Mo. Drama Teacher Resigns in Play Flap

Wow I'm impressed that you can tell that just by looking at some one.
Who's narrow minded?

Well said. That was a ridiculous statement.

What is being forgotten by the useful tools is that the local yokels pay the taxes that fund the school and provide the teacher with an income.

Them there close minded, backward, local yokels should have no say in what goes on in the school or with their children, but they should keep footing the bill. Yes sireee./s

Perhaps, the McCarthy hearings did inspire the play, "The Crucible". However, the Salem Witch Tials are a warning to everyone about religious fanaticism. The Salem Witch Tials are all too much alike the Inquisition during the Medival period.

There is no "perhaps". Miller wrote the play as a reaction to the McCarthy hearings, although I'm sure he would have had absolutely no problem applying it to Christianity as well. In fact, I'm sure that's why he picked the Salem Witch Trials for his play instead of, say, the Communist purgings in Russia, as the place to hang his metaphor. That way he could kill two birds with one stone.

Comparing what has happened in Christianity to Islam is ridiculous. Human beings can be evil, and will use whatever means available to them, as in the case of the Inquisition, to maintain power over others or, as in the case of the witch trials, to act upon their greatest fears. However, Christianity does not dictate to its followers that they go out and kill unbelievers. In fact, it does just the opposite. Some people may go out and kill their fellow man, then use Christianity as their excuse, but they cannot re-write the New Testament and only those pre-disposed to believing Christianity is bad would take such people seriously. Islam, on the other hand, does, indeed, dictate violence against non-believers and therefore any true believer of Islam will have to accept violence as a legitimate tenet of the faith.

As far as this great condemnation of "religious fanaticism" goes, there is a huge flaw in that kind of thinking. One either believes in something, or he doesn't. How can someone only half-believe in something? For instance, either you believe the world is round or you believe it's flat (I suppose you could believe that it's a cube, or a dodecahedron, but for simplicity's sake, we'll just use the two main choices). Now, if you believe that it's flat, you're not going to get on a ship and sail off into the ocean because you'll fall off, and nobody would be able to talk you into getting on that ship, because you would be absolutely certain that you're going to fall into space. If someone were able to talk you into getting on that ship, then you didn't really fully believe the world was flat, did you? You had a certain amount of doubt about your own beliefs, and someone else was able to use that doubt to convince you to act AGAINST your own beliefs.

Apply that logic to religion. Either you believe in the principles of the Bible (or the Koran, or whatever else you have) or you don't. If you believe fully, you will follow those principles faithfully and will not veer from them, and you will apply them to all facets of your life, and be an example of those principles to others. The label "fanatic" is applied to anyone who does not shed or bend these beliefs whenever it suits the agenda of the labeler. In other words, as in the case of Fulton, the Christians in the community compained when their moral standards were violated in the school play, but were simply being true to the beliefs that they hold, and are now being called "fanatics" by many, including people on this forum, who think that these people should leave their beliefs behind when they come into conflict with the beliefs that others have. However, either these people hold these moral principles or they don't, and getting them to agree to cast those principles aside could only be done by exploiting any doubts they had about those beliefs in the first place, and consequently getting them to act (or to engage in inaction) directly against their own beliefs. If they would do so, that would make them better people? I think not.

I submit to you that the problem is not and has never been the degree to which people hold to their beliefs and values. On the contrary, holding fully to those beliefs and values is the only way to truly claim that you actually believe in those things. Instead, the problem has always lay with which beliefs and values one holds. In the case of Christians, being true to their faith will make them better neighbors, while, in the case of Muslims, being true to their faith will make them dangerous, even lethal. It is the belief system itself which is the problem, not the fact that they believe it fully, as "fanatics" do.

I agree that any objection to "The Crucible" is pretty silly. But what the heck is this manure:

The Adventures of Spongebob Squarepants? Oops sorry, 'conservatives' have termed that gay. How about Pygmalion? Well no that's got a funny sounding name, probably about all sorts of evils...

Are you lying, or just hopelessly ignorant? No conservative I'm aware of has said that SpongeBob is gay. What conservatives objected to was the use of an innocent cartoon character to promote a program that indoctrinated elementary school kids with the idea that sex roles are imposed on them by society.

In fact, the first folks to start looking at SpongeBob as gay were gays themselves. I remeber an article in the Wall Street Journal about gays fetishizing SpongeBob years before the Dobson controversy ever arose. For some reason, twisted gay hipsters saw "flamboyant and ultra-cheerful" as an indication that a cartoon sponge has a sex life just like theirs. Don't put this stuff on conservatives.

So... disagreeing with the religious right and their Rev. Moore philosphy makes me a "leftie"? Who's the useful dupe?

The only reason the principal asked the teacher to change the play was so not to offend the Christians. So yeah, I'm coming down hard on them. I bet they also object to teaching scientific "myths" like Evolution and the Earth being round.

When I was in high school in the '80s, every high school in the state put on "The Elephant Man."

No idea why . . . guess it was the style at the time.

The purpose of public schools is to provide a well-rounded education, and that includes math, science, language, and arts. Parents should not impose their own personal beliefs into public schools.

Of these three plays, there is nothing offensive. A very small handful of parents have a moral problem with the content of the plays, but you think they should have the right to change the curriculum simply because they are tax payers? Would you feel the same if a small group of Muslims tried the same thing? I'm betting you would not.

This type of intolerance only hurts the children's academic development. Maybe that's why only 36% of this high school's graduates scored better than the national average in the ACT test in 2003.

If these parents have a problem with it, they can form their own little Christian school and teach their own.

sorry, but the people who complained about High School classics like The Crucible or Midsummers Night Dream ARE yokels. Ignorant, stupid, taliban-like yokels.

Are you lying, or just hopelessly ignorant? No conservative I'm aware of has said that SpongeBob is gay. What conservatives objected to was the use of an innocent cartoon character to promote a program that indoctrinated elementary school kids with the idea that sex roles are imposed on them by society.

I was being sarcastic, sort of. Sheesh.

In fact, the first folks to start looking at SpongeBob as gay were gays themselves. I remeber an article in the Wall Street Journal about gays fetishizing SpongeBob years before the Dobson controversy ever arose. For some reason, twisted gay hipsters saw "flamboyant and ultra-cheerful" as an indication that a cartoon sponge has a sex life just like theirs. Don't put this stuff on conservatives

I imagine homosexuals look at a lot of things as homosexual. It doesn't mean they actually are homosexual or that acclaimed Christian leaders should give those arguments any credence

sorry, but the people who complained about High School classics like The Crucible or Midsummers Night Dream ARE yokels. Ignorant, stupid, taliban-like yokels.

Hey buddy, read the article again. Then, when you're done, read it again. Nowhere in there does it say that the Christians in question complained about EITHER play. They complained about "Grease". The principal cancelled the Crucible for his own reasons, although I'm sure they involved not wanting to antagonize the community further, and "MidSummer Night's Dream" WAS NEVER CANCELLED OR CRITICIZED, at least according to the articles written about the subject. The comment in the article about "Midsummer Night's Dream" containing suicide, rape, etc. was made BY THE AUTHOR and attributed to nobody. I can only assume that the author inserted that line precisely to evoke the kind of response that you are giving. However, that comment was not attributed to any of the Christians whatsoever, nor the principal.

After all we've discussed about the propaganda perpetrated by the media, I would think people here would be more diligent about recognizing propaganda when they see it.

In case no one else has noted it:

The Crucible was Miller's play condemning the Hollywood black lists and McCarthyism and those who cooperated.

Witch Hunt. Get it?

So... disagreeing with the religious right and their Rev. Moore philosphy makes me a "leftie"? Who's the useful dupe?

The only reason the principal asked the teacher to change the play was so not to offend the Christians. So yeah, I'm coming down hard on them. I bet they also object to teaching scientific "myths" like Evolution and the Earth being round.

I never said you were a leftiee. I said you were acting like a useful dupe for the left, meaning that you were, hopefully unintentionally, advancing their campaign of disgust and hatred for Christians by believing their spin on the incident in question. However, it is apparent to me just by your equating the scepticism of evolution with believing that the Earth is flat that you are probably hostile to Christians with or without the prompting of the mainstream media. So, in this particular area, you are more than happy to help advance the leftist agenda.

I'd also like to ask you why it is a bad thing that a small town community should be able to set its own standards for decency. If they want to ban "Grease" from high school because they think it promotes irresponsible teenage behavior, then why shouldn't they be able to do so? Why should people from Texas or California or anywhere else be able to dictate to people in Fulton, Mo what standards they are allowed to have and which they are not? If there are people that don't like the standards put forth by Fulton, then don't move there. That is the essence of a free country. Apparent statists like yourself would rather have morality dictated to them by some sort of central organization, perhaps a federal agency, maybe a ministry of (im)moral standards?

Let me ask you this, if this controversy had erupted in an Amish high school, and the Amish had rejected all 3 plays (which they undoubtedly would), would we be having this discussion? Would we be trashing the Amish for upholding their community standards? Are they not free to be Amish? If you say no, then you do not believe in freedom of religion, or freedom at all, in my opinion, because you believe that lifestyles and communities should be dictated to by people thousands of miles away. However, if you say yes, then I ask you why should Baptists in Missouri be treated any differently?

Yes, that was one level of the play.

That was THE level of the play. Miller was in a very public fight with his best friend over testifying; they responded to each other in their work, this was Miller's alpha and omega in writing the play.

Future audiences will find new metaphors in "The Crucible."

No doubt as will current uninformed audiences. But to teach it in school without teaching McCarthy would be like teaching "Animal Farm" without communism.

I doubt the teacher left out Miller's intended metaphor.

Maybe their isn't anything offensive in Grease to YOU but apparently their was to the parents of this school. Maybe it was the way the play was done? Maybe they are sensitive types? maybe they are hicks?...whatever...the point is: not only should parents expect standards and question what goes on in schools, but they are obligated to for their children's' sake.

Jeez, do you think the government schools should do as it pleases without any interferences from pesky parents?

This type of intolerance only hurts the children's academic development....... that is a crock...not preforming Grease is somehow hurting their SAT scores?..please.

If these parents have a problem with it, they can form their own little Christian school and teach their own...... FINALLY, this has been my point all night....let them take their tax money and form their own school. If it succeeds b/c enough kids enroll then it would be just what that community wants.

Asking for a family-friendly play is hardly the same as changing the curriculum.

I remember that film; let's see --- "Barn swallow!"

"Are rape and suicide appropriate subject matter for a high school play?"

Sure. Back during the mid 60s, another high school in my town, Edsel Ford H.S. put on West Side Story. They did such a remarkable job that they were invited to perform it on tour in Europe. I do believe there was smoking, fighting, and murder and I don't believe any of the actors pursued a life of crime. This was Dearborn, Mich., a very conservative town at that time. Apparently, even the conservative Dearbornites understood the value of art.

If it were "the community" that was outraged, I would have no problem with it. But it wasn't "the community," it was a small group from a rural church imposing their own morality.

And I'm not hostile towards Christians... I'm hostile towards any religious doctrine dictating morality on a public education curriculum, politics, and every other aspect of our lives.

If they want to be tight-ass religious nuts, fine... But don't demand the same from everyone else.

"If there is any number one rule here at FR, it should be that if you find yourself agreeing with the sentiments of a New York Times article, you should question yourself immediately."

That is one of the biggest chunks of nonsense I've ever read here.

"Bubba's Bait 'n Bibles."

LOL! Or, Sneed's Feed & Seed (Formerly "Chucks")

"Rather than using your own brain ..."

That's the problem for you--Freepers using their brains. I smell banjo music.