Replies

So, the situation sounds like there were complaints from local people about the play "Grease", which was not cancelled, after which the teacher then decided to do "The Crucible", a play which was a thinly veiled metaphor for the McCarthy era, where evil conservatives supposedly wrongly persecuted innocent communists. Is this a coincidence? Most likely not. I'm sure the teacher was trying to make a subtle statement there.

Then, rather than have the situation antagonized, the principal says "do another play" instead of The Crucible, presumedly so that a war doesn't develop between the teacher and the original objectors, which, in my opinion was not an unreasonable position, since the play "The Crucible" is not very flattering to Christians whatsoever. In the context of the actual witch trials themselves, the play is probably not particularly out of line, since such things did happen, but the play, considering its original intent, is easily used to bash Christians in this modern day, where witches are no longer burned. The principal surely felt that this particular play at this particular time would cause more trouble than it was worth.

Whenever someone feels that their ability to put out whatever junk they want is threatened, they pull out the witchhunt, McCarthyism, Inquisition charges and start playing the martyr. It sounds like that's what this teacher did, simply because some people complained about "Grease". They didn't get it cancelled, they simply complained about it. So this supposedly innocent teacher picks a play that would be a political statement. The prinicipal was wise enough to see the game she was playing and attempted to squash it. The principal specifically asked for a play that wouldn't cause any controversy, until the flap blew over. She picked "A MidSummer Night's Dream".

Now, all the people on this thread who are bashing the townsfolk as being intolerant, drooling rednecks for not liking "Grease", "The Crucible" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream", I want you to notice that "The Crucible" was the ONLY one of these three that was cancelled. You'll notice that "Grease" only received complaints - it wasn't cancelled, and nowhere does the article state that "A Midsummer Night's Dream" was cancelled. The writer of the article simply put that crap in there about "A Midsummer Night's Dream" having "suicide, rape and losing one's virginity" as a means to try to portray the school and the locals as dumb hypocrites, in the manner of "Look - they banned Grease and the Crucible but hey're too ignorant to know that there is even worse stuff in A midsummer Night's Dream!"

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. Are you getting all of the facts? Is the story you are getting slanted to produce a desired result? In this case, the media that have taken this incident and blown it way out of proportion are doing so to make smalltown America and Christians look like illiterate idiots, and many here are buying right into it.

If she was making a statement by scheduling "The Crucible" then good for her! The local yokels don't have to see it... they can attend the weekly book-burning at Bubba's Bait 'n Bibles.

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.

The Inquisition became a way to literally steal the property of anyone. Just set about denouncing them as a heretic, witch, or you name it. Then the inquisition would confiscate their property. The victim might be tortured to death, or tortured and then burned at the stake.

Ask yourself, how many religious fanatics would do the same today? Of course, anyone can guess the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden. However, their are religious fanatics that call themselves 'Christian'.

"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.