So much for civility and respect … one of the dumbest Facebook replies

So a friend posted her thoughts regarding the current political environment, and she mentioned her assessment of how she approaches her religious beliefs with respect to politics and the government overall, and emphasized the ‘separation of church and state.’

And there were quite a few responses – all of them were respectful and civil. In fact, my friend mentioned how pleased (and a bit surprised) everyone was being polite even when there was a disagreement.

But then this reply comes into the fray. 

As far as I’m concerned this is 1) typical of someone who espouses a “new atheism” or who adheres to the “I’m spiritual but not religious” notion; 2) offered by persons who really have nothing to add to a conversation other than a kind of “I’m so much more enlightened than you folks;” 3) used more often then not as a way to shut down civil conversation by caricaturing those who may disagree.

Now I don’t know whether this person is an atheist – but this is something that is said by atheists all too frequently. Regardless of this person’s motivation in posting this … it has got to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen in awhile. I mean seriously stupid!

At no point had anyone in this conversation even remotely suggested that there be an American theocracy. And frankly, not one candidate for any political office has suggested this either. A theocracy is a government actually ruled by a religious authority. Even if a political candidate speaks about his or her faith and even if that same candidate states that his/her faith influences how she/he judges situations and engages in the public square … that is not a theocratic viewpoint. But let’s not let critical thinking or common sense or simple decency cloud our thinking.

And to suggest that a belief in God is equivalent to being foolish, possessing uncritical thinking, being obscene and immoral (the opposite of decent), and being filled with hatred or cruelty (as opposed to compassion) is baseless and plain ol’ dumb. That people throughout history have acted this way … that people will more than likely continue to act this way at various points in history … that these same people may also profess to be religious … SO WHAT?!?

New flash: people don’t always behave. But that does not mean that an inherent belief in God is the source of this bad and sinful behavior.

Even if people were to justify their decisions and actions based on a particular religious tenet, and let’s just say that these actions are horrible and to be despised … this does not impute the same to every single believer as being mean, hate filled, stupid, and indecent.

I would say this same thing regardless of a person believing in God or if a person were an atheist. There are stupid, mean, obscene, sinful people on all sides. This doesn’t necessarily mean that their particular belief system is riddled with stupid, mean, obscene, hate-filled, murderous tenets.

=== NOTE ===

I considered whether or not to pixelate or mask the person’s name from their comments when I placed it as an image in this post. The person chose to go public with this comment on a very public forum and therefore, a public comment can be and should be attributable. Therefore I’ve left the name in tact.

=== NOTE #2 ===

Just a reminder … this is my blog and I do welcome comments. However, I do not welcome nasty, unsubstantiated, personal attacks no matter how witty one may think those to be. My general rule is that if you conduct yourself in the same way as you would do if you were sitting in my living room, showing the respect that comes from being a guest/visitor, then you’re probably just fine. Anyone who doesn’t play by my rules will be deleted. 

Why I do it – theater and young people

OOPs! I never published this blog post … it’s about a month late. Even though I’m remiss in its posting until now, the sentiment and thoughts are still and always pertinent. So I give you without further adieu …

---

This weekend wraps up the performances of “Footloose” the musical with an organization – the Young Adult Drama Group (YADG). This year marks my fourth project with them. As the show ended last night I was speaking with one of the parents of a cast member. He was, of course, appreciative – and he also said, “This is something really great for the community as well as the kids. It’s a great way for them to spend their Summer.”

And that comment got me to reflect on why – really why – I do this and will continue to do this program each year (as long as they will have me back).

It is indeed a community – a communal experience. And by that experience we are all enriched. This is important (more than one might think) because we in the Western, developed world have an unhealthy attachment to “self,” and we tend to elevate “rugged individualism” to an extreme. We’ve lost the sense of community and the communal experience, where we innately know and believe that we are “all in this thing together.” Theater breaks the false myth of rugged individualism because one cannot succeed except for participation in and with the group of actors, techs, musicians, etc.

Let’s face it – we are seldom, if ever, acting alone in this thing called life and living … our actions have an impact on others, even if we are unaware of those consequences. Our decisions and our actions are by their very nature communal in that they are influenced by and, in turn, influence those around us. We learn this first from our own family. Then we experience a larger and larger community as we attend school, start a family of our own, get a job, etc. Every decision and action will have and does have an impact on someone somewhere in the community around me. Theater teaches us this very simple, yet all-too-often ignored, truth. It’s not didactic … but rather experiential. The young people see how their decisions and actions impact others around them. And given that we are all working toward the same goal – that of an entertaining performance – we work toward what is good for the community as a whole.

It’s like a saying attributed to Bertolt Brecht:

“Art is not a mirror, but a hammer. It does not reflect; it shapes.”

These young people are experiencing how to act within the context of a community – a community that they are choosing to create.

I’ve also seen these young people grow up and grow into confident young men and women. Even among the shy kids, over the years I have witnessed them gain confidence … they realize that they are indeed capable people; and when one works hard and is supported by others in their work, one succeeds. They also learn that taking risks is a necessary part of life … that one cannot just hide in an attempt to go unnoticed. Some of these same “shy kids” stepped up this year and auditioned for a leading role in the show. Just the act of auditioning was their accepting the need to take a risk. And nearly every one of them did get cast in a role … the risk paid off!

Lastly, it’s just plain old fashioned fun! We all have a good time working in rehearsals and then performing for an audience. It’s just a blast.

Why I love Sondheim’s music

I just started to work on an upcoming production of Into the Woods … and once again I am enthralled with how Stephen Sondheim masterfully puts his music together. Case in point ….

Act two starts with a very lovely, open-sounding melody. The actors are really singing in 3/4 phrasing, which is a waltz.

Characters’ phrases are 3-beat groupings

It’s a slow waltz, which makes it elegant, regal, lilting, and romantic (rather than “dancing” such as in a Strauss waltz which is a bit more fun, capricious, and intoxicating) … This makes total sense in that it begins with Cinderella and her prince, who are the royal family of the show. So, it should be elegant and regal.

The romance of this melody and the slower 3/4 phrasing has two meanings:

• the romance of the royalty and of the characters’ love
• the romance of a fairy tale – which is how act 1 ended – in a “happily ever after”

3/4 time being a waltz … the emphasis is on the first beat: ONE – two – three; ONE-two-three; ONE-two-three … and so on. The stressed first beat gives a foundation to the phrase; and we expect this type of stress … go ahead – say it to yourself, “ONE-two-three, ONE-two-three, ONE-two-three.”

So the characters’ phrases feel solid, steady, expected … almost stately … and certainly romantic.

It would seem that all is just dandy.

But one of the themes of this show is that of being careful what you wish for, because if and when you get your wish you may not like the real results. The honeymoon feeling wears off rather quickly for the characters … the romance changes into the more hum-drum, work-a-day life. It ain’t all a fairytale. There’s something not-quite-right in the land of Cinderella and her Prince and with the other characters.

And Sondheim conveys this not-quite-right feeling by manipulating the stresses in the phrasing. Whereas the actors are singing in a 3/4 rhythm – with two groups of three in each measure, the orchestra is playing in groupings of four plus two … one-two-three-four one-two; one-two-three-four one-two

Orchestra playing 6/4 in grouped patterns of four plus 2

And unlike a strict waltz, this grouping of four-plus-two doesn’t have a predictable stress in any of the beats. The stress that would have been felt by the characters’ melody is nearly gone when it is coupled with the orchestra’s phrasing.

By juxtaposing these patterns with each other, Sondheim takes a solid, predictable romantic feeling and makes it into a ‘not-quite-a-waltz.’ It’s not quite what we’d expect … it’s not quite the happily ever after … it’s not quite everything that we dreamed it would be …

He could have (and I would imagine that lesser creative composers would do this) used harmonies or dissonance in the orchestra to foreshadow some kind of brewing trouble. But he didn’t. Here the characters have a lovely little melody and the orchestra is playing a lovely sounding part. So it’s not so much a foreshadowing of something but a sense of being unsettled – of it not being entirely perfect as we had imagined it to be.

And this is why this moment in the show is so satisfying to the audience. They’d never analyze the music nor even consciously think about the rhythmic structure. But the audience would feel as though there’s something not quite right … that the luster of having attained their wish is just beginning to feel ever-so-slightly tarnished.

One more reason that I love Sondheim’s music.