to think that this 'transsexual' Jesus play should not get public funding?

[whatwilltheythinkofnext]

I would say 'no words' but how about "disgusting, insulting, disrespectful, immoral..." need I go on? How does this awful thing get 'public funding' - I'd be demanding a refund of my council tax. Enough already!

Thankfully this woman lost her Employment Tribunal after refusing to hear a child read a work of fiction in her role as a TA, but she is a Christian seeking special exemption. No doubt used as a (failed ) poster girls by the Christian People's Alliance who put her up to it. www.theguardian.com/money/2007/jun/08/workandcareers.harrypotter

I'm going to have to hide this thread now, it's draining me. Too much Christian hate, freely expressed of course ((one of the benefits of living in a Christian country I suppose) what irony.

Before you go, can you show me one post that expresses hatred of Christians?

Rose, I do not hate Christians. I do not hate Muslims. I do not hate anyone having their own belief.

I hate people of any belief, religious, political, whatever, using that as a privilege to censor other people's freedom of speech or attempts to interfere with free debate and expression.

Rose Nobody has expressed any Christian hate. Utter nonsense and a complete co-out because you actually have no valid argument.

there are lots of state/ non Catholic/C of E) schools to choose from.

There are no secular state schools in the UK. None. No choice whatsoever.

Well, Rose you've also expressed yourself pretty robustly - and I haven't heard any hate on here, just disagreement with your chosen views. If you are interpreting that as hate then you are going to have a lot of problems living in the real world.

*Rose, I do not hate Christians. I do not hate Muslims. I do not hate anyone having their own belief.

I hate people of any belief, religious, political, whatever, using that as a privilege to censor other people's freedom of speech or attempts to interfere with free debate and expression.* Brenda, I couldn't agree more.

Going back to the whole subject of the play about a transgender Jesus, I think it is ironic that the bible describes how Jesus was killed because of his radical views for the day, yet the playwright is being criticised for having radical views.

Also, equally ironic IMO, is that for years and years the clergy was seen as a safe profession for people of non-traditional sexuality to enter into, as there wasn't the same pressure or expectation of marriage and family. Only 2 weeks ago a high ranking priest in the vatican 'came out' and said the clergy 'was full of homosexuals' (Fail link). I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't a higher than average level of transgendered individuals who have served in the church over the years. Just because transgenderism is a relatively new concept in terms of it being in the open, doesn't mean there haven't been transgendered people in the church over the years - Joan of Arc, or Pope Joan anyone?

If you choose to insult in this way - use your own money - not the decent taxpayers!

No problem, it can come out of indecent taxpayers' money.

One thing about Jesus - you can trawl the internet but you probably won't find a single picture of him wearing trousers.

It is the intention of the writer to mock Jesus, he's holding him up as an object of ridicule

Rose, you are saying that that the very act of depicting Jesus as a transsexual makes him an object of ridicule. Why? Can you not admit the possibility that transsexuals are not objects of ridicule by virtue of being transsexual?

Bertrand these things you mention aren't special privileges at all. The country was founded on Christianity, they haven't been granted as any special privileges. All you are doing is quoting things that have a Christian connection

On the contrary. Christians have a privileged position in schools because of the requirement to hold a daily act of Christian worship. It's not an act of Muslim or Jewish or Hindu worship, let alone Humanist or a simple discussion of the logic behind Atheism. What other religion has automatic seats in the House of Lords for its senior members?

For those talking about schools - there are lots of state/ non Catholic/C of E) schools to choose from. Why pretend there's no choice - in the UK?! Please.

MistressDeeCee, do you know anything about the realities of choosing schools? You don't just get to make your pick amongst all the schools in the country or even in your vicinity and, lo and behold, your child gets a place. The reality in many areas is that in practice you have very little choice, either because schools near you are popular or there aren't enough of them so they are oversubscribed, or you live in the country and there are no schools near you.

So, take a situation where, say, next door neighbours each have children the same age in an area where the reality is they would only get into one of two schools nearby, one of which is a church school with a requirement for admission of proof of regular attendance, and the other is in special measures. It's not in fact in any way an unknown situation. And say only one of those families are regular churchgoers - which of those two families would you say has the greater choice?

I don't understand this stuff about how Muslims are somehow protected from criticism. I'm not advocating it, but if you go on the Daily Mail website and look at articles about, say, Asian men abducting girls for rape and prostitution, you will find plenty of comments which are extremely critical of Muslims being freely published. And if you think Islam is protected, how do you account for the fact that the vile rubbish on the EDL and Britain First websites is allowed?

You could almost say that pictures of Jesus have been ahead of their time for many years.

The Real Face of Jesus

Very interesting link Dawndonnaagain, I enjoyed reading the article.

MrsTerryPratchett you are not unique we weren't all raised here believe it or not. Id rather a country that is tolerant of faiths and doesn't find ways to moan and wear it down. Religion without worship was also taught in the faith school I went to and same with others I know. Its not all about "this faith only OR ELSE"

Generally though, if people feel that strongly they can make a stand can't they we live in a democracy after all - just volunteer to go into work on Holy Day holidays or get out of the house do something worthy to help others over the season . Failing that..just relax and enjoy it as most people tend to do even if they get back to complaining about christianity the next day

Honestly - UK has self-depracating down to a T this is a broadly christian country aren't folks used to that by now?

redstrawberry who knows, in the weird and wonderful world of Mumsnet? One minute the faith itself is the problem the next minute its the selection.

Perhaps it will be something else tomorrow

GruntledOne of course I do Im a mother like most. I was raised a Catholic. I liked the education and at that time didnt mind the faith. So I also sent my DDs to Catholic school. Im not Catholic now although I still follow a faith. But anyway what I didnt do at the time of school entry for my DDs, was worry myself about what state schools were doing. I knew what I wanted for my DCs and got on with it. If I wasn't a Catholic it wouldn't have gone the way I wanted it to and Id just have to accept that wouldn't I? & then look to state schools.

Unfortunately in this life you can't have it all...not even if you pretend there are no state schools within 45 miles of your front door. Schools oversubscribed isn't the fault of faith its the fault of the government its their call to do something about it.

Yet again - this is a broadly christian country you are hence going to find at least a little christian faith taught in state schools here and I see nothing wrong with that alongside other faiths. Unless you think only other faiths should be taught or get preference. In which case that kind of intolerance makes no sense at all in the interests of fairness

So which is it? The UK is broadly Christian and we can therefore expect there to be many Christian schools, Christian holidays and bishops in the House of Lords, or Christians are a persecuted minority who should be protected from low budget theatre performances?

merry if you had searched for hours you couldn't have found a picture where Jesus looks more like Jo Clifford. Love it.

C of E and Catholic state schools are just as much state schools as any other school funded by the state, by the way.

ATTENTION: Yes, I have specifically registered with Mumsnet (after lurking for a looooong time) just so I can air my views on this thread.

I am a Christian and I deplore the idea of this or any other play depicting Christ as transsexual. I don't particularly want to get into a heated debate surrounding trans issues per se (although I will be alluding to trans ideology quite a bit in order to get other points across), however I will say that the hypocrisy demonstrated on this thread regarding the OP 'having issues' with transsexuals is rather laughable, and here's why....

Over on another thread I have been lurking on an overwhelming majority of posters who identify as feminists have been gnashing their teeth over the notion of transwomen claiming to be 'real' women and declaring to know 'what it means' to be a woman. There is fury on that thread at the deletions by MNHQ for 'misgendering' transwomen (indeed the last time I looked one of the posters had noted the deletions by Mumsnet Towers had ceased - probably as a result of the ire of some posters who were demanding that from hereon in all posts referencing 'cis'women should also be deleted.)

I'm trying to get to the point: it isn't just Christians that have 'issues' with transgenderism and those of you demanding that the OP ceases 'misgendering' the author of this play (the OP referred to them as 'she') have no right to do so. No right whatsoever. On the Jenner thread several women pointed out that, despite previously demonstrating courtesy to transpeople by using their preferred pronoun, they no longer were prepared to do this as it contravened their fiercely-held belief that not even surgical removal of a penis can change a man into a woman. Moreover, MNHQ are beginning, it would seem, to uphold the rights of 'cis'women to not use 'she' when talking about a transwoman.

Secondly, this goady demand to know which parts of the play were found to be offensive by the OP (the inference being she is an ignorant Daily Mail commentator if she hasn't actually sat in the stalls and watched the performance).....it doesn't matter whether she has seen it or not. When women all over Mumsnet air their discomfort at the ideologies of transwomen nobody interrogates them as to whether they have actually met a transgender person and actually held an intellectual conversation with them to hear of their experience as a 'woman'. Why, then, must a Christian have to have sat through this play to know that it is, to them, an abomination to use Jesus Christ as fodder for Leftie sexual politics.

Someone upthread said that Jesus was killed for holding radical views. Wrong. He was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God; He was killed because He performed miracles and healings that attested to His divine nature and He terrified those who hated His message of equality for Jews and Gentiles alike - that all have sinned and fallen short and all must repent and follow Him.

This is why God sent his son to die on the cross - for the redemption of sins - not to get caught up in the zeitgeist of the time (which is exactly how he is being used in this play; trans issues are everywhere and how better for a transwoman like the author to 'claim' Jesus as one of 'her' own than to suggest he was transsexual. This is nothing new: feminists love to claim Jesus was secretly married). The reason this play is abhorrent to so many people is that it drags our Lord, our saviour, down to man's level. Nowhere in the bible does it allude to Christ being anything other than a heterosexual man; his dietary preferences were not noted, nor the novels he favoured. We are not told what His favourite colour was or what hobbies he indulged in. He came to Earth in the form of man to save sinners; he was man and He was God in equal measure: perfect and entirely without sin. To portray him as transsexual is crass, blasphemous and serves only to denigrate His supreme sovereignty. This is what upsets the Christian who loves Him and worships Him.

Finally, I came on here to thank the OP for her remarkable strength in defending our Lord and saviour in the face of hatred and ridicule and contempt. OP, if you are still reading, please know your public declaration for the glory of God will have pleased Him mightily. You have made some terrific points and I hope you don't feel your loyalty to Christ and your defence of Christianity was lost in the midst of this debate. God will bless you for your faithfulness

Oh..and before I forget. To those who claim that the author is a Christian (and therefore cannot possible be blaspheming the Christ) I strongly refute that - and to those who would howl in protest saying I have no right to judge others who claim to be Christians I would say this: the bible is very clear what a Christian is. If you google you will find the passages describing what and how a Christian should think, believe and behave. You will also find texts alluding to those who would claim to know Christ but to whom Jesus will say on the day of atonement, 'Be gone from me, I never knew you.'

Nothing about this author's musings that Jesus was transsexual (where in the bible are we told Jesus struggled with dysmorphia??) point to him knowing or loving the Lord. Just as those angry feminists over on the Caitlyn Jenner thread are being permitted to judge who is and is not a woman ('He is a walking insult to women'; 'He's not even transgender, he's an autogynephile'; 'She's a media whore') so must Christians stand up and declare that anyone who blasphemes the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, like the author of this play has done, is not a Christian.

Interesting Faberge Not sure I agree with all you've said but its well explained and made for a good read

Im bored of the way that unless you hold the majority view around here you can be goaded and asked to pick apart every little bit of what you've said

Laughable that many deem christians judgmental but are just the same and cherry pick what they do and don't like too. Im not a christian but believe in tolerance for faith and religious views its not a competition.

For some their faith and spirituality is a way of life and I respect that. If I went to another country I would respect their spiritual way of life too I wouldnt start going on about their holy days and schools. The way that christians are mocked in a country that has christian principles I find amazing.

Fair enough if people dislike christianity but be aware that equally, christians don't have to answer to you for their faith and who they are. & thats entirely how it should be, same line with other religions.

As for this controversial play - I doubt they'd stage it if it involved aspects of any religion but christianity

merrymouse it can be both actually. Freedom of speech being taken into account. That, however, does not mean that christians should like their faith being mocked - why should or would they? and since I've never heard of Christ being a transexual (even though I do not fully believe the whole bible story at least, not in the way its been translated), then it does seem to be specifically picking on a particular religion. They woudn't try it with another, christianity seems easy game to me

Yes they are all state schools but on MN when the "versus" thing is discussed, non-faith schools are referred to as state schools so Im sticking with "MN clarity" in that particular respect

This is why God sent his son to die on the cross
Except for the fact that the man called Jesus didn't die on the cross, he went off and lived a long life with Mary Magdelen.

...as fodder for Leftie sexual politics. And here is the point at which you lost your argument, although it wasn't actually going particularly well up until that point, the logical fallacies of drawing two completely unrelated things together, and yes the discussion of trans women and the fact that this was written by a trans woman, are totally irrelevant.