Alonzo Fyfe

If we are condemning killing, period, then this play is as good as any other. And arguing that this play is worse than other options suggests that this killing is less bad than other options -- that this killing, unlike those others, ought not to be publicly (or as publicly) condemned.

ManM

I think my work here is done.

brighid

Why is the play offensive Man M? How should we approach the subject of crimes against minorities? Should we simply ignore the reason this human being was murdered and the reason for the brutality was the ignorance and hate that fueled this murderous rampage? A man was brutally murdered for NO OTHER reason then his sexuality. A large group of people protested outside of his funeral saying ‘God Hates Fags’, thereby condoning the murder of this human being. There is something VERY wrong with that and the issues that are being addressed by this play are violence, ignorance and hatred and how something so vile, despicable and evil can happen in a sleepy, seemingly innocent town. It’s reality, based on true events.

Brighid

Corwin

Bullshit. Church members are just as eligible for office as anyone else... of course if their social ideas are too Dark Ages.... they don't stand a chance of getting elected. But then Libertarians pay taxes too... so it works both ways. (Except that Libs have to pay taxes... and churches don't.) In addition... there are two priveliged, highly paid positions in Congress that give the church of whoever holds them a direct line to at least one house of Congress... there's another official one. On top of that... churches have been abusing the system for decades. Unofficial endorsements of candidates... (which nonetheless... translate out into official votes...) backroom lobbying... social marches... boycotts of products...

Can you honestly look at our society and claim churches have no representation? Are you that stupid? If so, have you had your complimentary vasectomy yet?

TANSTAAFL churchboy.

Taxes may not be the natrual state of the world... but the natrual state of the world, let's be frank here, sucks ass. Poverty, grubbing for survival needs, disease, early death.

Taxes ARE the natrual state of a government, because SOMEBODY has to pay the bills. This is where all the lovely things like roads and police and fire protection and even the Internet you're ranting on come from. Most, if not all, of us prefer the unnatrual state.

However, we pay for it. Churches don't. And we pay MORE than we should have to so that churches don't have to pay anything.

If a church owns property... especially real estate... how the hell is it a 'non-profit?'

I'M not a non-profit and I can't afford to own land, especially some of the high value real estate owned by the Catholics and the Baptists. Most people I know can't either. So what exactly is it that makes them 'non-profit' when clearly they're well into the black?

You got it I support taxing churches.... they already HAVE representation. And they should consider themselves lucky to not be charged for 90 years of BACK taxes... (and that's just for income tax... property tax could go back even further.)

Wyz_sub10

I think that's at the root of the issue - understanding what evolution is (and is not). Evolution isn't evidence, per se. It's an observed fact. In my analogy, the broken glass is only "evidence" if I apply it to something (i.e. evidence *of* something). At the onset, though, it is just an observation - the glass is broken.

Evolution is a fact in this way. It is an observed occurrence.

Then we move to the second point - evolution as theory. There is no One Big Theory of evolution. There are many theories (not necessarily mutually exclusive) of how evolution occurred.

This duality can be confusing, but consider that there is a fact of gravity (things fall to the ground if I drop them) and a theory of gravity (mass distortion bending space). Evolution is a broad term, but it has more than one meaning. Do you challenge the observation or a particular theory?

I'll head over to find your thread there, but in short, evolution could be disproved in a number of ways, but these ways would involve genetics, geology, etc. Evolution isn't a separate stream of science. It's an observation falling from other disciplines.

As for origins, evolution is not about origins at all. Philosophy can be applied for origins, if you choose. But evolutionary theory is not philosophical.

Autonemesis

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Wouldn't want to ding the door.

Autonemesis

I don't know what your "work" was, but this comment of yours makes me suspect you wanted to piss people off so you could collect an angry quote to post elsewhere as proof of "whatever your work is about." And yeah, it pissed me off to read your repugnant suggestion that Matt having been gay is so much more offensive than the brutal murder that ended his life, that we shouldn't mention it at all. Yeah, that pisses me off a lot. He was killed because he was gay, in a premediated attack, he was baited and his attackers were lying in wait. Attitudes like yours perpetuate the hatred that inspires attacks like that. So yeah, I'm going to angrily object when any such suggestion is made. You bet your last dollar I will.

Godless Dave

ManM is gone, but I'm going to respond to him anyway.

"The Laramie Project" was only "controversial" to a small group of evil bigots. They chose to distort what it's message is and be offended by it. That's not the school's damn problem. Some assholes are offended by the Diary of Anne Frank too. That doesn't mean schools should accomodate them.

Any play that condemned the killing of homosexuals would be offensive to those bigots, and we would be having this same argument but with a different title.

bonduca

To take Godless Dave's reference a bit further, and to respond to ManM's silliness...

Because this particular killing was done because the young man in question was gay. Just as the Holocaust was perpetrated because the victims were Jews, Gypsies, or whatever unacceptable ethnic group. Someone's petty prejudices cost a human life. Again.

I guess these "other options" you recommend are not particularly effective?

If the killers will make an ethnic group, gender, or sexual preference an issue when excusing their murderous behavior, we are compelled to respond by condemning their behavior. We must make an issue of it because THEY do.

Does it bother you that Matthew Shepard was gay? That's your personal feeling. What is being addressed is the outrage and despair felt at his brutal murder. That should not be swept under the rug because you or anyone else feels his personal life was "icky." That sort of attitude is what made his killers feel entitled to act as they did. All support for bigotry, whether blatant or passive, supports the violence that bigots perpetrate.

And ManM, if your "work" here was to show us your inner tight-lipped old maiden auntie, I'd say you are most definitely done, and a fine job it was, too. Bye-bye.

End soapbox.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

I saw the Laramie Project when Showtime(?) made the play into a movie.

The play is about a group of people who go to Laramie to examine the reactions of the people who live there -- much like would be done for an hour-long news "special report."

Yet, it was a play. (A re-enactment? The boundary between truth and fiction here is not made clear.)

The play itself takes its share of shots at certain religious views. I can understand how those who hold those views would think that they are being portrayed inaccurately and would like an opportunity to set the record straight. I think it is relevant that this play has such a strong look and feel of non-fiction.

Consider the reaction one might have to an assignment that portrayed atheists as -- shall we say -- completely lacking in any moral restraint in such a way that it had the look and feel of non-fiction. I suspect that I would see more than a few posts here about how such an assignment was denigrating atheists in general on the basis that a couple of atheists performed some horrible crime. I would expect seeing more than a few posters claiming that a public (tax-funded) school making such an assignment is violating the rule of establishing a religion.

Yet, my view is that the assignment should still stand. Colleges must be places where people are not afraid to investigate different ideas. The whole purpose of the project is to debate a controversial issue and to learn how to address those issues.

If an assignment portrays a particular group unfairly, then this is a valid point to be raised in the overall discussion. It should not be offered as an argument against having the discussion.