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!

No evidence for this.

There's evidence that a man name Jesus existed. But Jesus was also a really common name, and self proclaimed profits were very common. So.. I do not doubt that one that defied the Jewish church and demanded reform was suddenly lynched mobbed into a crucifixion. Just like I wouldn't be surprised if a woman named Sarah was accused of witch craft was burned at the stake by the church.

Was he the son of God? Depends on who you ask. I personally think the question is pointless, as those who believe will say yes and those who don't will say no.

That said, it's very clear what Christianity teaches, and making their savior a transvestite is in poor taste. I personally find it mildly amusing because I know the shit storm that would kick up if more people knew about it.

Again I think they're being shocking for the sake of it, just like a bunch of 12 year olds who recently learned they could swear and shout racial slurs without repercussions on xbox live. There's no other point but to say "Look I have free speech so I'm going to say something offensively stupid for the sake of saying it. Because I can".

No evidence at all that any man called Jesus defied the Romans and demanded reform. Literally none.

Who cares if they are doing it for "shock value" (which is clearly crap since they'd have paid out a lot of money). In a world where people get lashed or beheaded for "mocking religion" we should all be standing up and cheering that such mockery can happen freely here.

Really, it's quite shameful that the importance of free speech, all that it means and everything it stands for pales into insignificance on this website when up against a desperate desire to be seen to be "deeply respectful" of all beliefs, no matter how stupid. There's always some tedious reference to "Xbox playing 12 year olds" or, worse, a cretinous remark like "Free speech doesn't give you the right to be an arsehole" - both of which display quite astounding ignorance.

(Although I think this OP is a very clever Poe).

There was a man called Jesus
There really is quite a bit of evidence for this.

Why the need to mould the Son of God into an ordinary human being with sexual/political agendas?

That's an interesting point to me - because surely by sending his son to earth as a human person God did exactly that? Made him ordinary? Made him struggle with his sacrifice? Made him love? Made him live, for 32 of his 33 years, as a perfectly ordinary person, who then was capable of this act of extreme sacrifice and love?

If you're belief is that Jesus was so perfect in his godlike, sin free state that he didn't struggle with giving up his earthly life then maybe you skipped the bit in the Garden of Gethsmane, or the 40 days in the wilderness?

(Not a Christian, lapsed Catholic though and always thought the fact he was an ordinary human was the whole flipping point)

Of course he struggled - sweat drops of blood - but He remained sinless. Perfect. Without stain. Without confusion, delusion or sexual dysmorphia that should be explored through the Arts by some Lefty inadequate whose sole agenda is to bring Christ down to his own mirror image.

I'm not crying out for it to be banned, I'm telling it like it is: pathetic. And pp are right when they say this author (or any other) wouldn't dare stage a play depicting Mohammed as transsexual - especially after last night's atrocities. Jesus, though, our living, forgiving and peaceful saviour, is fair game.

*'loving' not 'living' (although living works )

some Lefty inadequate Stop using this tired trope. It isn't an argument, or a point of discussion, particularly as you are probably completely unaware of the author's political leaning. If you want to have a discussion, fine, but be an adult about it and stop using logical fallacies.

I don't believe confusion, delusion or sexual dysmorphia are sins or stains. I don't think anyone would or could say they were, to be honest.

And to be human is to be imperfect - God knows this, and indeed knew it when he sent his only son amongst us. Jesus wasn't perfect, but he was perfect love. (Dearie me this Catholicism thing runs deep.)

Also, Jo Clifford, as a transexual woman, prefers the pronoun 'she', I believe.

Also, how do you know she is lefty?
How do you know she is inadequate?

Faberge, you may believe that there is no purpose in depicting Christ as a vegan or whatever, but that was not what my question was about : I asked why people say that depicting him as a transsexual is automatically mocking him if you accept that there is nothing about transsexuality in itself which calls forth mockery. I find it interesting that you have avoided answering that point.

How is this play going to illuminate Jesus' message of love more successfully than His death on the cross??

How do you know it won't, unless you see it? But the point is that that is not what theatre is for. I'm really puzzled that you seem to think, Faberge, that that is the only conceivable and valid purpose of a play about Jesus. Is it not perfectly valid to write a play in order to illuminate the author's own views, to provoke people to think and talk about the issues raised, to stimulate them and indeed to entertain them?

Faberge believes trans = imperfect = inadequate. Referring to Jo Clifford as 'he' is a deliberate form of contempt. Not very Christian, that.

I'm not crying out for it to be banned, I'm telling it like it is: pathetic.

Excellent. Everyone is allowed an opinion.

And pp are right when they say this author (or any other) wouldn't dare stage a play depicting Mohammed as transsexual

agreed.

especially after last night's atrocities. Jesus, though, our living, forgiving and peaceful saviour, is fair game.

that's something very good about christians and christianity. Christianity has certainly shown it is compatible with free speech, democracy and secularism. Something to be lauded, not condemned.

you see this with the book of mormon too. In a pretty classy way, mormons embraced that play and used it as advertising in what I thought was an excellent and humorous way. I gained a new respect for that lot.

My Facebook feed is littered with hideously offensive things about Muslims. One showed a picture of a dog, and the caption was "I bit a Muslim and had to lick my arse for half an hour to take the taste away" I reported it to Facebook who said it did not violate any guidelines and it stayed. It is ridiculous to say that Islam is untouchable.

Mine too, Bertrand. It's amazing what one's 'friends' will come out with. My friend list will be shorter after today.

But that's the freedom we have - theirs to spout offensive Islamophobic bullshit and mine to tell them to do one. I appreciate it every day.

That's why I get so angry with the "You wouldn't say that about Islam" bullshit. People do. Worse. Lots. Every bloody day.

And more - I have friends and colleagues who are Muslims, evangelical Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and atheists like myself. We talk about everything, politics and religion included. We disagree on a lot of things. But no-one, no-one ever feels that they have the right not to be offended by what other people believe - we just accept that there are some things we will never agree on. Because we are decent human beings, not mean-spirited individuals who go 'waaaah, they're all being mean to me' when they do something the individual doesn't like.

That's why I get so angry with the "You wouldn't say that about Islam" bullshit. People do. Worse. Lots. Every bloody day.

that's not what people are saying doesn't happen. People are saying you couldn't make a trans play about Muhammed.

"that's not what people are saying doesn't happen. People are saying you couldn't make a trans play about Muhammed."

Oh, right. So all the threads where Christians go in about being persecuted because they're expected to obey the law of the land, and object to anyone making the mildest criticism and say "oh, it's open season on Christians- you wouldn't say that about Islam- they're all talking specifically about plays about a transgender Jesus?

And who says you couldn't write a play about a transgender Muhammed? Who's going to stop you?

Oh, right. So all the threads where Christians go in about being persecuted because they're expected to obey the law of the land, and object to anyone making the mildest criticism and say "oh, it's open season on Christians- you wouldn't say that about Islam- they're all talking specifically about plays about a transgender Jesus?

I may have misinterpreted what you were responding to. if that was the point you were trying to make, fair enough.

And who says you couldn't write a play about a transgender Muhammed? Who's going to stop you?

you've got to be kidding me.

Just in case you don't know, the very people who wrote the book of mormon, were threatened for depicting muhammed in bear suit (if I remember correctly).

And, of course, redstrawberry, the interesting thing is that they carried on with the play despite the threats. Which clearly does demonstrate that people are willing to put on plays which, apparently, some Muslims might find offensive.

the interesting thing is that they carried on with the play despite the threats.

what play? The mormon play of course went on. however, comedy central censored their muhammed cartoon. So, as far as I know, that wasn't aired.

but, is it ok for people to have to put up with violent threats for cartoons? Worse, is that the threats are credible.

what about some manners though?
where does god stand on manners?

Where am I being ill-mannered? Oh, I see...you find I am being 'rude' by refusing to call Jo Crawford 'she', do you? Go and read some literature, please. Something illuminating about trans ideology and how the claims of some trans activists trample all over women's hard-won rights.