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!

I agree with what you mean about it being something which wouldn't be allowed if it offended other groups. But I think the fault there lies in the fact that we are allowing those groups to censor. I am a Christian, and beyond hate speech, I have no problem with my religion being, satirised; lampooned; criticised or used to explore controversial topics. If a religion can't withstand such things, it's obviously not worthwhile. My faith is personal and if other people take a different view of it, that's fine by me.

As for public money, TBH, I'm not really in favour of anything arts based being funded when essential services are in such a state.

I wonder if the OP would get the same reaction if the play was about playing Mohammed as a transsexual.

I'm a Christian and think it's fine. It's not claiming to replace the Bible, but it will challenge the way we see things, from new angles. I'm glad we have freedom of artistic expression here.

Ybvu OP - just because you don't want to see it doesn't mean no one else should and I'm sure that they pay for productions that may interest you and not them - unless you never go to see any art? Also we're not shouting although your tone sounds a tad grumpy.... maybe you should see it first - it was highly aclaimed in last year's edinburgh festival - you might be pleasantly surprised.

It is no worse than using taxpayers' money to fund faith schools imo

I am beyond gob-smacked that whatwilltheythink is calling people bigots, for being open-minded about this play.

Surely open mindedness and bigotry are mutually exclusive, and an open minded bigot would be an oxymoron?

If you'd googled properly, instead of believing everything you read in the papers, you'd also see that the 'performance' is actually a film of the play, shot when it was performed in Edinburgh. So actually, no public funding has gone to this particular version of the show - it's pre-shot.

Does that make you feel better?

OP you do know that Jesus never existed don't you? All made up stories in a fantasy book....

Define decent taxpayers. The trans person playing Jesus is presumably a taxpayer, is she indecent?

Jo Clifford is a lovely writer too. I think the play looks great.

Having a little chortle to myself about all the furore now when I didn't even hear about the play during its Fringe run. You need to try harder than a transexual Jesus to cause a kerfuffle in the Fringe.

Seems entirely fitting to me. Jesus was very much on the side of the marginalised OP. Do you remember that from the gospels?

No funding for the arts, Booyaka, really? At all? That's your answer to the cuts?

We need to rename as "Transgendernet".

Another thread. Jesus.

The Bible has been interpreted in different ways since ot was written.
This is another interpretation.
I agree that it shouldn't have public funding, but that's because I don't think that public funding is appropriate in the UK for any religious purposes.

"I wonder if the OP would get the same reaction if the play was about playing Mohammed as a transsexual."

"I wonder if the OP would get the same reaction if the play was about playing Buddha as a transsexual."

"I wonder if the OP would get the same reaction if the play was about playing Abraham as a transsexual."

"I wonder if the OP would get the same reaction if the play was about playing Zoraster as a transsexual."

"I wonder if the OP would get the same reaction if the play was about playing Khrishna as a transsexual."

"I wonder if the OP would get the same reaction if the play was about playing Zippy from Rainbow as a transsexual."

It doesn't matter.
The play isn't about "X", it's about "Y".

But nice assumptions you're alluding to there.
And if you're trying to say something about Muslims and your perceptions of how they behave/are treated by the way, remember Jesus is the greatest prophet in Islam after Mohammed, so try not to get your knickers in a twist too much, as the God of the Jews is the God of the Christians is the God of the Muslims.
It's all the same [INSERT OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT SUPREME BEING OF YOUR CHOICE]

Has anyone posted a booking link yet? I like to be outraged, me.

I wouldn't worry I think Belfast will be able to cope and if not I'm sure that they'll be enough eejits outside it with their wee placards - sending us all to damnation. Your post has a touch of the DUP about it - don't tell me Peter's discovered MN! Fwiw there's no council tax in NI.

Jesus always knew what to wear. What a perfect example of a woman.

I agree that it shouldn't have public funding, but that's because I don't think that public funding is appropriate in the UK for any religious purposes.

But there are so many great works of art which happen to include religious aspects, I think it would be shame not to fund any of them. What about a performance of Handel's "Messiah", should it receive no funding as it's "religious"?

I wonder if the OP would get the same reaction if the play was about playing Mohammed as a transsexual

A fair question and not addressed at all by IlkleyMoor

No way in a million years would they dare do this with any other religion. I hope it falls flat on its obscenely blasphemous face.

From this BBC article

But the play has met some controversy in the past, when 300 protesters held a candlelit protest outside a Glasgow theatre in 2009

2009, that's 6 whole years of this play and it hasn't fallen flat yet.

I think the argument that says op is offended only because they are offended by transsexuals is too simplistic.

I think one has to get beyond the gender thing and think about why the writer has chosen to depict jesus in this way. He could have chosen a black person or a woman and called her Christine. Or he could simply have made "just" another play.

I think the intent of the writer is more interesting than the offense of op. And I wonder why the writer chose to court controversy. I can't imagine for one minute that this is about furthering acceptance of transgender people. But I'm cynical!

Minimal funding for the arts, yes. Given the state of social services and social care I would quite cheerfully see money diverted to that, rather than subsidising rich people's social lives.