« Ah, Look At All The Lonely People | Main | Open Letter To The Universe »

June 15, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Isaac: You know, my eyes really had to roll when Viola started to speak. It reminded me of Christopher Durang's Laughing Wild:

"But I remember when everybody won Tonys for Dreamgirls, and they all got up there thanking God for letting them win this award, and I was thinking to myself: God is silent about the Holocaust, be He involves Himself in the Tony awards? It doesn't seem very likely."

I share your frustration about not being understood and left alone. But hasn't that always been the lot of the enlightened?


I think when award show audiences go ape-shit over things like this, they aren't applauding the idea presented - that there is a god. They are expressing a kind of envy of someone who has a belief strong enough to be real - however guided or misguided - and break the mold of propriety and express something honest and heartfelt amidst all the BS. I don't think it was belief being applauded, it was a rare moment authenticity compared to lists of producers, etc., to be thanked.


I am also tired of hearing God being thanked at events such as the TONYs, and as you've noted above, it seems amazing that HE manages to fix the TONY races while leaving the human race and the ecosystem generally on an apparent self-destruct switch. When will the idea that there is a benevolent father figure up in the clouds be considered just one of many things to believe in and not the default setting for human thought? When will the idea of having no such beliefs ever have a place in mainstream culture?
I mean, for fuck's sake, you can have a TV show where the main character is a lovable serial killer (i.e., "Dexter"), but you're not going to get a pilot greenlit if the hero is an unrepentant atheist. So that's where we stand these days: be a killer, sure, just as long as the thing you're not killing is the idea of God.


Sometimes I wonder if it's non-believers who are most committed to anthropomorphizing god. Is it needed so that there's someone to shoot down when things go wrong? Or is it a way to challenge those who speak in such terms, because it's a less intellectual, common language? I'd guess that a less intellectual, common language was very much needed back in the biblical days (non-readers - the nerve! lol) so maybe some folks today - even if I wish they wouldn't - could be cut some slack for perpetuating this talk.

I've had the opportunity to speak to some very religious folks who do no such thing. They'll tell you that god is love. Not a He. Not a person on a cloud. Just love... wherever... everywhere... no matter how small or in short supply. I imagine that applies to the procreation of ants as much as it does wars and famine. Love cannot pick and chose issues or which side to be on, so why would we think that god does?

It's only when we turn god into an image of ourselves, a being, that anyone can make a case that god chooses anything. I can't see that being the case. Love may not be a great answer, but it seems much closer than some individual, ruling over all from heaven/outerspace. And who doesn't think that we can always use a little more love/god around here... at the Tonys... and everywhere?

Does this make me an atheistic-believer?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker