without saying that their right of expression should be taken away. To use an analogy, I object to really lousy grammar, but I don't think that people with terrible grammar should be banned from writing internet posts, for instance.


Why not a transsexual jesus ? Because if they want to make a point about religion and tolerance, it's a lousy way to make it?