Find the worst example, then make a lawsuit out of it, hoping to establish precedent. That's the ACLU's way. Find the worst example, then make a feature story out of it, hoping to establish the ridiculousness of the other side. That's the New York Times' way.
A story in this morning's paper talks about a small town's controversy over the high school production of one of my favorite movies (musicals) of all time: Grease. According to the article, the high school director took out the foul language and cleaned up some of the subject matter. But people--Christians, of course--objected, prompting the school superintendent to cancel it, and then cancel the spring production of Arthur Miller's The Crucible. Excerpt:
But a month after the performances in November, three letters arrived on the desk of Mark Enderle, Fulton's superintendent of schools. Although the letters did not say so, the three writers were members of a small group linked by e-mail, all members of the same congregation, Callaway Christian Church.
Each criticized the show, complaining that scenes of drinking, smoking and a couple kissing went too far, and glorified conduct that the community tries to discourage. One letter, from someone who had not seen the show but only heard about it, criticized "immoral behavior veiled behind the excuse of acting out a play."
Dr. Enderle watched a video of the play, ultimately agreeing that "Grease" was unsuitable for the high school, despite his having approved it beforehand, without looking at the script. Hoping to avoid similar complaints in the future, he decided to ban the scheduled spring play, "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller.
What's the moral of the story? This: Just three people can disrupt an entire school play performance, crushing the efforts of the youngsters involved in the project; it's borderline cruel, and the three people are just agitators who cause turmoil in an otherwise-peaceful community, fighting over a rather innocuous thing like a watered-down production of Grease.
The NYT's slant against the agitators is understandable (based on the story, I wouldn't have objected to the production, but it's fair to question whether it's proper for high school students). But the NYT forgets who mastered the M.O. of a few bullying the many: the ACLU-ites and other "civil libertarians" who disrupt community sentiment and tradition for the crank tastes of one or two atheists or Wiccans, for the inflamed sensibilities of one or two racial minorities, or for the perverse appetites of a few homosexuals or transexuals or megasexuals (those who want sex all the time, from anyone, anything, anywhere).
