'Grease' too immoral for Missouri town

[Jessterw]

Yay for small-town Christian morality

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/national/11fulton.html?ex=1297314000&en=6ff393ff4112b535&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

FULTON, Mo. — When Wendy DeVore, the drama teacher at Fulton High here, staged the musical "Grease," about high school students in the 1950's, she carefully changed the script to avoid causing offense in this small town.

She softened the language, substituting slang for profanity in places. Instead of smoking "weed," the teenagers duck out for a cigarette. She rated the production PG-13, advising parents it was not suitable for small children.

But a month after the performances in November, three letters arrived on the desk of Mark Enderle, Fulton's superintendent of schools. Although the letters did not say so, the three writers were members of a small group linked by e-mail, all members of the same congregation, Callaway Christian Church.

Each criticized the show, complaining that scenes of drinking, smoking and a couple kissing went too far, and glorified conduct that the community tries to discourage. One letter, from someone who had not seen the show but only heard about it, criticized "immoral behavior veiled behind the excuse of acting out a play." [...]

[Gurm]

And you people WONDER why I have a problem with this cult?

[lecter]

Oh well, anyone with half a mind wouldn't spend an extra day of their life in such a shithole burg...

[TnT]

LOL. That town has got to be the most boring town in the US.

[Jessterw]

Sadly it's a growing trend in areas where the conservative Christian groups have weight in the community and government. It seems that while many traditional Bible belt towns are shedding that skin, others are taking it over.

It's definitely a knee-jerk reaction these groups are having at their slowly loosening stranglehold. They're gripping tighter.

[Wombat]

It's not too knee-jerk. I mean, generally it is, but Fulton is just like that. I've never been, but had a couple classmates from there.

[Jessterw]

I've heard the same, that last comment was more in general than specific to Fulton.

[TnT]

I also think the thing is people don't write in the opposite.

Dear Mr. Enderle,

I enjoyed the performance of Grease. I particularly enjoyed scenes of drinking, smoking and a couple kissing as they added realism to the play.

[KvHagedorn]

Look, Gurm, Christianity is not a CULT, ok? This whole thing is about three weirdo individuals with an agenda who were not ignored as they should have been by those in authority. This comes from that authority having no courage at all in the first place. Why do people like that superintendant bend to every whim of anyone who gets offended?

The worst cases like this come from ATHEISTS, by the way. Christmas plays are offensive to ONE family, so the whole community is deprived. So don't condemn the whole TOWN, alright? The majority there probably doesn't care, but they are just too cowardly or inarticulate to say anything. Grease isn't a particularly noble work of art to care about one way or the other though, imho.

On the other hand, look at a Disney movie called Song of the South, which has been virtually banned because of what many black groups see as unsavory images of black people as "Uncle Toms," though what it depicts is completely innocuous. Same thing with Speedy Gonzales (which is popular in Latin America but banned here.) These are more instances of cowardly authority caving to a very few who are offended.

So what is to blame here? Nutlessness. That's about it.

[Nowhere]

Hmm...OK, so does it really differ that much, in principle, from muslim fundemantalists and general population sitting silent...

[schmosef]

Hmm...OK, so does it really differ that much, in principle, from muslim fundemantalists and general population sitting silent...

Yes, it does differ. Don't fall for the easy lie of false moral relativism.

There's no moral comparison between the largely peaceful actions of Christians who find offence to their religion to the largely not peaceful actions of Muslims who get offended.

If current events are not enough to convince you of that I suggest that you Google for the phrase "alexandria riot". You'll learn about riots in Egypt caused by the sale of a DVD of a play produced by a Copt Church in Alexandria. Horror of horrors; the play supposedly contains an offence to Islam. In the play a Copt youth is persuaded to convert to Islam by some friends and later regrets the decision. Wow, how incredibly insulting!

What many don't understand when they attempt to compare and contrast religions is that in Islam, deconstructionism is Illegal.

It's because of the acceptance of deconstructionism that I am free to interpret the message of scriptural sources as I see fit. I'm allowed to ignore passages in the OT that I disagree with. I'm allowed to over emphasize passages I do agree with. Christians can and do the same with their scripture. It's through deconstructionism that our religions have been able to evolve and keep pace with contemporary requirements. Other of my co-religionists are free to disagree with me and even denounce me as a non-Jew, but there's no crime that they can assert against me. The most they can do is disagree with my interpretation. The right for me to deconstruct the Torah or a Christian to deconstruct the NT is not disputed. The resulting conclusions might be. And that's ok.

In Islam, re-interpreting the Koran and Hadith is illegal. People who do it are denounced as apostates and have death sentences put against them. The Koran is very clear on what is proscribed for apostates. There's no equivocation.

This is not a bash against Islam. It's a fact. It's just as much a fact as if I said, "Jesus is the messiah of Christianity".

Islam says that it is the final and perfected religion that G-d created and gave to man. We (meaning mankind) don't have a right to change it.

Some would say that there does exist an internal struggle to force Islam to "modernize" (ie., accept a more modern interpretation through deconstructionism). I've not found any actual evidence for it. And I've looked. All that exists are Islamic apologists who are ever ready to lie about the facts of Islam to an eager Western MSM. There's never been a Koranic based refutation of the Jihadist ideology, which itself is deeply rooted in the Koran.

I have a few Muslim friends who are against the Jihadist ideology but explain to me that their belief makes them lapsed Muslims and that they are in no position to debate their opinion in the open because there would be violent, Koranically justified, repercussions.

OBL doesn't hesitate to draw from Mo as a source of inspiration and justification of terrorism.

The MSM is never short of Muslim community leaders who disseminate that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion. Those same leaders are today denouncing the Danish cartoons as not showing proper respect for their prophet. If what they've said to us about Islam is true, OBL's words should be significantly more offensive than those Danish cartoons, some of which depict Mo as being violent.

Be sure that there are instances of Muslim community leaders who have criticised the anti-Denmark riots. But take special note of precisely what they say. They agree that Muslims have a right to be enraged. There concern is that the riots are casting a negative view of Islam, not that the riots themselves are wrong.

So where are the riots and demonstrations put on by Muslim communities around the world when OBL takes the prophet's name in vain? When OBL says that Mo's violence justifies his?

They don't happen.

In May of 2005 a group calling itself the "Free Muslims Coalition" staged the first ever "March Against Terror" in DC. They didn't get the support of even a single major American Islamic organisation.

The whiff of offensive cartoons brings Muslims from around the world out in their tens of thousands to demonstrate their displeasure but a rally to denounce OBL and his gang for exactly the same offence doesn't even bring out a hundred people, and many of the people who did show up weren't even Muslim.

Here's an article about the group and their plans for the rally (and the lack of support received from mainstream Muslim groups): American Muslims Rally Against Terrorism
Here are some pics of the rally itself: Free Muslims Against Terrorism much hyped DC 'March Against Terror' draws neither marchers nor media attention

I'm NOT saying that ALL Muslims are pro terrorism and against Western values.

I'm saying that Muslims who disagree with OBL and share pro Western values are themselves in disagreement with the Koran.

They believe what they believe in spite of what the Koran tells them to believe, not because of it.

[Gurm]

Hey, whether or not it's a cult really depends on your point of view, now doesn't it?

To the pre-Judaic Chaldeans in Ur, Judaeism was a strange and bizarre monotheistic cult.

To Jews, Christianity is a cult - and heresy.

To Christians, Scientology is a cult.

Ok, let's confess... to EVERYONE, Scientology is a cult. LOL!

[schmosef]

Hey, whether or not it's a cult really depends on your point of view, now doesn't it?

To the pre-Judaic Chaldeans in Ur, Judaeism was a strange and bizarre monotheistic cult.

To Jews, Christianity is a cult - and heresy.

To Christians, Scientology is a cult.

Ok, let's confess... to EVERYONE, Scientology is a cult. LOL!

Not to Scientologists!

I can understand that Cruise would want to have "healing tents" on the set for War of the Worlds but why Spielberg would tolerate it is beyond me.

[Jammrock]

Not to Scientologists!

I can understand that Cruise would want to have "healing tents" on the set for War of the Worlds but why Spielberg would tolerate it is beyond me.

Because Spielberg is a tolerant moderate Jew. That and he's good friends with Cruise.

Or so the story goes...

Back on topic... living (for the time being) close enough to Fulton, MO to know where it is, this does not surprise me. This part of the US is the northern section of the Bible belt. Lots of people who are too wholesome for thier own good.

Jammrock

[Nowhere]

schmo, yeah, you're correct, but I didn't meant to go into such details - simply some group which thinks has monopoly for what should be appropriate and other not disagreeing much...yep, not so extreme, but such things can start innocently.

And BTW, aren't scientologists prohibited to make real friends with non-believers?