A Cogent Criticism Of New Athiesm

Via BoingBoing:

In politics, I think there are two competing motivations for voters to support a cause publicly. One is to influence the majority to agree, to make changes that you believe in, and the other is to distinguish your opinions as superior to most other peoples'. These two motivations generally cause people to act in similar ways, but I've found some "tells" that reveal the underlying elitist motivation:

* Leaving up losing campaign stickers and signs long after the election is over. (I passed a Ron Paul window sign today...)
* Dressing and behaving at political demonstrations in a non-respectful way (partying, trying to "shock people out of their complacency," etc.).
* Saying that it requires superior knowledge or compassion to arrive at the views you hold.
* Saying that it makes you "uncomfortable" or "scared" that a group you don't identify with actually agrees with your view.

Under a democracy, the elitist motivation is self-defeating: If your true aim is to distinguish yourself from the masses, you really don't want your side to win-- your aim is better served when more people vote the other way, and then you can be disgusted with most peoples' stupidity and wash your hands of responsibility.

Very, very, very true. This goes for Atheism (which is the focus of this article), but also for artistic aesthetics, and for politics. This article is spot on. But later on he says:

I think closeted atheists who participate in other religious activities are the future of atheism. They know that prayer feels good without a needing brain scientist to tell them, and they know you don't need God to want to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and provide homes for the orphaned. What if they simply stopped reciting the words that they didn't agree with during religious services, without calling attention to it? In many places I don't think they would be kicked out or turned upon and beaten just for that.

Really? Excuse me? That seems like the most backwards... I can't even put words to it. But imagine if that's what he was saying about closeted gays. Oh, you don't have to make a big deal about being Gay, just don't mouth the words that you disagree with.

As many of the commenters pointed out, the real answer is simply to steer clear of religion and of noisy atheism as well. You don't need to pretend that you're religious, but you don't need to get on a bucket and scream. The difference is that Atheism is not a political party in a Democracy--it's not a political movement. It's only the elitist Atheist who sees their goal as the conversion of all the heathens.

I love to talk to my friends about religion--especially, oddly enough, my Catholic friends, who seem to have the most complex relationship with their religion. (The people whose religion is simply "I've let Jesus into my heart" doesn't give me a lot of complex ideas to grapple with in my atheism, but the complexities of the saints, angel/demonology, witchcraft, church history etc. does).

The false opposition that this article puts forward is that there are only two choices:

1) Elitist, evangelical atheism.
2) "Big tent," populist atheism.

Now, the problem with the "big tent" is that in creating a big tent, you dilute the ideals involved. If you're having a political movement, that's a good thing, because moderation is best for governance of crowds. But if you're talking about personal beliefs, that's a bad thing. Your own beliefs need to have integrity in your personal life, and it's in public life that you need to navigate your way into the crowds.

The GOP Civil War 2: Rush Is Still Winning

Terrifying. Can nobody criticize the man and survive?

The GOP Civil War

David Frum, Via Andrew Sullivan:

A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

I've been hearing allegations of a coming GOP civil war, but I had a feeling that it wouldn't go that way. I didn't think there were any high-profile Republicans left who would take on the way that the behemoth of the GOP was currently headed.

During the primary season, there were four voices who I thought would give an opportunity.

The first was Ron Paul. He was a revival of good ol'fashion Fiscal Conservatism. Granted, he goes way overboard with all of his policies--his noninterventionism is a welcome change from Bush's empire building, but strays far too far into the Hoover Era, as does his fiscal policy. But he gave a cohesive platform, one which excited young conservatives for the first time--and then was promptly quashed by a vengeful GOP.

The second was John McCain, who promised to return balance and accountability to the conservative party. But Bill Kristol brought Sarah Palin to his attention, and quickly his campaign fell under her power, and the Limbaugh-effect set in.

The third was Mike Huckabee. He returned to the good ol' fashion Evangelical Republicanism that proved to be the difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore (who, by the way, is a deeply religious man, or so I've heard). And throughout the campaign, he spoke with a civility and grace that, while hiding a hopelessly backwards outlook on gay rights, climate change, and everything else. Then he decided that Obama was equal to Lenin or Stalin at CPAC, demonstrating that apparently Rush Limbaugh has him by the testicles too.

And the fourth was Bobby Jindal, who was being touted as a smart, bipartisan, Republican answer to Barack Obama. And if you saw his response to the non-SOTU address, it turned out that it was reasonable, conservative, and shallow as a kiddy pool.

But up until now, the "civil war" that was touted didn't seem to come. McCain staffers took out their irritation on Sarah Palin, but other than that, she returned to her position as Governor, and continues to be a presence in the party. At CPAC, it was clear that there wasn't a politician with a backbone who was willing to go against Rush Limbaugh--a few in Congress who voiced doubts were kicked in the ass mightily, one assumes by the Minority Whip or others like him.

Well, at least David Frum is putting his voice into the ring. But the problem is that he's not a politician. This isn't going to be a true GOP civil war until the GOP gets a serious candidate to take others to the mat. The high-profile Republicans in politics who've dissented have largely dissented because of their lack of aspiration to continue--Schwarzenegger, who likely will not win a seat in the Senate, and Crist, who seems happy where he is right now--or have done so at the cost of their political future--Specter, whose current polling indicates that he, like Senator Lincoln Chaffee, is on his way out the door due to excessive moderation (the right feels betrayed and the left has their own candidate).

Let's see if this gathers any steam from the actual power-brokers in the GOP. Otherwise, this is just noise in the echo chamber.

Non-Profit Recession News 2: Foreman Auctions Props

Richard Foreman, the aged avant-garde theater idol, has hit upon a new scheme: selling off his props. He's lucky, because he is in a unique position to actually ask nice prices for those props, for two reasons.

One is that he's Richard Foreman. Although I'm still of the opinion that his best work is behind him, there's no denying that he's a very smart theatermaker, and his future projects always have the potential to impress and create. And he's a big, connected name. So there's a big group of wealthy folks who might buy the objects out of support of Richard Foreman.

The other is that Foreman's prop designers (I know one is named Meghan Buchanan, I don't know if there are any others) are fantastic. Foreman has always been a visually stunning director, and places a large emphasis on artistly baffling and interesting objects in his theater.

Of course, because Richard Foreman is unique in this position, you might not see a lot of that going on. Broadway shows might be able to get away with it, but of course, they're for-profit, so it's somewhat a different beast. On the other hand, if a show puts enough effort into its design, and a theater company sticks around for a while, they might be able to pull off the same feat. For instance, if Elevator Repair Service had some well-crafted props, I'm sure they could find a decent price.

This, by the way, reminds me of the far more interesting Democracy in America auction: the content of the show itself was sold off to interested bidders. It goes up March 30, so I'll check back to say how that show was.

Non-Profit Recession News 1: Donations

Via Andrew Sullivan:

I work for a small, 5-year old non-profit arts organization in Illinois. A couple of our usual big donors have indicated we should be prepared for smaller donations this year, and possibly none in the next couple of years. The are mentioning Obama's tax plans and their need to save money now in anticipation of that. A lot of my colleagues in the not-for-profit world are really scared right now, and we are not happy with Obama. We hear the rhetoric that the government is going to have a reserve to give to non-profits that will make up for some of the lost donations, but the fact is, we have never received federal aid, and likely never would (assuming the organization could even make it that far). Organizations are going to be killed under Obama's plan. I may have voted myself out of a job, and voted a whole community of kids out of art-making opportunities. Frankly, this sucks.

My response (directed to Andrew Sullivan):

I sympathize with your reader who feels that non-profits are going to suffer under Obama's tax plan. One would assume that higher taxes might make people more inclined to find a non-profit to donate to (wasn't that the whole model that non-profit tax deduction is based around?). I myself am just starting a non-profit theater, and the atmosphere here in New York City is one of fear. Foundations will be awarding less, donors will be giving less, large corporate sponsors may be backing out of the charitable world(Washington Mutual in Seattle, other big fish in New York City). But on the other hand, this is only a part of Obama's potential to effect us. After all, if his universal health care plan goes over, then the cost of doing business for non-profits will shift, to a large degree, to the Government. And that money will be coming from the rich--our potential donors, and those who potentially wouldn't donate. The artists who work for us won't have to worry about health care--that does a lot for their long term security working the field.

Obama also gives us the opportunity to change our fundraising models. Rather than plying wealthy donors to give large chunks of money, perhaps we can raise a lot more small donations. In New York City, the Lung Cancer Foundation launched a campaign called "You Are One In A Million." They want 1 million people to give $20, rather than the old fundraising model that looks more like twenty people giving $1 million. Like Obama's, getting smaller donations from more people ensures that we're relying on community outreach rather than wealthy connection to be moving forward; and that's both closer to our missions as non-profits, and more sustainable for the future.

I still think we're going to come out on top from Obama's intervention.

Niceness And The Artistic Process

From Parabasis, about niceness and art.

People don't usually take arguments about things personally. Arguments are simply a clash of ideas that people hold. Ideas are pretty dime a dozen and not particularly precious.

Art on the other hand is personal. Good art is, anyway. Therefore it can be a lot harder to subject this piece of yourself to public scrutiny and it means that conversations about someone's work of art with them can be a lot harder to do.

I left a comment:

I was once in a tough workshop where someone brought in a very close, personal set of emails which were very dear in their heart. After reading the emails to the group, there was a silence. Everyone was afraid to deal with the emails because, well, they were so personal and private.

Then one of the cast members decided to make some adjustments. He started out by asking the person who brought in the emails, "Can I treat these emails as a dramatic text?" From that point forward, we were able to work with the emails like we would work with Hamlet, or Macbeth.

I guess what I'm saying is that all of our art has to come from inside of us, but it has to go to the outside world, and once its out there, it has to be treated like dramatic text, like something for everyone. The artist doesn't have monopoly over their work--it's something they've given to the people who've paid to see it, to the community it's presented for.

Graham and Zimbardo

I am rather a TED Conference junkie, and I'm slowly working my way backwards through their archives. I listened recently to two speeches. The first was Zimbardo, on the scientific nature of evil (his so-called "Lucifer Effect"). The second was Rev. Billy Graham.

Now, Billy Graham is not a person I like very much. But I do have to grant that he's a very charming person--his speech begins with several jokes about himself. Then he focuses on the subject of his lecture: three questions that cannot be answered by science. I didn't listen all the way through, because the first supposedly unanswerable question, "Where does evil come from?"

It's unfortunate for the Reverend that I had just listened to Zimbardo. Because Zimbardo asks the question "Where does evil come from?" And he puts forward a very plausible answer: through systems that incentivize evil and deincentivize good.

I could use this to make a point about how religion asks us to stop short from answering the big questions--it asks us just to look to God. That's certainly Billy Graham's take on religion. But that would be a facile lesson to take from the situation. Because Zimbardo is clearly a religious man, in his own way. After all, he dubs it the Lucifer Effect--and his explanation is about how Lucifer was good but turned to evil. And Zimbardo's experiment is, at its core, a desire to understand that. A desire to understand what turns good into evil, and evil into good.

It became, for me, an interesting rumination on Billy Graham's model of knowledge (with certain bounded 'unknowables') and Zimbardo's model of knowledge (science pushing those boundaries as hard as it can). It is odd to me that the TED Conference would ask Billy Graham to preach a sermon on the limits of knowledge. But I can understand why he's welcome.