Skip to comments.Censoring Terrence McNally
Posted on 09/12/2012 1:35:14 PM PDT by edwinland
Almost nothing is known about this play besides ... that the central character, Joshua, is reported to have sex, offstage, with his disciples. That was enough, however, to lead the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights to stage a letter-writing campaign against the production. It was enough, too, to induce someone to call the Manhattan Theater Club with threats to burn down the theater and kill the staff and Mr. McNally.
What we are witnessing, once again, is the peculiar combat between freedoms that is repeatedly staged in America.
There is no essential difference between suppressing the production of a controversial play and suppressing a form of worship.
That there is a native strain of bigotry, violence and contempt for artistic expression in this country is not news.
This is not only a land of freedom; it is a land where freedom is always contested. When courage for that contest is lacking, freedom itself -- religious or artistic -- is terribly diminished.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A few differences between the recent anti-Muslim youtube video and Terrence McNally's anti-Christian play:
1. The anti-Christian play was a produced by an established New York theater group that receives New York City and State and US Federal Government support via the National Endowment for the Arts, The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and the New York State Council on the Arts, while the anti-Muslim "movie" was loaded to youtube anonymously.
2. Despite having nothing whatsoever to do with whatever nutjob posted the youtube video, the US government apologized for the video and condemned it in the strongest terms.
3. There was no violence committed by any Christians over the play (which was briefly cancelled and then reinstated), just one supposed threatening phone call, which supposed phone call was reported by the producers of the play who were at the same time looking for as much publicity as possible.
4. The New York Times attacked the Christians who wrote letters complaining about the play, rolling them up together with the alleged threatening phone call and claiming they displayed "a native strain of bigotry, violence and contempt for artistic expression in this country". The New York Times claimed that these Christians make the United States a land where "where freedom is always contested".
By the way, the excerpt of the NYT editorial above (required by FR policy) does not do the editorial justice. Please follow the link to read the whole thing.
I should highlight, by the way, that the NYT editorial excerpted above is from 1998.
Christians are not likely to go violent like mentally deranged issue of Islamist consanguineous marriages.. oh and if anyone is thinking of McVeigh or the Atlanta bomber please provide links -- Christian Identity people don't count; notice that I said Islamist (political Islam, sharia law advocate) not Muslim.
I’m so glad that in this country there are only threats to burn buildings and kill people, unlike countries where protesters actually do that.
The Second Amendment guarantees freedom of POLITICAL speech. Read the Founders. They certainly were not protecting the sewage that spills out of Follywood or onto Broadway. It was totally acceptable for men who cursed in public to be put into the stocks for punishment because it was a civilized society back then.
They are the type of people that if you told them you were going to rape their wives and daughters before their very eyes, and then kill all of them, they would do little more than plead for mercy and roll up in a ball with their eyes shut tightly.