DELAFIELD – Phantom Cicada Theater Company’s production of THE BIBLE: THE COMPLETE WORD OF GOD (ABRIDGED) has been ousted from their performance venue at SummerStage in Lapham Peak State Park because of threats and manipulation from Christian extremists.
These religious zealots claim the show is blasphemous and an attack on Christianity. The Department of Natural Resources, who manages the state park, has caved to complaints from these ignorant and narrow-minded individuals and forbidden the production to take place as planned. The DNR used a loophole in their contract with SummerStage that disallows non-“family friendly” presentations to be staged in the park.
Originally conceived by the Reduced Shakespeare Company, this play has been successfully produced for over 17 years-- including a sold-out 12-week run in Washington DC’s prestigious Kennedy Center. It is an innocuous, non-blasphemous, lighthearted send-up of the Bible. For reviews of past productions, visit the RSC website. http://www.reducedshakespeare.com/productions/the-bible-the-complete-word-of-god-abridged/
WVCY’s right-wing radio host Vic Eliason stirred local and out-of-state members of the Christian community to harass the board members of SummerStage and the DNR with phone calls and emails about this so-called blasphemous play. Eliason even purchased airtime on a local Christian TV station, encouraging viewers to join his cause. When these actions persuaded the DNR to expel the play from the park, Phantom Cicada’s producer Brian Faracy, the play’s director Bo Johnson, and the performers took steps to stage their production at an alternate venue, the Delafield Arts Center. As soon as the center agreed to host the production, a repeat of the threatening deluge ensued, targeting the center’s administrators. Feeling that their personal safety was at risk, and on the advice of the Delafield police, the venue reneged.
This situation is abhorrent on multiple levels. Contract-breaching aside, the DNR’s decision is censorship and a blatant violation of the right to freedom of speech. But the colossal mistake this government agency made was allowing themselves to be manipulated by the Christian fanatics. By bowing to religious extremists, the DNR has simultaneously blurred the separation between church and state and weakened their respected position in the eyes of the public.
Vic Eliason continues to attack the production, and conservative radio personality Mark Belling (http://www.belling.com/) of 1130-WISN echoes his arguments.
These religious radicals will only succeed if we let them. Steps are already in place to find an alternative venue for the production. Director Johnson is fired with enthusiasm to take the show forward and has every intention of staging The Bible as planned. With just one week before opening night, the producers and performers would love to see you there, starting August 31st at a theatre TBD. Until then, here’s how you can help:
Please voice your concerns about the DNR’s decision to breach their contract, allowing religious extremists to call the shots, violating freedom of speech rights, and disallowing the production to go forward here:
Secretary - Cathy Stepp (608) 266-2121 – cathy.stepp@wisconsin.gov
Deputy Secretary - Matthew Moroney (608) 264-6266 - Matt.Moroney@wisconsin.gov
Support from local press follows. For further reading and listening: (Please Share)
http://thirdcoastdigest.com/2012/08/radio-bullies-push-around-theater-geeks-in-the-burbs/
http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/blog-8558-theatrical-censorship-in-delafield.html
http://www.progressive.org/a-win-for-religious-censors-in-wis-audio
End of story.
""that's true, Luke. but had WVCY not complained about the content of the play, would the DNR still have pulled the plug?"" If someone had said that they lied on the contract? Yes. It was illegal.
you're not related to Bob McBride, are you?
Yes, you did ask that. Unless you mean to ask if they would have been detected if people had not complained. In that case, no they would not have been detected until some nice family complained about what their children were exposed to.
and to say "nice" family and "what their children were exposed to" is assuming that what's in the play is necessarily bad and that children will suffer harmful effects from watching the play. they may - but no one knows that. as i mentioned earlier, if the Jesuits at Marquette U. thought the play was humorous after seeing it performed on their campus, that means NOT ALL Christians find this play offensive.
now really, FBSport, that's not very Christian of you, is that? namecalling and the such? "silly" play? have you even read it? you know what, on 2nd thought, it's not necessary you explain anything to me. i know you're type and that's all i need to know. you claim Christian bigots are attacking your pursuit of religious freedom while you aim insults at people you don't know. that makes you a hypocrite and we know what Jesus said about hypocrites, don't we?
Apparently the theater company knows, because they said is was unfit for children. Why would we disagree with THOSE WHO ARE DOING THE PERFORMANCE? As for Marquette, they censor almost nothing, including law professors who try to rip crosses off the walls of the classroom. Your final comment involves the fallacy of composition. NOT ALL of any demographic will be identical. So? Should we conclude that blacks think it's acceptable to beat blacks because a black cop beat a black man? Fallacy of composition.
I don't know whether the Jesuits had any problems with it or not, given that they have not made an official statement. However, the people who are upset are not claiming to be Jesuits, nor do the Jesuits claim to be part of that group. Frankly, I find that part of your argument to be grasping at straws. Vic's crowd is not Catholic. But my point is that the theater company did not sign the contract in good faith. I'm glad they got kicked out. The same goes for anyone else who does not sign any contract in good faith, anywhere on the face of the planet.
i also understand you point about the contract.
One last time..There are all sorts of events that take place on the campus that the Jesuits do not approve of, but they are still allowed. There are some clubs and events on campus, for example, that are allowed to exist, but the Jesuits do not approve of what they stand for. That said, there may also be a monk in some buddhist monastery in Tibet that also does not care! So what! You aren't dealing with any of those.
I appreciate the opportunity to have a respectful debate on your well considered thoughts. And I agree that the discussion face to face over a beer somewhere would probably be time pleasantly spent. At the moment, I don't have much time either, but I do intend on writing a longer reply to your points when my other duties are accomplished. But for now, I do feel obligated to make this clear; if you read my earlier post carefully, you will see that I did not use the term "comic play" neither when referring to anything based on the Koran nor the works' of Salman Rushdie. The term I used was "worthwhile piece of entertainment" and I used it for considered reasons. More on that and some of your other points later. Thank you for the reasonable dialogue, BO
The literature that the DNR is referring to listed the show as PG13. In this one instance the DNR is trying excuse their actions by interpreting PG13 as meaning "not for children under 13." But the common understanding of the term has always been "parental guidance suggested for those under 13." Many performing arts groups often use the disclaimer as originally meant so that parents are aware that a presentation is not "children's theatre," but that does not infer that the production is offensive or that children are not allowed to attend. What's probably more to the point is that the very same disclaimer has been applied to least a half dozen presentations in the park over the last 2 years (ARSENIC AND OLD LACE and a Rolling Stones cover band concert being 2 examples) and on no previous occasion did the DNR voice any disapproval over PG13 presentations, much less threaten to pull permits. Based on these precedents, SummerStage had no reason to believe that it was acting in anything other than "good faith." Seem fair?
If, from the perspective of the DNR, the DNR has become lax in its enforcement of the rules, and it continues to enforce the rules across the board, it is fair. Frankly, I think that "parental guidance is suggested" means, by default, that the performance is not a family-friendly one. The rating, as defined, means that the content must be investigated because the material may NOT be suitable for younger children. If it may not be suitable for children, then it can't be stamped "family-friendly. See link below: http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means Fankly, Bo, I think that the DNR's hands are tied on this issue, given the terms of the contract.
I should add that, although I do not live in your neighborhood (I live in the Town of Lisbon, near Bristlecone Pines), your play wouldn't go over well here either, given the fact that it does not meet the DRN's requirements. My neighbors like so see rules and laws enforced because they like to know what to expect. That is why we moved out of, or did not consider living in, Milwaukee.
You seem to be a thoughtful person, Luke. And btw, excuse me for inferring, in an earlier post, that you yourself were a Christian. I'm sorry if that offended. The question more referred to behavior that seems in conflict to Christian teachings and how all of us respond to that dichotomy, regardless of our own religious affiliation. And I have been pondering something; in an earlier post you seemed to express, like myself, an admiration for Salman Rushdie (although I disagree that his intent when writing is to offend his readers) and yet you seem to have a disdain for my enthusiasm to present his work publicly. That confuses me. I wonder if you'd take the time to explain further. Thank you, BO
I hope what follows does not sound abrasive. I had a hard time expressing myself in a concise way without sounding upset, even though I am not upset. ""I'm sorry, Luke, but I have to disagree with your interpretation of PG13. You're quick to capitalize the "not" in "may not be suitable" while ignoring "may.""" Bo, "not" indicates negation in both normal conversation and legal terminology. The term is not polyvalent. Contrary to what you say, I am not ignoring any other words in the sentence, but you are. Using your reasoning, I could sell you my car with the promise that it runs perfectly. But when you come to pick it up I tell you that it may not run perfectly, and it may not be a car at all.
Regarding your last paragraph, I think you miss my point. I really don't care where or when you hold your play, as long as you follow the laws and rules. I do think that the DNR's policy is good, considering the venue. I also find it odd that you would be surprised that people would protest your play when you admit that you knew that people were protesting it in other places around the country; and I find it odd that you don't empathize with others, whether or not you agree with them.
But I do have to clarify something. The statement, "you admit that you knew that people were protesting it in other places around the country," is a statement that you have, somehow, incorrectly attributed to me. My understanding is the contrary. I happen to know that, before the authors presented this piece, they gave copies of the script to various clergy people for their opinion. None of those people labeled it as "blasphemous." And since the play was first presented,17 years ago, it has been performed by professional, amateur, and educational theatres (in some cases even in church basements) as well as a run at the Kennedy Center and, to the best of my knowledge, there was never a hint of protest til now. I, myself, had the pleasure of being a part of a one month run of the show at Milwaukee Chamber Theatre 8 years ago. I can remember receiving standing ovations on some evenings and seeing people wearing clerical collars on their feet with everyone else. Men and women, on occasion, took the time to wait for us afterwards, introduced themselves as pastors, ministers, rabbis, or priests, and told us how much they enjoyed the show. So, perhaps, you read someone somewhere saying that they believed there were other protest leveled at this particular play, but I can assure you that it did not come from me.
I DO feel that when parents take an active role in selecting entertainment for their children that they strengthen their families, which is why I think that entertainment ratings are important. Ironically, you were arguing against that very rating in an attempt to make "family-strengthening" the standard, rather than the actual rating made available to parents. Also, my "you" was not directed at you personally, but at your group, represented by your leadership, such as Matt Konkel, who made the point that the play had been protested around the country.
Thank you for your reply. It appears that I misinterpreted your comment about other venues being boycotted to mean that the show had been boycotted at other performances elsewhere. If not, that is my mistake. I'm not interested in clarification. My point is that enforcement of rules cannot be called a "loophole." The DNR's hands are tied.