“God, No…”
Theater review
At: Generic Theater, Norfolk, Virginia
June 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28
Atheist Performer Shines
“God, No…” is a new play about the life of Madalyn O’Hair. The play takes the form of a biography, with a cast of one. The set consists only of a door, a few black blocks which at various times serve as a table, couch, and draped coffin, and still photos projected at the back of the stage. The photos include the row house in Baltimore where Madalyn grew up, her home in Austin, the Supreme Court building, and others. Each photo had the year on it to help the audience follow from scene to scene.
A nice touch was the addition of recorded classical music which included the Dvorak New World Symphony and Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. The Beethoven especially reminded me of Madalyn’s love for playing the piano — a talent she lost forever when the Baltimore police beat her to the point where she suffered permanent disability in her hands.
With such minimal resources and being just over an hour long, one would think that such a production could not do justice to America’s most famous Atheist. However, the play came to life in Sheila Walters’ brilliant portrayal of Madalyn O’Hair — especially when she delivered quotes from Madalyn’s speeches and writing. With a little imagination, it felt like I was once again hearing Madalyn in person. First class acting skills were evident, but it certainly cannot hurt when the actor is a member of Tidewater Atheists and can so naturally deliver the lines of America’s most hated Atheist.
The play covered all of the major personal events in Madalyn’s life. Activism included her part in the 1963 school prayer decision, her efforts to remove “under God” from the pledge, her efforts to remove “In God We Trust” from our money, the formation of American Atheists, her lawsuit against NASA, her lawsuit against the Pope, and her efforts to freeze the production of nuclear weapons. Most of the content was factual. However, the death scene left out Jon Garth, and two of the three murderers.
The Catholic writer, Chip Fortier, captured the refreshing brashness of Madalyn, and I found it touching when he had her speak to her children in a loving manner. Unfortunately, he attributed the motivation for her Atheist activism to simple megalomania and seemed to miss her intellectual side altogether. Lines such as “There was no Atheist movement before me; I am the Atheist movement” and lines that implied that she was primarily motivated by the desire to make Bill, Jon, and Richard O’Hair famous were off the mark.
Still, there were many memorable lines. “An Atheist accepts that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist accepts that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated.” “Religion is a crock of shit.” “Only the crippled need crutches” (referring to the religious). “What is Atheism like? It is like the end of cowardice in your life.” “I don’t believe in miracles, angels, or a virgin having a child without sex.”
In the theater there is nothing wrong with dramatic liberty in the text as long as it does not create false impressions or attack someones character. Unfortunately, some dramatic (and false) liberty was taken with the character of Madalyn and Robin. Most offensive was when Mr. Fortier had Robin praying during her murder. How despicable and disrespectful to the memory of such a kind, loving, sensitive, and thorough Atheist!
Sometimes it was hard to know what was true and what was invented. Sometimes lines in the play did not fit with my understanding of Madalyn’s thoughts and her personality. One highly questionable line of Madalyn’s was “I believe in free will.” Another was the description of Susan, Robin’s birth mother, as having a “pasty Jewy face.” Still another was “They ruined my Christmas!” when referring to the reading of Genesis by the Apollo 8 astronauts.
In spite of the flaws in the writing, the play was still entertaining and had many moments. Hopefully, other plays will be written which will more accurately reflect the thoughts and personality of Madalyn and be more inclusive of Jon Garth and Robin.
Neal Cary
Posted by Blair Scott
What a succinct and dead-on description of atheists because atheism provides the ultimate crutch as a conduit for bitterness and despair for those unwilling to accept their own shortcomings in life.
It is the exact opposite. As evidenced here, atheists, are not pleasant people. Resorting to atheism is a full surrender to despair; a complete immersion in hopelessness; it is the intellectual consummation of cowardice. It’s no wonder that atheists are much more susceptible suicide.
Sorry jcc, but I don’t quite see how not believing in something provides a crutch.. I’m not bitter, nor am I in despair. I accept my shortcomings because they are a part of everyone and I know it’s ok to not be perfect. I also don’t see how you can make any comment on what it’s like to be an atheist when you aren’t one. How is it a complete immersion in hopelessness? I don’t see how it’s an example of cowardice if you are willing to live life for lifes sake and do good for the sake of goodness rather than for “god”.
Because atheism cannot offer its adherents any kind of enduring hope. In the end, all it can sustain is despair.
Living for one’s own sake is the embodiment of narcissism; doing good with no transcendent, objective standard of what “good” is, is an exercise in futility.
Well, atheism still isn’t a religion. Why is there a despair at the ending of life? There isn’t. Life is: it begins, it runs to the end of things, & is gone.
I would argue that the concept of the afterlife is narcissism: the claim that somehow, the universe not only cares for 1, but that it reserves a special cozy little womb for oneself. That is, of course, a form of conditional love: do a little of this, perform a little of that, there ya go, a ticket for special little ol’ you.
If you say that the ‘transcendent, objective standard’ is supernatural, I’d say it wasn’t.
jcc says – Because atheism cannot offer its adherents any kind of enduring hope. In the end, all it can sustain is despair.
Despair? Really?
Also says – Living for one’s own sake is the embodiment of narcissism; doing good with no transcendent, objective standard of what “good” is, is an exercise in futility.
I said for life’s sake, not for one’s own sake… I don’t need enduring hope to appreciate life.. A good objective standard of “good” can be observed in nature.. It’s called altruistic behavior… Humans are social animals because it is in the best interest of the individual. Even the great apes and other “lower” primates (i.e. monkeys) have figured this out.. If you knew anything about evolutionary biology or behavioral science maybe you wouldn’t make such ignorant comments..
Really! Despair.
From a materialist point of view, what’s the difference?
Really? Then on what basis do you appreciate life?
Thanks for another sterling example of a circular argument. So tell me, how did nature blindly discern what “good” is?
Huh? Altruism is in the best interest of the one being altruistic? How did that ever evolve?
Oh, so that explains the existence of the “Alpha male,” yeah, I see now…
And maybe if you possessed a modicum of common sense you wouldn’t make such embarrassing assertions.
Krys:
Would that be because in order to be one, one must religiously adhere to that tenet?
and that argument could only be made by someone who is either unclear on the concept of an omnipotent and gracious Creator, or who is deliberately trying to distort the argument with animism; we are not the product of an inanimate, impersonal, material universe.
Who’s abandoning all hope? Denying the supernatural becomes all that? You are kidding, right? Is there a buried ad hominem in there somewhere? (That’s a rhetorical question: you’d not admit it if there was.)
Psst…misuse of the apostrophe. & there ARE instances where there’s no choice – suicide, like religion, is an emotional choice, usually not a logical one.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/22/opinion/when-suicide-is-not-a-choice.html
“The tragedy, however, is not that people get depressed. Clinical depressions are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain and are no more an aberration than insulin shock is to the diabetic. Rather, “the tragedy of depression-related suicide,” as Dr. Jan Fawcett of Chicago’s Rush Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center has said, “is that hopelessness can be reversed.”"
Ah, no. Not a real qualification. I’d look it up, but there’s no ‘holy text’, so that’s SOL.
Umm…I’m making that argument, but no, I am clear on your allegedly ‘gracious creator’, & no, I’m not distorting it via animism.
& yes, we ARE the product of AIIMU. Res ipsa loquitor.
& please do stop wrangling meanings out of my words that aren’t there.
No it isn’t. It takes considerable bravery to step up & cop to an unpopular viewpoint.
Ah, yer breakin’ me wee heart, you are. Painting w/a broad brush, are we? Is that an absolute judgment, or a subjective 1?
Who’s unpleasant now? Yeah, I really want to come running over to your side. It was crap like this that convinced me that religion is…unpleasant.
You always seem to call the tune you want to dance to, donthca? That’s a bald assertion w/no hard evidence to support it. We’ve waltzed this before: suicide is primarily biological, not ideological.
Your right. This guy is just flat out annoying with his idiocy
It takes bravery to abandon all hope?; to succumb to the ultimate intellectual self-indulgence and go pout in the corner of one’s life because life failed to meet one’s expectations?; to deny the purpose for the universal, intrinsic desire for self-preservation? You and I have an all-together different concept of “bravery.”
Oh? So there have been cases where individual’s had no choice in committing suicide?—What a crock…
It’s ironic that your post, which is a passive aggressive and self indulgent insult fest, asserts that atheists are not pleasant people.
The difference between the times when you insult us and when we insult you is that when people here insult you, they do it plainly and obviously – and often (though not always) defensively. When you insult people, you try to wrap it in passive aggressive wording so that you personally feel free from responsibility for your negativity.
The only person you’re fooling is possibly yourself.
OK, that’s very Rovian. This is really Karl Rove, isn’t it? Only Rove would take a statement and turn it 180 degrees like this.
And by the way, we’re only unpleasant to people like you, who invade our space and try to force religion down our throats.
Why don’t you go pray for Mark Sanford or something else unconstructive.
Oh wait, you are being unconstructive by posting on this blog.
HA!
I sencond that motion.
Ok. I got 2 questions for you.
One: wjere are you getting your facts are you just lieing or are
You really that stupid?
Two: you are obviously a christian(the personal attacks on us
Makes that clear). Why are you on this blog?
jcc,
You devote a significant amount of time in your life coming here to poke at us, trying to evoke negative reactions. Every one of your posts is a interruption, a blip, an irritation, an impediment to fruitful and pleasant discussion. Not one of us, to my knowledge, has ever had any dealings with you in person. Not one of us has inserted themselves in your life the way you constantly do with us, and why would we? The sad truth is that we cause you no harm, but apparently the mere fact that we exist and do not happen to agree with you, consumes you. You are the one who goes out of his way to snark at us, safely tapping away on your computer keyboard. Who is the coward here? Who is not a pleasant person? Try looking in the mirror. And try getting a real, productive life.
Tarma, thank you for summing up our fealings towards jcc. Thank you for saving us the work.
It was mostly for me to vent. jcc is deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to common sense and courtesy, and I have no reason to think he will give up his unwanted and insulting proselytizing anytime soon. Still, one has to try to get through to him on occasion.
Tarma
What a sad picture of JCC you paint. Sad … and accurate.
JCC obviously you think all atheists are miserable old men, I won’t bother trying to change your mind, but how do you feel about this portion of the quote?-
Even if you believe in the power of prayer to some extent, wouldn’t you have to admit that resources devoted to a hospital are a bit more beneficial than those devoted to prayer and worship or perhaps proselytizing?
As for the play- I haven’t grown much of a taste for theatre, but this actually sounds interesting. I wonder how it will be received.
You’re kidding, right? Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of institutions like: Presbyterian Hospital, or Methodist Hospital… Even Wikipedia admits that:
So tell me, ya think the historic concept of hospitals would’ve gotten off the ground when it did if “religious” folk didn’t contribute what they did to it? …And by the way, why don’t we hear more about all the atheist sponsored hospitals that do so much for so many people, huh?
Maybe you’re not reading the sentence properly:
“wouldn’t you have to admit that resources devoted to a hospital are a bit more beneficial than those [resources] devoted to prayer and worship or perhaps proselytizing?”
Yes, because again, it’s about biology, not ideology.
Interesting factoid: Buddhists invented hospitals.
Maybe you’re not comprehending the concept properly: acting as the body of Christ, Christians have done far greater good with their resources (including the building of churches) than atheists ever have, and will ever hope to…
JCC- Religious groups spend a miniscule percentage of their resources on hospitals- still a positive impact, but imagine how much more could be contributed if they did not spend billions on churches and other religious expenses.
Not to mention the life-saving medical research that has been historically retarded by Christians. The resources and TIME wasted on Jesus are astronomical, then add on the loss of productivity by those waiting for God to provide.
JCC has forgotten that he and his ilk put BushCo The Destroyer in power. That’s quite an accomplishment.
In light of this review, and by the way, thanks Neal Cary for posting this, I think I’d like to re-issue my call for help on a certain idea.
I’d like to create a permanent memorial monument here in Austin for the Murray-O’Hairs. I’ve done a lot of research, and the best way to do this is to purchase a small monument and have it installed at a certain cemetery here in Austin. The cost would be around $15,000. It would be there forever and would be easily accessible to any Atheist, to visit and/or to monitor. I volunteer to monitor it, and make sure it’s always in good condition.
As most of you should know, the Murray-O’Hairs were finally buried in an unmarked grave out in the middle of nowhere, the location, still a mystery to most Atheists. I’d like to establish at a different location something for them, not just Madalyn, for all three of them.
Nothing like this exists as yet that I know of. It’s just not right. If anyone would like to help me with this project, please e-mail me privately at: jzamecki@atheists.org
Joe Zamecki
Texas State Director,
American Atheists
Austin, Texas
Joe
What an excellent idea!
What jumped out at me was the line about Mrs. O’hair being the Atheist movement. I mean, that doesn’t bother me. She deserves a lot of credit for what she accomplished with her life, especially in a time when red scares were rampant and an atheist could easily be accused of being a communist, even if you didn’t ascribe to that ideology.
Also, I’m tired of atheists slamming “leaders” of the movement. If you stick your neck out, that should be celebrated. Even if you don’t agree with them on every other issue, an atheist that speaks out and gains some stature has accomplished something for all of us.
Remember what Ben franklin said: “either we stand together, or we hang seperately”.
Fine and dandy. So why don’t you leave us all to our despair, narcissism, and futility, then?
Clueless. Completely clueless.
Hope is snake oil. Do. Don’t hope.
This ridiculous assertion is proven false by the MILLIONS of atheists currently living happy, healthy lives absent of despair. But, maybe one with such a twisted religious mind is incapable of understanding what it means to be truly happy without the oppressive fantasy of religious faith? Maybe a mind like yours can only feel happiness when it’s served with an unhealthy dose of delusion?
Believing some supernatural, all-powerful being in the sky created everything in the universe for man…and holds man to be his greatest creation, designed in his likeness, and for the sole purpose of loving and worshiping him – now that’s real narcissism at a level only religionists can know, and at the same time, rigorously deny. Theists and hypocrisy are like kibbles and bits, they just go oh-so-well together.
Let’s be clear about what is being written here. JCC is telling us that in the absence of his theism he would not be compelled to “do good”. Every atheist here is telling him that they are compelled to “do good” without theism. So JCC is telling us what he lacks. And that which he lacks is an innate impulse to “do good”.
Scary. No?
So perhaps – perhaps – it is a good thing that JCC in particular is a believer. But without doubt – without doubt – he is an innately deficient human by his own standard.
Perhaps he should leave those of us who do not suffer said deficiencies in peace and focus his efforts on himself and the similarly afflicted?
Krys:
Pssst. Sue me.
Oh PUH-LEEEZE!!!
And did ya happen to notice the category that piece was under?
Oh, ok, then could ya further explain what obviously conscious entity you were referring to as “the universe” in this sentence?: the universe not only cares for 1, but that it reserves a special cozy little womb for oneself.
Oh, ok, then could ya further explain how an inanimate, impersonal material universe can “speak for itself”?
Given that you attempted to defend your ludicrous assertion about an inanimate, unconscious universe giving rise to conscious beings indicates that I “wrangled” your intended meaning…
No, but no doubt somehow that will completely (in your mind) dispense w/the commentary of the medical professional.
Play context games all you like – go back & read the entire sentence.
Must be nice to cherry pick your meanings. I won’t explain, because that was not the inference. Learn to read.
It’s not a ludicrous assertion. It’s what happened.
Let’s skip to the chase – I demand evidence, you provide some, I point out where it doesn’t fit and/or is illogical, you make various untrue accusations (that you fancy are witticisms) about my comprehension, intellect, etc., I get pissed & call you a name, you then become a whiny bitch who complains weepily that he’s being picked on (poor St. Lazarus among the [intellectual] lepers), I then try to explain how your ‘evidence’ is no damn good, you level more false accusations at my character, & the whole damn discussion becomes a pissing contest.
I think I’ve won, you think you’ve won, & there, I saved us a whole load of time.