Religious discrimination in the theatre business?

[Seano]

I'm sure that this isn't the case but it also perhaps has the undertone that you consider me to be a 'prejudiced', 'intolerant', 'bigot'. This is an accusation which I would hotly contest.

What I think of you personally is irrelevant, besides which I don't know you at all and so have no opinion. Decide for yourself if the cap fits.

There's no need to repeat yourself. Your earlier post is still there, above my reply.

 

You gave an example of the reasoning by which an imaginary Christian organisation might decide that it will not consider employing technicians who are not Christians. I pointed out that the imaginary organisation's reasoning was the very definition of prejudice. Prejudice + intolerance = bigotry.

 

working with the top 5-10% of the industry.

What does that mean? There is no "top" of the industry as far as the moral behaviour of individuals is concerned.

Some gigs are bigger than others, budgets payscales and lifestyles vary, people are people.

 

I'd also like to ask you the question whether

a) you think there is a significant proportion of touring boys on the 1000 pax circuit who do live the 'rock n roll' lifestyle tho?

b) related to that, do you think that it would undermine their message if a Christian organisation did employ someone like that?

 

a) Er.. If by "rock and roll" lifestyle you mean scraping a living by touring with a rock and roll band, then yes, I'd say a fairly significant proportion - approximately 100%

 

b) You mean if they employed someone who lives a life of drug fuelled moral degeneracy, or someone who is not a Christian - an atheist perhaps, or a Buddhist? Once again - and I'll type this slowly - nobody is suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against drug addled dissolutes, the topic is whether they can (legally and/or morally) discriminate against non-Christians. (Which, lets remember, include people of other religions as well as atheists such as myself.)

 

By the way, the phrase "someone like that" always rings alarm bells for me.

No doubt if you'd asked one of the landladies behind the "No Blacks, No Irish" signs in London less that half a century ago, they'd have told you they didn't want "someone like that".

 

Incidentally - presumably the "bargain basement" tours you refer to are often self-drive rather than truck/bus affairs. If you believe crew are driving under the influence of drugs (including alcohol), your moral obligation to involve the police is clear.

[Just Some Bloke]

In response:

 

1. Some unpleasant people... I don't want to accuse you of not reading my post carefully, but you'll see that I'm not affirming this reason as acceptable, I'm just trying to offer some thought as to the background reasons why an organisation might choose to try and invoke an exemption on the grounds of faith.

Fair enough. We seem to agree that your suggestion may have been a reason why they might consider it, but that such a thought should not have gone any further.

2. I'm not sure whether your second comment validly counters the point about creative direction in worship scenarios.

Well, it works for me! Let's agree to disagree again.

3. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree whether creative types should be on the same faith page as the director to most effectively design a show. I would equate it to sound engineering from a seperate room (anyone been there!).

Yup been there! However, when I was a music student I went on some advanced courses about conducting an orchestra, which, at the time, I was very much into. We looked at great length into beating time perfectly, knowing every last detail about the work we were conducting, communicating with the orchestra etc. etc. Then one day someone (a tutor) pointed out that at the end of the day there are only 4 things a conductor can say to the players: faster, slower, louder, quieter. Similarly, from an LD's point of view, at the end of the day all I can do is to point the units in the right place, put them in the right colour and then mix them together. Earlier in the thread a member told of how he used to be a believer when he started with his faith group but now is a non-believer. He still works their shows. If he was getting it wrong now that he doesn't believe, wouldn't they have replaced him?

In terms of non creative roles I've already said in my opinion that it is fine that they think whatever they think about God and I don't think an exception should be claimed

Glad we agree.

4. I'm not saying it is the right circumstances to invoke an exception

Glad we agree again.

...if I were working on a tour, and the coke sorry tourbus wasn't an environment I could tolerate being in as a Jesus follower, then IMHO "the man on the clapham omnibus" (just thought I'd give you a bit of Lord Bowen just to prove I'm a real law student!) probably wouldn't be too tolerant if I quit and made a claim for compensation.

I agree. I don't think compensation would be appropriate just becuase you were in a situation you didn't like. If the others on the bus were doing illegal stuff then it's not you who should suffer, but nor should you be paid compensation for getting in to something you might have guessed about before you started.

7. "Peace out": A slang term telling someone good-bye...

Yes, I understand that, but my understanding of the words "peace" and "out" doesn't seem to be able to put the two together. The first is a noun the second is used as if the first were a verb. I must be getting old! Pass me my zimmer!

 

Respect to all (I'm being serious BTW!)

 

Eric.

[gareth]

However, as this was clearly advertised as unpaid, why would you want to work on the tour if you didn't support its aims or at least accept them.

It's all to do with the principle of it, though, isn't it? We often have to mention the non-existent distinction between paid and unpaid work from a legal point of view ... this ad was for unpaid work, and made it quite clear that the 'employers' would be discriminating against some applicants on the grounds of their religious belief.

[Shaggy]

The differences between different Christians can be as big as the differences between Christians and non-believers, certainly when it comes to actual behavior and not what they claim to believe. Choosing to discriminate against a large proportion of the population due to a misplaced stereotype gained from one sector of an industry is misguided and as someone else has said, bigoted. I am aware of several occasions where people have caused problems on a team due to their Christian beliefs (although arguably not acting in a recognisably Christian manner). Would I use this as an excuse to actively discriminate against all Christians? No, because I am aware that all people are different regardless of belief.

 

I have worked at Christian events both paid and as a volunteer. I would 100% dispute the fact that I cannot mix a Christian band in any genre as well as a Christian sound tech would. It's Music, a band is aiming for an emotional reaction just as a secular band would be. I also know there are plenty of non-believers volunteering in Christian organisations for reasons other that serving God.

[gareth]

As a matter of interest, BR mods, have the advertisers responded to your queries regarding their ad yet? My PM to the author elicited no response whatsoever - which, if I'm honest, is what I expected.

[Matt Riley]

I'm sure that this isn't the case but it also perhaps has the undertone that you consider me to be a 'prejudiced', 'intolerant', 'bigot'. This is an accusation which I would hotly contest.

What I think of you personally is irrelevant, besides which I don't know you at all and so have no opinion. Decide for yourself if the cap fits.

There's no need to repeat yourself. Your earlier post is still there, above my reply.

 

You gave an example of the reasoning by which an imaginary Christian organisation might decide that it will not consider employing technicians who are not Christians. I pointed out that the imaginary organisation's reasoning was the very definition of prejudice. Prejudice + intolerance = bigotry.

 

working with the top 5-10% of the industry.

What does that mean? There is no "top" of the industry as far as the moral behaviour of individuals is concerned.

Some gigs are bigger than others, budgets payscales and lifestyles vary, people are people.

What I'm saying is that you're less likely to come across the kind of crew I come across (who I get on well with and genuinely like even if I don't make the same lifestyle choices as them) because you're working on the prestigious gigs which attract really skilled, really high paid crew. If you're a fairly senior full time employee of one of the big boys (brit row, whitelight, SSE, PRG etc) or working freelance at that level then from my limited experience it seems to be the case that you are far less likely to go for the finish the gig, drink a lot, take some groupies back to the tourbus attitude which still has a significant hold at the lower level which I work. I'm not 100% sure whether this is true in the wider BR's experience, so am open to being corrected on it.

 

I'd also like to ask you the question whether

a) you think there is a significant proportion of touring boys on the 1000 pax circuit who do live the 'rock n roll' lifestyle tho?

b) related to that, do you think that it would undermine their message if a Christian organisation did employ someone like that?

 

a) Er.. If by "rock and roll" lifestyle you mean scraping a living by touring with a rock and roll band, then yes, I'd say a fairly significant proportion - approximately 100%

I meant the above mentioned attitude of drinking lots and sleeping around.

b) You mean if they employed someone who lives a life of drug fuelled moral degeneracy, or someone who is not a Christian - an atheist perhaps, or a Buddhist? Once again - and I'll type this slowly - nobody is suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against drug addled dissolutes, the topic is whether they can (legally and/or morally) discriminate against non-Christians. (Which, lets remember, include people of other religions as well as atheists such as myself.)

 

By the way, the phrase "someone like that" always rings alarm bells for me.

No doubt if you'd asked one of the landladies behind the "No Blacks, No Irish" signs in London less that half a century ago, they'd have told you they didn't want "someone like that".

<snip>

I think that if nobody is contesting that organisations shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against 'drug addled dissolutes' then we're actually all on the same page. I don't think that it is okay to discriminate arbitrarily on grounds of faith, as I've said before, and I was simply offering a potential reason why, reading between the lines a hypothetical Christian organisation might (wrongly) try and invoke that exemption. I definitely didn't mean Atheists, Buddhists or any of the other diverse flavours of non Christian in this case.

 

I'll try not to use the phrase "someone like that". I'm sorry if it caused offence. It was simply a reference to an above question, there wasn't meant to be any bigoted undertone to it.

 

All the best

 

M

[Guest lightnix]

...The differences between different Christians can be as big as the differences between Christians and non-believers, certainly when it comes to actual behavior and not what they claim to believe...

Well ain't that the truth and not confined to Christianity, either. You'd be amazed how bitter those Buddhists can get sometimes :** laughs out loud **:

 

For that reason, in the unlikely event that I were to apply for the "job", I might reasonably want to know from the "employer" what denomination of Christianity they belonged to - there seem to be several to choose from and they don't all agree with each other by any means.

 

I didn't see the post in question, but would agree that it's wrong to determine the suitability of an applicant on grounds of faith alone. There's no such thing as "positive" discrimination in my books :P

 

It does sound as though the ad was badly worded, though. Maybe something like...

 

"Applicants should have a working knowledge of the Christian calendar, New Testament Bible and modern acts of Christian worship, particularly those relating to the sacraments of [e.g.] Baptism, Eucharist and Matrimony"

 

...would possibly have been more appropriate. To me (at least), that would be no more discriminatory than asking for candidates to possess, "a working knowledge of modern TV production techniques, particularly those relating to [e.g.] Outside Broadcast and Light Entertainment" ;)

 

Anyway a true professional will always work to understand the production requirements and what constitutes "acceptable behaviour" for any client; be they based on corporate philosophy, religious beliefs or whatever.

 

That's why I never ate bacon sarneys, in the days when I was mostly setting up Bar-Mitzvahs ;)

[Just Some Bloke]

As a matter of interest, BR mods, have the advertisers responded to your queries regarding their ad yet? My PM to the author elicited no response whatsoever - which, if I'm honest, is what I expected.

I can confim that we did contact the original poster by email, as well as the automated PM they would have received when their post was hidden. So far we have had no reply. I can only assume they have not read their emails or logged on to the BR recently because of pressure of work. It must be a busy time preparing for a tour.

[Bryson]

Chalk me up as another athiest who does lighting design for a christian company. I light shows at the Pacific Theatre in Vancouver, and I have a great time with it. Perhaps because they are trying to broaden their appeal beyond simple "religous issues" and move more into the "moral" space, but also because it's an interesting venue, with great staff and challenging subject matter. (My last show there was about paedophilia...the next one is about euthanasia...cheery stuff, eh?)

 

And guess what: My atheism in no way affects my ability to light these shows, even though I have a direct and overt influence creatively. Why? Because all I'm doing is lighting them. I'm not talking to the audience - I'm not setting the direction - I'm just lighting them. How a followspot operator or DSM could be seen to have a genuine requirement to be of a certain faith is absolutely incomprehensible to me.

[blackbird]

Oh look, The Stage are struggling for news again!!

 

Here

[gareth]

So what did NGM have to say about all this, mods? I really would be interested in hearing their justification for including that clause in their ad - I was (as I said in the first post), and still am, genuinely curious as to their reasoning, and I'd love to know the answer.

[Bryson]

No reply. We did ask.

[Bobbsy]

So what did NGM have to say about all this, mods? I really would be interested in hearing their justification for including that clause in their ad - I was (as I said in the first post), and still am, genuinely curious as to their reasoning, and I'd love to know the answer.

 

The story also made the BBC World Service (radio) a few weeks back and, although NGM wouldn't appear, they issued a statement that was read out. Their justification was that cast AND CREW might have to talk to students after each show.

 

Considering the eloquence of most Follow Spot ops I've encountered on talkback ("Corr...look ata jugs on that 'un") I'm not sure this would have been a good idea.

 

Bob

[Guest lightnix]

I wonder if it would be worth writing to Steve Webb, Liberal MP for Northavon (and Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Energy, Food and Rural Affairs), to ask what his opinion is. He's one of their patrons (see here).

 

I also wonder how Liberal leader, Nick Clegg MP, feels about one of his senior party members being associated with an organisation, which appears to practice discrimination on religious grounds :ph34r: Maybe someone should write and ask him, too ;)

 

 

 

e2a...

...Their justification was that cast AND CREW might have to talk to students after each show...

Sounds like bullsh1t to me - something they made up afterwards. Was the "requirement" for the F/Spot to appear on stage and talk to the audience ever mentioned in the original ad? Errrr... I don't think so - they're just clutching at straws IMO.