Current Events > How liberals seek to erase Christian culture: an anecdote

(+) Yeah! (+)

Picture yourself as a conservative Christian. You go to see one of the many Shakespeare plays that feature a wedding. You, of course, know that in Shakespeare's day and in all orthodox Christian churches even in the present that priests must be male, and have been solely males for 2000 years.

The liberal showrunners, however, who are almost certainly not Christians, change the priest's gender to female, and even alter the actual language of the text to reflect this in an act of barbarism, merely so they can prove some political point.

What point is that? Tradition and fidelity to the text are pointless, when ~inclusion~ is at stake. You, Christian, have no place here.

KhanJohnny posted...

Picture yourself as a conservative Christian.

Gross
---

Good.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Good.

Whether they succeed or not, I assure you that attempting to erase the past, almost always ends in disaster.

It's okay. The world is enriched and grand af. I don't think changing the sex of a few Shakespearian actors at some plays (LOL WHO WATCHES PLAYS) will 'erase the past'.

8-bit_Biceps posted...

It's okay. The world is enriched and grand af. I don't think changing the sex of a few Shakespearian actors at some plays (LOL WHO WATCHES PLAYS) will 'erase the past'.

The point of my sharing this anecdote is not to suggest that this is an isolated instance. In fact, it is quite the opposite in large metropolitan areas.

The cultural contributions of Christians are used in a million ways while their religious content is either abused or minimized.

Women are people too.

But muh kristhun values!
---

Tradition is never a good reason to do something over another option that makes more sense and is more relevant to the world today. If anything, the "that's the way we've always done it for hundreds of years" argument is a bad thing because it shows that the belief is most likely outdated and not relevant to our society today.

Tell us a good reason to not allow a woman to play that role besides "it's how we've always done it" and maybe your argument will be considered.
---

KhanJohnny posted...

8-bit_Biceps posted...

It's okay. The world is enriched and grand af. I don't think changing the sex of a few Shakespearian actors at some plays (LOL WHO WATCHES PLAYS) will 'erase the past'.

The point of my sharing this anecdote is not to suggest that this is an isolated instance. In fact, it is quite the opposite in large metropolitan areas.

The cultural contributions of Christians are used in a million ways while their religious content is either abused or minimized.

Oh well, we're not a Christian nation
---

There are lots and lots and lots of liberal Christians.
---

oh no, whatever will we do without the conservative and fundamentalist forms of religions
---

GallisOTK posted...

Tradition is never a good reason to do something over another option that makes more sense and is more relevant to the world today. If anything, the "that's the way we've always done it for hundreds of years" argument is a bad thing because it shows that the belief is most likely outdated and not relevant to our society today.

Tell us a good reason to not allow a woman to play that role besides "it's how we've always done it" and maybe your argument will be considered.

The reason is that Shakespeare wrote the character as a male, Shakespeare was a Christian with orthodox beliefs, Anglican/Catholic priests are males, the play is set in the past when all priests were males, etc etc etc.

There is no reason nor need to "update" Shakespeare whatsoever. Only a cultural idiot can't appreciate a play merely because it was written hundreds of years ago, without having to modernize it.

But, true, most Americans qualify as such.

ledbowman posted...

There are lots and lots and lots of liberal Christians.

The most liberal churches are the ones that are dying the fastest which is not surprising because they have no discipline in their beliefs.

And rigorous adherence to prior casting considerations is required because...?
---

KhanJohnny posted...

The cultural contributions of Christians are used in a million ways while their religious content is either abused or minimized.

This is true actually. But it's okay if it's Christians
---

Well then make a Shakespeare play yourself and hire an all-male cast instead of complaining about female actors.
---

frozenshock posted...

Well then make a Shakespeare play yourself and hire an all-male cast instead of complaining about female actors.

There were already plenty of female characters, as is the norm in Shakespeare's comedies.

Changing the priest was gratuitous and necessarily marginalizes any orthodox Christians in the audience who may share Shakespeare's religious beliefs, as it erases their cultural heritage.

Dat_Cracka_Jax posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

The cultural contributions of Christians are used in a million ways while their religious content is either abused or minimized.

This is true actually. But it's okay if it's Christians

All religion is ass
---

Did they also make a point of destroying any furniture or fabrics that the female character touched while she was on her period? At least then they would be adhering to some of those truly important Christian values.
---

ThePieReborn posted...

And rigorous adherence to prior casting considerations is required because...?

How is it a "casting consideration"?

The priest is literally a male and referred to by the customary title of "Father"?

The showrunners had to consciously alter the text, changing the title to Mother, in complete disregard of anything Shakespeare would have ever contemplated, and in complete infidelity to both the text and its historical context.

Shakespeare's plays werern't exactly totally realistic or historically accurate either.
---

KhanJohnny posted...

frozenshock posted...

Well then make a Shakespeare play yourself and hire an all-male cast instead of complaining about female actors.

There were already plenty of female characters, as is the norm in Shakespeare's comedies.

Changing the priest was gratuitous and necessarily marginalizes any orthodox Christians in the audience who may share Shakespeare's religious beliefs, as it erases their cultural heritage.

I don't think christian cultural heritage is so fragile as to be "erased" by a woman playing the role of a priest in a stage play.
---

Yeah, Shakespeare never would have made a male character that was actually a female character, he would never do anything like that.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Traditionally only males could act in Shakespeares plays so if the part of a woman is being played by a woman theyre shitting all over tradition and trying to erase history.

Its entirely different to have females play female characters vs changing a character's gender and role to satisfy modern political preferences.

You might as well rewrite Julius Caesar as a young Arab woman.

KhanJohnny posted...

ledbowman posted...

There are lots and lots and lots of liberal Christians.

The most liberal churches are the ones that are dying the fastest which is not surprising because they have no discipline in their beliefs.

Lol who the fuck are you?
---

Liberals want the infinity gauntlet
---

frozenshock posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

frozenshock posted...

Well then make a Shakespeare play yourself and hire an all-male cast instead of complaining about female actors.

There were already plenty of female characters, as is the norm in Shakespeare's comedies.

Changing the priest was gratuitous and necessarily marginalizes any orthodox Christians in the audience who may share Shakespeare's religious beliefs, as it erases their cultural heritage.

I don't think christian cultural heritage is so fragile as to be "erased" by a woman playing the role of a priest in a stage play.

That's why I said this is merely one anecdote.

If you are an orthodox Christian with an interest in culture, you see a million subtle slights of this variety every week.

TC are you the guy who once said the "post war liberal democratic order is my enemy"?
---

shockthemonkey posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Traditionally only males could act in Shakespeares plays so if the part of a woman is being played by a woman theyre shitting all over tradition and trying to erase history.

Its entirely different to have females play female characters vs changing a character's gender and role to satisfy modern political preferences.

You might as well rewrite Julius Caesar as a young Arab woman.

Oh so its fucking fine when you do it but when anyone else breaks tradition its a problem? Youre a hypocrite

Way to escalate beyond reasoned debate at the first opportunity.

I'm done with you.

lmao
---

Shakespeare was english.

Church of England now has female bishops. So fits fine.
---

Doom_Art posted...

TC are you the guy who once said the "post war liberal democratic order is my enemy"?

I don't recall ever saying that

KhanJohnny posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

And rigorous adherence to prior casting considerations is required because...?

How is it a "casting consideration"?

The priest is literally a male and referred to by the customary title of "Father"?

The showrunners had to consciously alter the text, changing the title to Mother, in complete disregard of anything Shakespeare would have ever contemplated, and in complete infidelity to both the text and its historical context.

And...? I fail to see how that's of any consequence. The showrunners can do what they will since it's their production. I would also think that the themes in a play are of greater importance than adherence to details that do nothing for said themes.
---

If you're culture must be to the exclusion of others, it probably wasn't a very good culture to begin with.
---

Jumbo shrimp
Paid volunteer
Persecuted Christian
---

Are there any lines in the play where the priest's gender is thematically important or commented on? If not, there's no point in harping on it. The great thing about the timeless nature of Shakespeare is that you can make setting and casting adjustments and still connect with the main theme of the work.

Also, odd you pick Shakespeare when in his heyday (or the heyday of his plays), female roles were played by male actors.

So, very sweet of you to wake up this Saturday morn to crow about an imagined scenario you cooked up in your head about how the liberals are coming to get *your* tradition.

You know what we call people who assume ownership of a fictional work and feel that their say in how that work is presented is the most important or most correct? A toxic fandom. Stop being toxic, TC.
---

Most of the famous adaptations of Shakespeare plays are set in the modern era or recent past and nobody gives a shit, but tc dreams up a weirdly specific example of a Shakespeare adaptation whitewashing Christianitys blatant sexism and that makes him shit his pants and sniff them.

KhanJohnny posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

And rigorous adherence to prior casting considerations is required because...?

How is it a "casting consideration".

The priest is literally a male and referred tk by the customary title of "Father".

The showrunners had to consciously alter the text, changing the title to Mother, in complete disregard of anything Shakespeare would have ever contemplated, and in complete infidelity to both the text and its historical context.

Well who gives a flying fuck what Shakespeare would have contemplated, he's been dead for almost 400 years now

This doesn't shit all over him, or Christians, or anything. I promise you Christianity is a big enough blight on the world that some priest being played by a woman isn't gonna change anything

What an odd thing to spend your time complaining about
---

ThePieReborn posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

And rigorous adherence to prior casting considerations is required because...?

How is it a "casting consideration"?

The priest is literally a male and referred to by the customary title of "Father"?

The showrunners had to consciously alter the text, changing the title to Mother, in complete disregard of anything Shakespeare would have ever contemplated, and in complete infidelity to both the text and its historical context.

And...? I fail to see how that's of any consequence. The showrunners can do what they will since it's their production. I would also think that the themes in a play are of greater importance than adherence to details that do nothing for said themes.

No one is disputing that the showrunners can run a shitty show if they so desire.

The point is that liberals assume that by being "inclusive" they are making room for everyone. However, this belief will always be insincere. They are merely making room for the right kind of people.

They make this clear time and again when they constantly denigrate orthodox Christians and their cultural heritage, which they do so many ways. Calls for inclusion are thus just a convenient cover for their divisive practices.

CyricZ posted...

Are there any lines in the play where the priest's gender is thematically important or commented on?

The priest's gender is extremely important because he can't perform the duties of a priest if he isn't male. That is what Shakespeare would have believed and he would view the people who changed the gender if his priest characters as heretics, as do many orthodox Christians today--hundreds of millions of them actually.

KhanJohnny posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

And rigorous adherence to prior casting considerations is required because...?

How is it a "casting consideration"?

The priest is literally a male and referred to by the customary title of "Father"?

The showrunners had to consciously alter the text, changing the title to Mother, in complete disregard of anything Shakespeare would have ever contemplated, and in complete infidelity to both the text and its historical context.

And...? I fail to see how that's of any consequence. The showrunners can do what they will since it's their production. I would also think that the themes in a play are of greater importance than adherence to details that do nothing for said themes.

No one is disputing that the showrunners can run a shitty show if they so desire.

The point is that liberals assume that by being "inclusive" they are making room for everyone. However, this belief will always be insincere. They are merely making room for the right kind of people.

They make this clear time and again when they constantly denigrate orthodox Christians and their cultural heritage, which they do so many ways. Calls for inclusion are thus just a convenient cover for their divisive practices.

Or, maybe the gal was better than the guys who auditioned.

That's, of course, under the very questionable assumption that there is any merit to feeling so tragically marginalized in the first place.
---

COVxy posted...

If you're culture must be to the exclusion of others, it probably wasn't a very good culture to begin with.

So then I guess liberal culture isn't very good since it excludes traditional religions?

See how that works?

COVxy posted...

If you're culture must be to the exclusion of others, it wasn't a very good culture to begin with.

---

KhanJohnny posted...

The point is that liberals assume that by being "inclusive" they are making room for everyone.

Yes. It's the liberals that are making the assumptions. Not TC at all.

I mean Christ TC, if you wanted some attention that bad this morning, make a topic about a new popular video game or post some titties. Real or anime. Either work.
---

KhanJohnny posted...

CyricZ posted...

Are there any lines in the play where the priest's gender is thematically important or commented on?

The priest's gender is extremely important because he can't perform the duties of a priest if he isn't male. That is what Shakespeare would have believed and he would view the people who changed the gender if his priest characters as heretics, as do many orthodox Christians today--hundreds of millions of them actually.

You realise the Church of England now has female bishops, yes?
---

tc really wants attention