Christians protest Glasgay play
Jesus Christ!: Jo Clifford plays God in a dress
The Herald reports that “more than 300” Christians protested in Glasgow last night against a play they considered blasphemous.
Jesus, Queen of Heaven portrays the famous semi-mythical Jew worshipped by Christians as a transexual woman. This was too much for the Clydeside god-botherers, who held a candlelit vigil outside the Tron Theatre, and waved banners reading:
JESUS, KING OF KINGS, NOT QUEEN OF HEAVEN
and
GOD: MY SON IS NOT A PERVERT
The paranoid homophobes of the Christian Institute regard the play as
further proof of an agenda to use taxpayers’ money to fund assaults on Christian values.
UPDATE: (11.25) Oh dear. The BBC notes that festival organisers are making dark hints about legal action. They have described the banners as “fairly provocative” and say they could be regarded as “inciting homophobia.”
Shut up. No, you shut up! No – YOU shut up!!
Firstly I have been reliably informed that this is not a GlasGay play:-
“Readers should note that Glasgay! had nothing to do with the Sh[out] exhibition’s Bible “Made In God’s Image†work which is referred to incorrectly here. This work was made by other Culture & Sport funded artists who have nothing to do with Glasgay!.”
Secondly, I wonder if Glasgow’s Tron theatre would be brave enough to portray muhammad as a woman for the sake of ‘art’. Or perhaps Glasgow City Council would like to fund an exhibition in their gallery for folks to come and scrawl obscenities all over the Qur’an, as they did for the Bible. At least be even handed. Yeah right.
The above comment needs correction. The writer referring to GlasGay, was referring to the Glasgow Gallery exhibition not the play, my mistake. Pink News have put me right.
The second point still stands.
Stuart, I would like you to clarify exactly what you mean by your second point.
Are you saying that artists should not portray Christianity unflatteringly because if they did they same to Islam, violence would ensue? If so, then you are in effect applauding Muslim violence and seeking to benefit vicariously from the threat of it.
This post is wrong to make claims about plans for legal action by the festival organisers – where is the source for this?
Just because someone says something is provocative or inciting homophobia doesn’t mean they think it should be illegal, or are taking legal action! There are lots of things that I think are homophobic – including these protests – but that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal. To suggest otherwise is pure speculation, and creating a straw man.
Indeed, they actually explicitly state:
“This work is not intended to incite or offend anyone of any belief system, however, we respect your right to disagree with that opinion.”
There’s only one side saying “shut up” here.
I understand your point. What I am saying is that ALL religions should be fair game, but we are witnessing a disproportionate ridiculing (and legal clampdown) of Christianity and I believe this is because of fear of extreme Islamic reactions, if Islam is portrayed ‘unflatteringly’.
We have entered an unofficial censorship regime regarding any negative portrayal of Islam and please remember how Islam views and treats LGBT in general.
We cannot live in a world free from ‘offense’ and I am in favour of NO beliefs having protection. But this cuts both ways and I would extend this to allow free criticism of any belief system or lifestyle choices.
I hope that makes sense.
I would also like to add if I may, that I feel that it is wrong to use public money for a play of this nature. Private funding is a different matter. Just my opinion.
Stuart, I’m sure many would agree that we should be free to ridicule any religion. I would extend this to suggest we should be free to ridicule anything at all.
You seem to be suggesting that somehow censorship is being used to prevent ridicule where there is fear of a violent response. I should guess this is mainly self-censorship, so are you calling for bravery?
On a different subject: You use the term ‘wrong’. What sort of level of ridicule of a system do you believe is ‘right’ in publicly funded art?
In terms of ‘bravery’ and self-censorship, I would most certainly not advocate cowardice:-
Why Did Yale Censor the Danish Cartoons?
Yale University Press has been accused of cowardice and self-censorship after deciding not to reproduce Danish cartoons of Mohammed in an academic book for fear of violent reprisals. The publisher also removed all other images of the Islamic prophet, including artwork illustrating historical depictions of Mohammed in Ottoman and Persian art.
Again, in terms of public funding, I would just ask for an even-handed approach more than anything.
Stuart, you mention public funding – several times in fact. So what about the millions of public money, tax concessions etc given to all religions in the UK, many of which use this money to promote hatred. Not fair on the non-believers is it?
Hi Angela, your point is valid and I agree.
I am an advocate of faith organisations being privately self-funded. If they cannot be privately self-funded, then perhaps they shouldn’t exist at all.
You’re making a bit more sense as you go on, Stuart! I think most of us would agree that there is a lot of pussyfooting around Islam, for various reasons, but it’s going a bit far to claim that there is “a legal clampdown” on Christianity.
BTW I used to be a Christian, and I do seem to remember something or other about him “gathering in his frock”!!
“gathering in his frock” ROFL classic.
There is a a general feeling amongst Christians, that proposed ‘equality’ laws both in the UK and EU will make some more equal than others.
Also the atheists are right to be worried by a move by the ‘Organization of the Islamic Conference’ to introduce a U.N. Resolution banning “defamation†of religion, which will usher in a global ‘blasphemy’ law.
We seem to live in a world of, ‘if in doubt, legislate’.
These laws will only favour certain groups ultimately and anyone should be free to defame a religion or a sexual lifestyle if they so choose and all folks should be grown up enough and secure in their identity and beliefs to rise above it (and that goes for everyone by the way).
No matter how many laws they enact trying to legislate against ‘hate’ or ‘offense’ crimes, we will still live in a world that has hatred and offense.
I think, that if I want say, that I believe that a gay lifestyle is sinful, then I should be free to do so and equally if someone wants to picket outside my church and say that I am an intolerant, narrow-minded bigot, they should also be free to do so.
All legislation in favour of one group over another is wrong and the Law should be beneficial for the majority, not a minority group.
ps I love this blog and have become a follower.
I think this is because we live in a christian country, not just because muslims are scary or something.
I’d say that Islam gets more than its fair share of criticism (especially when you take into account the far smaller population of muslims, and the far smaller influence of the religion, in this country) – albeit a lot of it for the wrong reasons.
Mediawatchwatch regularly covers stories where people are criticising Islam, or doing something that some Muslims find offensive, and I don’t see any evidence that people are unwilling to do such things.
I find Stuarts comments ironic in light of a comments often posted by muslims following the motoons fall out that Europeans would not criticise jesus in the same manner.
The irony here – as first brought up by a columnist whose name I have forgotten following the ‘Lynette Burrows incident’ – is that calling just one innocent person a ‘pervert’ really is cause for legal action i.e. slander/ defamation. Using the word to tar a whole minority group, on the other hand, is perfectly above board.
You mean like homosexuals, Stuart?
Bobbob – I’m certainly not with my ironies 🙂
barriejohn – Yes, like homosexuals