In December 2004 young female Sikh playwright Gurpreet Bhatti wrote a
play, "Behzti", that is put on in a Birmingham theatre. The Sikhs in the
community objected to the play because it depicted scenes of rape inside
the Sikh gurdwara.

They demonstrated outside the theatre. The demonstrations escalated into
violence leading to injuries and arrests.

Because of this the theatre decided to close the play.

Later Sikh and Catholic spokesmen welcomed the change of heart by the
theatre, for whatever reason...

I had considered Sikhism to be the most tolerant of religions, this
story has certainly put back the public image of Sikhism a couple of
decades or more.

Religions should be treated exactly the same as any other hobby, no
more, no less. We should allow people to watch trains and scribble in
notebooks or wear towels around their heads and wave their arses in the
air, and we should be free to mock them just the same.

There is nothing special about religion, religion does not need any
special protection as it is adequately covered in any constitution that
accepts the right of freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and
freedom of association.

We all make jokes about something. The joke is a way of putting one
social group down at the expense of another.

I used to own a country village inn in the south west of the UK, and
there were always taboos about politics, religion and sex with small
furry animals (its a Yokel thing)

I think the time has come to de-recognize religion as a reason for
extraordinary acts of tolerance.

We should stop treating religious ideas as immune from criticism or
challenge. We should stop treating religious ideas as special.

In a free country people are free to express opinions and to gather and
organize. Those freedoms are more than sufficient to allow religions to
do what they have a legitimate right to do.

If we simply take religion off its pedestal the way we treat people and
their religious beliefs should be quite clear.

BTW I do not believe there is a god of any sort ... for those of you who
would be interested.

Belushi, I understand what you are saying, and I understand the
underlying tone of your post. However, there is one other thing that is
necessary in a country that allows freedom of choice, speech, worship
and the persuit of happiness, that one other thing is a no brainer.
That we tolorate, that we accept, that we fight only for causes that
will continue to create an equal state of these freedoms for all it's
citizens. A joke is one thing, a blatent slur or the attempt to show
something as something it is not, offers nothing constructive and only
adds to the hate of one group toward another.

I know nothing about the play of which you speak, it may or may not have
any basis in truth. The fact that it was shut down until such time that
it could be determined if it was opinoin or creative art, or a downright
slur against the reputation of a group, religeous or not, is allowed.
If the producers or writer felt they were wronged, we have courts to
determine that.

A little background on the story.

Birmingham has a very large Sikh community and the young girl who wrote
this has since been ostracized from her community. She is called a
whore and her family have had to move.

The point is that religion should not be a taboo subject. Its nothing
more than a group of people believing in the same thing. Then not
abiding by their beliefs.

But if you look at literature through the ages, "Lady Chatterly's Lover"
"Anais Nin" and even Oscar Wilde's poetry have all been lambasted as
sexually disgusting.

But now they are regarded as classics (in certain spheres)

Life moves on, and its sometimes painful.

Eventually the only taboo subject will be the price of kippers!!!

Yes, I see your point. I also see that it's important for those who
have had personal experiences, good or bad, to be able to communicate,
to own, these experiences and to share them, in terms of how they saw,
felt that experience. It was only my stand against what may have been
an attempt to willfully create a bias or add to the fire of hate and
bigotry that I made my comments.

One persons story or experience is clearly, their side of a two sided
coin and it is for clear thinking and logical minds to make a judgement
for themselves as to what they will take with them at the end of such a
journey. This is one reason, that in a society of free speech, it is
so important to have the logic of an open mind and not one impeeded by
religious bias.

But to use your two sided coin analogy.

If one side we have the Free-from-religious-"truth"-crowd, then on the
other side we have the Religion-is-my-thing lot.

But that depends on your religious bias ...

1) You are a believer
2) You are not a believer
3) You have an open mind about all things religious (Fence sitter)

If you are 1, then side one is actually People-who-need-God and side 2
is Im-a-happy-clapper

If you are 2, then side one is
People-who-are-free-from-religious-blindness and side two is
People-who-are-not-freethinkers

If your religious bias is number three, then side one is
People-who-should-question-more, and side two is
People-who-should-question-a-lot-more.

(BTW Bl8ant says "hi" and when her headache subsides, she'll be in here)

So even with a two sided coin there are three possibilities!

How confusing is that!!!

When a person is in a position to sway the opinions of a large group of
people, there is a responsibility, not specifically to those being
defamed, but to the general civil ethic. To incite a riot is against
the law, why? Because free speech does not include the freedom to
promote hate, much less to inject that hate with a dose of propaganda
that will lead to a potentially dangereous altercation.

By the same token (the flip side again)it is also the responsibility of
everyone, in a free society, that groups are not treated with disrespect
for the sole purpose of encouraging bias, bigotry and hate of any group
that falls under the protection of our laws and the security of our
freedoms. While this second is not a law, we can certainly see that
this kind of behavior is punished and seen as wrong by the majority.

As in the recent cases of Ann Coulter and IMUS.

So to justify my original argument, there are still only two sides to
the coin:
1. Freedom of speech, & freedom from civil responsibility
2. Freedom of speech, including civil responsibility
We can fight continual battles with each other over petty bigotries of
race, religion etc. or we can fight for equality this democracy offers
based on a civil code, without the ethics of religious dogma. You see
there is no room for religion in the civil order of thing, there is,
however, a place for responsibilty and it has nothing to do with
religion.

So I side with taking responsibilty and the only way to make effective
changes is to prove that the 'quesiton' of religious beliefs vary so
greatly that there is no room for them in a civil code. I have a
responsibilty to those who have a religious conviction to prove to them,
I am not wanting to take away their freedom of religion, I am only
wanting to take religion out of government.