Theatre in Sikh protest

As I have thought about this breaking story I think that there are a few issues that are of wider concern. FIrst thing I need to say is that, as a Christian, I do find some things that go on in popular and not-so-popular culture distressing or even offensive to my faith: paedophilia by those holding office, dishonesty or misconduct by office-holders or on church premsises are chief among thsoe things. However, it seems to me that shooting the messenger, the bearer of bad news, is not the way to deal with it [that has been tried and it makes things worse]. Furthermore, it seems to me that to ban reflection on such sin/wrongdoing even if it be in a play or a film or a novel is likely to convey that we are interested more in cover-ups than in dealing with the truth and the situations constructively. This is the case even if it is a fictionalised exploration of the issues. "In a community where public honour is paramount, is there any room for the truth?" ask the programme notes.

That said, you can perhaps understand why this concerns me: "The protesters claim the play, which centres around two characters and is set in a gurdwara, a Sikh temple, mocks their faith. The play's author has revealed threats had been made against her and she has been advised by police not to say anything in public. Saturday night's protest turned violent at 1845 GMT as around 400 people gathered outside the theatre. " The author is herself of the Sikh community [though I don't know how actively she might practice, though the 'Kaur' in her name suggests that she has taken the vows and been baptised].

It seems to me that certain things must not be allowed to be off-limits and to take discussion of religious abuse out of the public domain is a very serious precedent which I fear would not be to the health of society and actuallly, in the long term religions and their adherants. Abuse and misdeeds thrive on secrecy, religious abuse nore so.

We should remember: "Theatre management insist the play is a work of fiction and no comment is being made about Sikhism as a faith." This is true though I can understand why Sikhs would be worried by the association; mud does stick and it should be the case, imho, that a religious group should be able to challenge portrayals of their faith in a similar way, perhaps to slander or libel laws but perhaps not in a way that smothers dissent. The Author herself , in the programme: 'praises Sikhism, before adding: "Clearly the fallibility of human nature means that the simple Sikh principles of equality, compassion and modesty are sometimes discarded in favour of outward appearance, wealth and the quest for power. I feel that distortion in practice must be confronted and our great ideals must be restored ... I believe that drama should be provocative and relevant. I wrote Behzti because I passionately oppose injustice and hypocrisy."'

I'm concerned that if this incident had taken place under the new laws being proposed in parliament now on religios hate-speech, then the play would have been banned and I am not at all convinced that this would have been healthy. How would I feel if it were a church being portrayed/used? Sad. But I know that making the kind of fuss these folk are making is likely to ensure that greater numbers of people will see it and discuss it and perhaps make worse assumptions about my faith -"Why are they so concerned to keep the issue hushed up ..."; "There's no smoke without fire...".

And I'm afraid that we need to rebrief Christian senior spokesbeings, because I ssuspect that this guy isn't the only one who would say this: "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, said: "Such a deliberate, even if fictional, violation of the sacred place of the Sikh religion demeans the sacred places of every religion." NO NO NO; what demeans the sacred places of every religions is that such things go on in the first place. Writing about it is part of coming to terms with it in a healthy fashion.

I have one final question which I am genuinely intersted in; by no means is this a rhetorical question: what if it had been a Mosque in a play written by someone nominally, at least, affiliated to Islam. The Salman Rushdie affair tells me the worst outcome but maybe there is room for others?
See also the Guardian article is more detailed and notes also the reactions of younger Sikhs who clearly think that the issues raised should be addressed. Own goal by conservative Sikhs? Maybe.
BBC NEWS | England | West Midlands | Theatre stormed in Sikh protest
STOP PRESS. Just heard that the theatre concerned have pulled the play citing concerns that they cannot any longer guarantee safety of staff or punters.
Interesting comment from report: "Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris has argued that the proposed law on religious hatred creates a climate in which "any religion's assertion is that their beliefs, leaders, icons and places of worship are protected from criticism, ridicule or parody"."