The High School Performing a Play About ‘Adam and Steve’ Isn’t Being Anti-Christian

When I was in college, I performed in a play that offered a satirical look at the Bible. It was funny, there was no controversy, and when it came down to it, the play was actually pretty respectful of the underlying story.

You could say similar things about Paul Rudnick‘s 1998 play “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told,” a play that features a female God and the characters “Adam and Steve” and “Jane and Mabel.” In the second part of the play, the same characters become real couples, living in New York City, coming to terms with their own beliefs.

When the play premiered years ago, the New York Times gave it a positive review:

Even as it spoofs, in sometimes truly profane ways, sacred lore as a show-off adolescent would in Bible school, it gives off a glow of understanding for the need to believe in such lore.

… For Mr. Rudnick, paradise, or unquestioning happiness, can be fleetingly glimpsed in a variety of phenomenons, from the miracle of birth to an item of designer clothing. And in laughter, there is something like the memory of Eden.

Far from being anti-Christian, it’s a story of why religion can be so powerful.

Why talk about the play now? Because Christians are freaking out over the fact that a high school, Pioneer Valley Performing Arts Public Charter School in South Hadley, Massachusetts, performed a PG-13 version of it over the weekend:

[The play] comes despite objections from many who say it’s offensive to Christians.

In a letter to parents, administrators at the Pioneer Valley Performing Arts Public Charter School said the play is consistent with the school’s philosophy and appropriate for a high school audience.

But they did admit to receiving email petitions and phone calls describing the production as “blasphemous and hateful.”

Some of the messages from opponents also say they plan to organize protests through local churches.

The head of the school, Scott Goldman, defended his students and their work:

Goldman said most of the criticism appears to be from out of state.

The play is consistent with the school’s philosophy and appropriate for a high school audience, Goldman wrote.

“Is it the role of public school to facilitate an exchange of ideas on the themes explored in this particular play?” Goldman wrote. “This is an excellent question, with answers that I imagine will be debated in what I hope will be climate of civility, and a desire to understand others’ viewpoints.”

For whatever reason, Christians are calling this play an assault on their faith. Earlier today, President of American Atheists David Silverman appeared on FOX News Channel to talk about the objections to the play, while the other guy on the panel used the occasion to trash President Obama… who had nothing to do with this story whatsoever:

The downside: It was pretty apparent that neither David Webb nor Silverman knew much about the play.

The upside: There was therefore a broader conversation about religion, homosexuality, and our schools.

Silverman made the argument that many Christians have no problem with homosexuality, but many people use the faith as a shield for their bigotry. (I could’ve totally done without the slams on Islam, which were completely unnecessary, but Silverman saw them as a way to make his point that he’s not anti-Christian but anti-religion.)

Megyn Kelly got it wrong when she implied that the ACLU would normally sue over this sort of thing if it were pro-Christianity but they’re letting this school off the hook because it’s “anti-Christianity.”

She has no idea what the play is about. It’s not promoting atheism or denigrating religion — and anyone who sees it would know that.

What it’s doing is taking a story we’re all pretty familiar with and tying in those Biblical stories with more modern elements of society. It’s not something you could pull off as easily with the Koran or the Vedas because Americans just aren’t very familiar with those myths.

It’s the same reason a lot of public high schools perform plays that spoof on the Bible. It’s taking the familiar and making it accessible to all through humor.

We should all be applauding that, not protesting it.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://twitter.com/TominousTone Thomas J. Lawson

    Our high school did Neil Simon’s “God’s Favorite.” Only when we wanted to do a play about safe sex did the hammer of censorship come down.

  • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

    I disagree with Silverman’s assessment of where bigotry comes from. Speaking from personal experience, when I was a Christian I thought homosexual behavior was a sin and that gay marriage should not be legalized. I never felt anything but compassion for homosexuals, but my belief that the Bible was the inerrant word of God overrode my compassion. Christianity was the cause of the bigotry; it definitely wasn’t just a tool to justify a bigotry I already possessed.

    • Stev84

      Believers (not just Christians) still use their faith as an excuse to get away with literally anything. Whatever they do or say, they always say something like “It’s my faith and you have to respect that”. Unfortunately society generally buys into that.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        I’ll respect (generic) your faith as long as you aren’t using it to abuse, bully, coerce, or otherwise make life difficult for others.

        • Artor

          I’ll tolerate your faith for those things, but I won’t respect it, except for those ways in which it actually models reality and directs it’s adherents to work for the betterment of society.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Cool.

    • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

      It’s nice to see someone express this. I’ve tried to defend Christians on this point, on a post on this blog. The participants there would have none of it.

    • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

      It’s nice to see someone express this. I’ve tried to defend Christians on this point, on a post on this blog. The participants there would have none of it.

      • Baby_Raptor

        That would probably be because you’re trying to defend bigotry, and defending bigotry is wrong no matter how compassionate you think you’re being. So, no. We’re not going to have any of it. Defending them is just enabling them.

        • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

          I’m not defending bigotry. I’m just pointing out that for many Christians, the bigotry is due to an error in reasoning and not an error in compassion.

          • Kengi

            Denying rights to minorities is always an “error in compassion”. You are just rationalizing that lack of compassion.

            • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

              We can feel compassion for people who are attracted to children, even though we know we can’t legally allow them to act on their attractions. If you think that homosexual behavior is harmful in the same way that child molestation is, then you have made an error in reasoning, but that says nothing about whether or not you care about people who are homosexual.

              • named

                “… but that says nothing about whether or not you care about people who are homosexual.”

                Way to point out your own Red Herring at the end of the distraction from the topic at hand.

              • Kengi

                Wow. Did Travis just compare pedophilia with same-sex orientation? No, he couldn’t have done that. Let me read that again.

                Yup, he did. Amazing.

                Again, this is nothing but you rationalizing your lack of compassion as something else. If you had an ounce of compassion, you never would have made such a comparison.

                • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

                  I can’t believe it’s necessary for me to say this, but I was not suggesting that same-sex orientation is the same thing as pedophilia. In fact, I specifically said that anyone who thinks so is wrong. My point was that if you believe (wrongly) that gay sex is harmful, you can still be compassionate towards people who feel urges to do things that you think are harmful.

                • Stev84

                  No, you can think that you feel compassion. In reality, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s only making yourself feel better.

                • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

                  So do you not feel compassion for people who are attracted to children and are doing their best to prevent themselves from acting on that attraction?

                • Kengi

                  So, you are saying you only felt compassion for gay people who were doing their best to prevent themselves from acting on that attraction?

                  Again, you are rationalizing your (hopefully former) lack of compassion.

                • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

                  You have to understand fundamentalist Christian dogma. It’s not just homosexual behavior that is a sin; just about anything pleasurable you can think of is a sin. Having heterosexual sex before marriage is a sin. Masturbation is a sin. So in the same way that you still love all your heterosexual friends who have had sex, you love your gay friends who have also had sex, but you still privately condemn both behaviors. There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance involved. So when everyone, including yourself, is constantly sinning, it becomes no problem to on the one hand condemn someone’s behavior and on the other hand feel compassion for the fact that they fell into temptation. It’s twisted, I know.

                • Kengi

                  The problem is you have to twist the word “compassion” to mean something that doesn’t resemble actual compassion.

                  Besides, the actual truth is that Christians aren’t lining up to punish all sins. They are, however, lining up to outlaw same-sex marriage. There is a dissonance there that Silverman was pointing out which you and m6 seem eager to ignore in defense of your twisted “compassion”.

                • Isaac

                  I think the word you’re looking for is empathy, or maybe even sympathy, which are not the same as compassion

                • named

                  That seems like typical Christian propaganda… When losing a debate, change the subject into something that attempts to discredit or or insult the other debater. A technique perfected by Bill O’Reilly many years ago.

                  Because it couldn’t possibly be you that has bigotry issues… Nope, it must be everyone else around you, so call them unfeeling fascists before anyone tries to convince you otherwise.

                • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

                  Actually, he offered a conditional statement. You can recognize such a statement by the common inclusion of the words “if” and “then.”

                • Kengi

                  You do realize that wasn’t a hypothetical statement, don’t you? He was discussing his actual past viewpoint and trying to justify it as compassionate.

                  You can recognize this by actually reading the posts in the discussion.

                • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

                  Kenji, I have never viewed homosexual behavior as being the same thing as pedophelia. I was just using it as an example to show that condemnation of a person’s actions is not the same thing as condemnation of a person’s biological urges which they can’t control. It has always been clear to me that pedophelia is much more harmful than homosexuality, even when I believed that homosexuality was harmful at all.

                • Kengi

                  Wow. You still don’t get it. It’s not that pedophilia is “more” or “less” harmful than same-sex attraction. They are in no way comparable, and no one should ever compare them.

                • http://www.facebook.com/travis.myers.102977 Travis Myers

                  The only reason they were being compared is because pedophelia can arise through biological processes that the individual has no control over, just like heterosexuality and homosexuality.

                • Kengi

                  You chose the absolute worst possible comparison anyone could ever make. It’s been used for decades to demean same-sex attraction which you are fully aware of.

                  The very fact you not only used it as a comparison, but are digging yourself deeper trying to defend the use of that comparison, does not help your case when trying to convince others of your compassion.

                • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

                  I read it. At no point did he state that as part of his former perspective, regardless of whether it actually was.

                • Kengi

                  I think you will see from his below reply that he in fact not only had equated them, he still does equate them. The fact that he had, in the past, equated them, was evident to most, middle school grads.

                  Are the two of you interested in sharing the rental costs on a backhoe?

                • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

                  This is a genuine question: Do you consider yourself to be a skeptic?

                • Kengi

                  No

                • C Peterson

                  The comparison was entirely reasonable in the context he presented it. He’s talking about how people compare moral values, and there are certainly people who place pedophilia and homosexuality on the same moral plane.

                  However, I don’t think that the majority of people who think that way have much in the way of compassion towards either.

                • Kengi

                  The context he presented it in was in defense of how compassionate he was towards gay people. The context doesn’t help show compassion, so it wasn’t valid.

          • Thackerie

            If they were truly compassionate, they’d reason compassionately.

        • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

          Actually, I was defending Christians against the blame for the bigotry of their deity. Some Christians, for example, hate homosexuals regardless of Biblical justification. But others act in accordance with their deity because they think it’s the right thing to do. I make a distinction between the two, even if someone like you won’t.

          • Kengi

            Their deity hates gay people, so it’s OK for Christians to hate gay people because they are just expressing the hatred of their non-existent deity?

            That’s the same as when a child blames their imaginary friend for wetting the bed. ‘It’s not me taking rights away from gay people, it’s my deity!”

            Sorry, their non-existent deity wasn’t registered to vote in the elections where the actual people, lacking in compassion, voted against equal rights.

            They came to their bigoted conclusions by a variety of methods, which certainly may have been influenced by other bigoted people, but those bigoted conclusions were their own, and they need to own up to them and not blame them on an invisible friend.

          • allein

            On the latter, to quote Dan Barker’s mother on becoming an atheist: “I don’t have to hate anymore.”

            • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

              Amen.

      • RobertoTheChi

        Defending bigotry isn’t going to fly. Of course we’re having none of it. Why would we?

        • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

          As I already explained, I was defending Christians against blame for the bigotry of their tyrannical deity.

          • Thackerie

            That doesn’t let them off the hook because they WORSHIP that tyrannical deity, they say they love it, and that it’s “perfect” in every way. They have created a god that embodies their worst aspects, including bigotry. People with an ounce of compassion wouldn’t endorse and identify with such a hateful concept.

            • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

              That tyrannical deity demands worship, love, and things like being considered as “perfect.” If, despite all of this, it offered a consequence-free escape from its tyranny, then you’d be right; but it doesn’t. The consequence is inescapable eternal torture.

              It’s impossible to say how many Christians suffer from such fear, but this is certainly the reality some of them believe they face. They are victims of religion. I’m not prepared to fault a person like this for acting to avoid hell. It’s a situation in which they have very little choice. Any compassion they might have for the enemies of god is essentially irrelevant. If they act on that compassion, they risk also being an enemy of god.

              I think this should be considered prior to assigning blame.

    • Helanna

      I’m sure there’s plenty of people on both sides – compassionate people who are just misguided and who will hopefully realize their error, and people who would hate gays with or without a religious excuse (who will also hopefully realize their error, I guess).

    • Kengi

      ” I never felt anything but compassion for homosexuals, but” you still wanted to deny them the rights you enjoyed, subjugating them to second class citizens. I hate to break this to you, but that isn’t “compassion” by any reasonable definition.

      • Miss_Beara

        This. Bible>compassion for LGBT.

        I never felt anything but compassion for homosexuals, but they don’t deserve to get married.

        I never felt anything but compassion for homosexuals, but your “behavior” is a sin.

        And my favorite, “I have many gay friends, but…”

        • Kengi

          Don’t forget the classic “Love the sinner, hate the sin” fallacy, which this argument is equivalent to.

      • Artor

        It’s “compassion,” by the modern conservative Xtian definition, which is, as you so well put it, not reasonable. Love the sinner, hate the sin & all that bullshit equivocation they do to tell themselves they really aren’t hateful bigots.

    • coyotenose

      Jesus, what a thread.

      It’s really bizarre that you made the simple, truthful point that there are at least two types of bigots who are religious, and people are tripping over one another to call you names for explaining that some of them are victims of religious indoctrination who can’t see the dissonance from the inside. Why is that hard for them to get?

      They (mostly) understand when one explains that bullies and abusers intentionally make their victims unable to think rationally, but when it comes to religious abusers, suddenly it’s YOUR FAULT YOUR FAULT NO SHUT THE FUCK UP BIGOT YOUR FAULT

      • Kengi

        The argument is over the twisted notion that some bigots are actually being compassionate. This is a failure common in former Christians as a defense mechanism.

        It seems to come from the very notion of unconditional compassion, which is nonsensical. Then, of course, came the horrible pedophile/same-sex orientation equivalence, with the hurried excuses about how it’s really a matter of how harmful one is versus the other rather than the acknowledgment of the history of using that equivalence as a way to demean people.

        A better analysis would have come from asking if I felt compassion for the rapists in the Steubenville trial. I’m sure our Good Former Christians would claim they did. I would say I don’t have actual compassion for them, I have compassion for the young woman who had to see her own rape play out on social media.

        The idea of unconditional compassion is a horrible injustice for those who actually do exhibit genuine compassion.

        Still, glad you decided to bypass all the actual issues being discussed and go right for the “YOUR FAULT YOUR FAULT NO SHUT THE FUCK UP BIGOT YOUR FAULT” blame game. It made for some good comic relief.

        • coyotenose

          Your side of the the argument doesn’t resemble what he said. Was it not clear the first time I said that, or the numerous times he tried to explain it? You lot can’t even grasp the difference between him explaining how he was taught to think and how fundamentalists think and how he thinks now. Actually, you don’t appear to WANT to grasp it. You more likely just want a target.

          The side of the argument that was against him very much resembles my hyperbole, thanks. It simply doesn’t deserve better than my mockery at this point. Try reading the thread instead of kneejerking off to it.

          • Kengi

            “Your side of the the argument doesn’t resemble what he said.”

            Well, you got me there. I admit my argument doesn’t “resemble” what the people claiming compassion to make them feel good about their past bigotry. That’s because I disagree with their argument. Are you confused about different sides of an argument not resembling each other?

            “Was it not clear the first time I said that”

            When did you first say that? Or are you talking about one of your sock puppets?

            ” You lot can’t even grasp the difference between him explaining how he was taught to think and how fundamentalists think and how he thinks now.”

            His use of a common, denigrating comparison with the statement that, of course he thought they were different because it’s a matter of one doing more harm than the other, pretty much torpedoed his argument from compassion. Of all the examples he could have used, he chose one of the most denigrating comparisons available.

            “The side of the argument that was against him very much resembles my hyperbole, thanks. It simply doesn’t deserve better than my mockery at this point.”

            What hyperbole and mockery are you talking about? Or are you referring to yet another sock puppet?

            “Try reading the thread instead of kneejerking off to it.”

            Oh, how delightfully clever! I guess I can’t respond to such wit.

            Why don’t you stop trying to defend the excuses bigots use to help them feel better about themselves. Love the sinner but hate the sin is not about compassion or love. It’s a feeble rationalization for their bigotry which is clearly demonstrated with their fixation on some sins, but not others.

            “I was a compassionate bigot” shouldn’t be an acceptable argument.

    • indorri

      I appreciate the explanation, though I should say from the forefront that models of human psychology really depend on the results you get when you apply it. In other words, I regrettably don’t have much of a reason to consider this a possible general condition rather than one specific to, say, you. It’s likely the case that other people are merely not compassionate (or perhaps even inconsiderate) and that statements that they are compassionate are empty.

      That being said, this doesn’t actually invalidate your speculation of this bigotry having origin in Christianity.

  • Kengi

    If a play can’t be produced in school because it could be blasphemous to someone, then no play could ever be produced in school. “Blasphemy” has to be the dumbest reason ever to complain about in a school production. Heck, blasphemy is a dumb reason to complain about anything.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Typical christianist hypocrisy. They can say whatever they want about whoever they want, but the moment someone says something less than worshipful about them, the shit hits the fan.

  • Rain

    This is funny because “Adam and Steve” is actually a joke by fundamentalists that makes fun of other more progressive believers. (Surely they wouldn’t think it would be convincing to non-believers.) The effect is completely lost because it is a non-sequitur, which completely self-unaware fundamentalists are prone to do–making total non-sequiturs, completely self-unaware of how dumb it is. Sarcasm for me, but not for thee. Color me shocked and horrored. Somebody find me my fainting couch before I jump up on a cross a self-martyrize myself.

  • Mcatheist

    Wait, what? Henant is a thespian? Or maybe a former thespian, and now an athespian? Is there more to this story? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      I did theater in high school… and then tried out for some shows in college because math classes don’t exactly surround you with the most outgoing, social people :) Good times. #Atheispian

  • C Peterson

    While I think it’s a delusion to see this play as any insult to Christianity, my real view on the matter is, who gives a shit? If it does insult Christianity, so what? There’s nothing special about that particular belief system that makes it above being insulted.

    My suggestion to Christians who feel insulted is this: shut up, and don’t go see the play. Jews have been forced to put up with the deep (and often deadly) insult of Christian passion plays for a thousand years! Christians are the first to hand out insults; let them be on the other side for a while. A few might actually learn something.

    • Rain

      I cried when the one guy asked hey what about Christians’ right not to be offended? It brought me to tears. I had to go and buy some more tissues when he said that. So many tears.

      • allein

        Of laughter?

        • Rain

          I was laughing because he would think it’s stupid to turn the other cheek or take no thought for the morrow, which would show contempt for Jesus’ commands–and that is the definition of blasphemy.

    • Blacksheep

      That sounds honest. I agree that that’s kind of the bottom line. However I also believe it’s dishonest to not admit that one is trying – in some way – to be offensive to Christianity. Otherwise the play could be called “joe and steve.” There’s a reason it’s called “Adam and Steve.” It’s like kids fighting, “What?” “What did I do?”

      (By the way in real life it would be Adam and Steven).

      • C Peterson

        I think it’s called “Adam and Steve” because that’s a well known meme (created by Christians, as it happens). Using it certainly indicates a willingness to present ideas that aren’t Christian, but how does that make the play insulting or deliberately offensive to Christianity?

        I find it revealing that so many Christians label any ideas different from their own as some sort of deliberate attack on their beliefs.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

    As an atheist secularist, I’m mostly AGAINST the idea of a public/government school blatantly poking fun at a religious story.

    My reason: Just as I don’t want public/government schools doing PRO-RELIGION plays that PROMOTE religious mythology, I similarly do not want the government running a program that MOCKS the silly religious mythology.

    Government spaces and programs should be NEUTRAL on matters of religion, neither promoting nor mocking religion.

    But I admit my reaction is off-the-cuff, and I haven’t given much thought yet to whether this would stifle free expression in the arts, etc. But doesn’t it similarly stifle/confine the arts when we protest against nativity plays, etc.?

    • Kengi

      I think you missed the point. This play isn’t anti-Christian.

      If play actually did promote atheism over other religions, then it would be inappropriate. The problem is that anything that isn’t specifically pro-Christian is seen as blasphemy by the wingnuts, and they rail against it.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

        I admit that I know almost nothing about this play, so you may be accurate that I may indeed be missing the point. I concede that’s possible, but I’m not convinced.

        The play’s own website says “Act One covers the Garden of Eden, an ark… and even the Nativity.” Thus, it certainly touches directly on the religion of the Bible.

        If it did so in a favorable/flattering way, I would most likely object to that in a public/government school.

        So isn’t it only fair that we should also object when the public/gov’t school play pokes fun at those stories (e.g. Adam and Steve, etc.)?

        • Kengi

          I think you may be conflating the promotion of religion with acknowledging the existence of religion. Do you remember the Charlie Brown Christmas play debacle?

          The problem with the Charlie Brown play wasn’t that it mentioned religion, but that its central message and theme was one of Christian preeminence to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. It used Bible versus to claim the only valid way to celebrate the season was as a Christian. That crossed the line.

          Religion can be discussed and presented in a neutral way in public schools. This play uses Bible stories which are known to most Americans as a plot device. It neither promotes nor criticizes Christianity as a religion.

  • JasmynMoon

    I worked on a production of Godspell when I was in high school. The ACLU wasn’t involved at all. Shortly after we did it, another school about 40 miles away also did Godspell. Their production went on without any legal issues. Megyn Kelly is a damn moron with a false persecution complex.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I really want to see this play.

  • Cat’s Staff

    They made it sound and look like the guy involved with the film was arrested because of what was in the film…he wasn’t. He was arrested for violating terms of his probation from earlier crimes. The way she phrased it made it sound like blasphemy is now a crime and therefore that shows that it should be illegal for this school to have this play.

  • Cat’s Staff

    To bad it looks like there are no more showings. There is a preview online. To bad they probably can’t record the whole thing and put it on YouTube so we could all see what the controversy is about.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jerome-McCollom/100000327150215 Jerome McCollom

    Religion/Christianity is a belief system. Homosexuality is not. ANy and all beliefs systems need to be defended based upon their views, religious or not. Second, can Christian right-wingers stop whining that athests aren’t being mean enough to Islam? I will disagree with Silverman a bit. While religion can be used as a crutch to fuel homophobia, there is much homophobia in the bible.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    *sigh*

    I’m guessing their “problem” with it is some combination of “God’s a woman”, “gays are icky”, and “OMFGTOLERANCEWTFWE’REBEINGREPRESSED!”

    God forbid schools send a positive message encouraging diversity and tolerance instead of forcing rigid conformity on the masses and reinforcing it with bullying and abuse of those who are different…

    (that was sarcasm.)

  • http://twitter.com/docslacker MD

    Reminds me of the time Catholics had a conniption fit over “The Last Temptation of Christ.” It was really one of the most reverent films about Jesus I have ever seen. But Catholics were hysterical because it was blasphemous. Well, they thought it was blasphemous. They wouldn’t go and see it.

    • Sandra Duffy

      Actually MD most Catholics were hysterically rolling in the aisles wiping away tears of laughter. There’s scarcely a house in Ireland that doesn’t have a DVD of that movie sitting proudly under the TV. And on that note Irish catholics and non catholics alike love Father Ted which took the piss out of the church every episode. They are not all humourless geeks who can’t laugh at themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM

      • http://twitter.com/docslacker MD

        Catholics in the U.S. and South America, then. I was in Catholic school at the time.

  • Rwlawoffice

    So your position is that a play that turns the creation story into a gay love story, includes a gay rape scene on the ark, views hertosexuals as weird and odd, promotes homosexual marriage all at the expense of Christian beliefs on these subjects is not anti Christian. It is done with public tax dollars. Because you agree with the promotion of homosexuality and you despise Christianity you don’t see anything wrong with it. If on the other hand a public school hangs a banner with the word God in it all hell breaks loose. Spare me the establishment clause arguments about the banner I understand them, my point is that as long as Christianity is being mocked nothing is out of bounds, even using tax dollars at a public high school play to promote the homosexual lifestyle at its expense. Typical liberal rationalization.

    • C Peterson

      It isn’t obvious to me that the play is anti-Christian. It presents secular ideas that are different from Christian ideas. In that respect, it neither violates the First Amendment in this setting, nor does it present an anti-religious view. Nobody is being mocked.

      Separately from any religious issues, it is entirely appropriate for tax dollars to be used to educate about homosexuality, just as it is for them to be used to educated about evolution. It is not a First Amendment violation for secular ideas to be presented by schools, even if those ideas contradict the ideas of various religions. It is appropriate and legal for a teacher to say that there is no evidence for Adam and Eve, or to say that the evidence argues that homosexuality is something natural.

      • rwlawoffice

        How is casting the story of creation in a gay light or warping the story of the ark, not anti Christian? It is clearly meant to change the story to promote the author’s own ideas about the virtues of homosexuality at the expense of the Christian story of creation among others. If that was not the author’s intent he could have cast Adam and Steve in any other setting other than the Old Testament and achieved his purpose of promoting homosexuality. It is very obvious why he used the Old Testament as the setting.

        Why is is appropriate for tax dollars to be used to promote homosexuality? Why is it appropriate to promote to use tax dollars to promote same sex marriage? What gives this lifestyle choice a special place to be promoted? This is not a sex education class that is discussing the sexual aspects of this type of relationship, it is a play designed to promote the lifestyle in addressing the political and social issue of the day in an one sided manner. There is not the opposite view being presented. it is tax dollars being used to promote a social agenda. if the same thing was being done to promote the values of traditional marriage there would be an outcry from the intolerant left.

        • C Peterson

          The story of creation as given in the bible is hardly a Christian myth. It’s a myth that is shared (in various forms) by most western cultures for the last several thousand years. The story is presenting its message by using the context of a fundamental meme of western civilization.

          Homosexuality is not a “lifestyle”, but as natural a manifestation of sexuality as heterosexuality. As a scientific truth, it would be irresponsible not to teach about it in public schools. Deliberately ignoring homosexuality in both biology and sociology classes would be equivalent to deliberately ignoring race.

          What opposite view would you expect to be presented? There really is no secular view that stands in opposition to homosexuality.

          • Rwlawoffice

            You are smarter than that. The creation story being mocked here is the Christian one, not any other versions.

            What is being promoted in this play is the homosexual lifestyle including same sex marriage. The opposite view could be the benefits of traditional marriage between a man and a women.

            • Sandra Duffy

              The story in Genesis is actually Jewish (and prior to that Sumerian) if you want to be pedantic about it. There were no christians at the time that story was written down. Funny how Christians tend to forget that Jesus himself was a Jew. An apocalyptic rabbi to be more descriptive.

              • Thackerie

                That’s because a lot of christains are nothing more than snake-oil salesmen and because a lot of them are short on knowledge of the history of the bible and long on arrogance. They’re easily taken in by the Gospels’ attempt to twist “prophecies” from the Old Testament into prophecies of their lord and slaver, and they lack enough knowledge to ever question the interpretations they have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker.

                “CHRISTIAN story of creation”? Sheesh! That’s just one great big ball of arrogance AND ignorance.

            • C Peterson

              That’s a crock. It’s a Jewish creation story, and it has roots older than that. Why do you not first suggest that the play mocks Jews or Muslims?

              In fact, the play mocks nobody. It satirizes a widely known cultural meme to make a point. That is a time-honored technique, and doesn’t constitute “mockery”, except to those so insecure in their beliefs that anybody making an effective presentation of alternative beliefs is seen as a threat.

              There are thousands of plays that present the benefits of marriage between men and women; I don’t see those as mocking same-sex marriage. Yet a single play that seeks to show the benefits of same-sex marriage is seen by you as a mockery. Get over yourself. Other people have views different than yours, and there’s nothing wrong with them expressing those views.

  • http://twitter.com/WraitheWulfe Jacob Ω

    “The courage of the conviction by the secular movement…is to take on Christianity. The cowardice is that they won’t take on the Muslim religion because some may…go out and behead them in other countries, potentially.”

    So, there are no atheists fighting back against other religions, and Muslims are all barbaric? Okay, then.

  • SeekerLancer

    Hey Christians, you’re the ones who came up with the “Adam and Steve” meme. Deal with it.

    Also we mock Islam all the time. Christians get more flack because this country is a Christian majority and Christian doctrine more immediately effects our lives.

  • Lurker111

    It actually -was- Adam and Steve. See here:

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2409#comic


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X