It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Call To Prosecute Over Gay Jesus Play

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Get real people, the people who did this, wanted to project that jesus was just a human that was not interested in women, because he was gay. Like many suspect that many priests are.

Us christians do not believe that, as we believe he was the son of god.

But heck, why do some of you always think, people do things for good reasons, there are plenty out there wanting the church destroyed, and its messege.




posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Who cares.

Freedom of expression and the arts are institutions we're deeply proud of in the United Kingdom - plus only 38% believe in God so a small minority are only against this. If the play is offensive or distasteful, in your opinion, don't watch it. Simple. No one is being forced to attend and sit through the play.

Shakespeare had numerous of his plays halted during the English Commonwealth (English Republic to non-British members) of the 17th Century because the Puritans outlawed the theatre. Apparently, the theatre was full of immoral behaviour and encourage impure actions.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
There is no right or wrong portrayal of Jesus, for all we know he could very well be a myth.
My version of Jesus is a gay Black tranny, with bright pink hair, combat boots, and he goes around singing the YMCA song where ever he goes, anyone have a problem with that? Good, because I don't care what you envision Jesus to be. My Jesus also laughs all the time about how serious people take things and they miss the point.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by ghaleon12]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Controversy sells

but no one here actually went to the play right? ok didn't think so
its just that there's an amount of presumed positions on the play that no one here has seen.

On top of that, just like here, those who have the right to express themselves are no different than my right to object their expression if it sends a message that offends me. which is a paradox until someone brings in the police to define "who is wrong" lol



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
My version of Jesus is a gay Black tranny, with bright pink hair, combat boots, and he goes around singing the YMCA song where ever he goes, anyone have a problem with that?

[edit on 3-11-2008 by ghaleon12]


That is offending someone on ATS on so many levels



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
My version of Jesus is a gay Black tranny, with bright pink hair, combat boots, and he goes around singing the YMCA song where ever he goes, anyone have a problem with that?
[edit on 3-11-2008 by ghaleon12]


I have a problem. You've forced me to question my anti-Christian sentiments and have given me a whole new respect for Jesus. Now that is a savior I can get behind (or let him get behind me, big guy...). Where do I sign up?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Just to point out something here.....

I have never found any mention in the bible of jesus being married, and at 33 he would have been VERY old for a single man who had never been married, in biblical times.

Just a thought......


Hmm good point,I do remember once reading that jesus went apparently ´went missing´ for a period in his early years.
The author stated he went to Ethiopia and partied it up with lots of ladies,alcohol and drugs and returned an ´enlightened´ chap emanating lots of emapthy and compassion.
Can´t remember the book tho!



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well, it says in the bible (so it must be true) that jesus made the diciples 'fishers of men'...sounds like new-testament-speak for "we're gonna head out to go cruising for guys"




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
What a coincidence was just talking about this kind of thing today.Here we go again .Just like 'Jerry Springer -the Opera' and that play at the Brmingham Rep that had the Hindus all up in arms and smashing stuff ,how many objectors actaully go &see the play/book /film etc.
Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act there is freedom of expression.Since Jesus cannot sue for defamation then the only possible recourse would be under blasphemy laws.*
Last case of a succesful prosecution was in 1977 when 'Gay News' and it's editor was convicted of blaspehmous libel.The newspaper was fined £1000,the editor was fined 3500 and given a nine month suspended prison sentence.
The case concerned a poem written as if the authour was a Roman centurion who was remembering his feelings towards Christ after the crucifixtion and also described Christ as a gay man who had a number of relationships with other men.The defnce claimedthe poem was an expression of a loving God and were not allowed to produce evidence on the literary merits of the poem or the authors intentions.

*Mc Nae's Essential Law for Journalists pg296/7)
Note Blasphemy laws only apply to Chritianity in England as confirmed by the Queens Bench Divisional Court in1990 when prosecution of Salman Rushdie for the contents in his book'The Satanic Verses' which upset some upset Muslims was refused.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by candyfloss
 


CF Interesting post-its always amazed me how and why there even exists such a thing as a ´blasphemy´ law.
Due to the quite glaring fact that there is not one scrap or shred of evidence to prove the existence of any gods (or goddesses) in any of the 3000 religious beleif systems alive in the world today-how can the term blasphemy (especially when applied to law) even exist?

If I started a cult beleiving in a giant turnip in the sky,then would it be just as plausible for me to scream blasphemy everytime someone depicted images of a turnip?

The example may seem outlandish but I think it just goes to show how utterly ludicrous it is to say you cannot make comments about something that has never been proved to exist in the first place.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


news.bbc.co.uk...

The aim of the law is to prevent a breach of the peace.I think the case above illustrates this.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
update-Blasphemy and blasphemous libel has been abolished in the England in May this year 2008.I'm not sure how this applies in Scotland.
Some offnces might come under the Racial and Religous Hatred Act 2006.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I have an awesome idea for the people wanting the production punished. since they don't want the production to have their freedoms, take away the one's protestings freedoms too.
After all they don't want pople to have the right to express themselves, so they shouldnt either.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Who cares.

Freedom of expression and the arts are institutions we're deeply proud of in the United Kingdom - plus only 38% believe in God so a small minority are only against this. If the play is offensive or distasteful, in your opinion, don't watch it. Simple. No one is being forced to attend and sit through the play.

Shakespeare had numerous of his plays halted during the English Commonwealth (English Republic to non-British members) of the 17th Century because the Puritans outlawed the theatre. Apparently, the theatre was full of immoral behaviour and encourage impure actions.


in the most recent census 70% of the population described themselves as Christian, they may not be once a week church people, but then one cannot judge who is really religious, but we do know that is how they classed themselves (without even taking into account muslims, jews etc)

I dont think anything should be done, however, I laugh at these people, Id love to see them have the "balls" to do a similar play about Mohammed, let us see how they really love their art then, let me see how proud we British are then!



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Oh for crying out loud people, it's just a play. I don't know about Scotland, but if it were over here in the US, they'd have as much a right to perform it as the protesters do protesting it.

If they really wanted controversy, they'd have done the play about Mohammed instead of Jesus. Jesus is an easier target and they don't have to worry about the entire Christian faith threatening their lives.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
Oh for crying out loud people, it's just a play. I don't know about Scotland, but if it were over here in the US, they'd have as much a right to perform it as the protesters do protesting it.

If they really wanted controversy, they'd have done the play about Mohammed instead of Jesus. Jesus is an easier target and they don't have to worry about the entire Christian faith threatening their lives.



singing from the same hymn sheet brother



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join