Richard Doolins has penned a LOLzy op-ed in today’s New York Times, mocking Arizona’s new National Institute for Civil Discourse that will be headed by former Presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush:
By mid-morning Thursday, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush were conducting anger-management classes, working with Fred Phelps and his civility-impaired congregation from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Mr. Phelps and his strident adherents filed into the institute waving their famously uncivil signs: “God Hates Fags,” “Priests Rape Boys” and “You Are Going to Hell.” After two hours of tea and therapy with the two former presidents, Mr. Phelps and his followers emerged bearing signs that said: “We Believe That the Non-Sectarian Divinity May Not Approve of Certain Sexual Orientations. You May Have A Different Opinion. Let’s Compromise!” and “Some but Not All Priests Have Struggled With Pedophilia. If You Disagree, We Are Willing to Listen!” and “Have A Great Day! Before You Go to Hell!” All of their signs featured cheerful emoticons and happy faces.
. . . The centerpiece of the tour was a look at how even a topic like abortion, predictably rancorous and caustic, may be elevated in tone to an acceptable level of civility. Observers were allowed to watch through one-way mirrors as pro-lifers and pro-choicers struggled to converse civilly and accommodate each other’s polarized views under the watchful eyes of institute mediators.
By noon, progress was undeniable, as pro-choicers were overheard politely saying, “If you will respect my right to choose, I may respect your right to harbor demented religious delusions.” To which the pro-lifers decorously responded, “If you will respect the word of God and the sanctity of all human life, I may respect your right to murder unwanted babies.” Still not quite there, but the day was barely half over! . . .
. . . Still, the civility institute hopes that these time-honored free-speech fundamentals can be modified. Just a bit. If we promote civility, might we not achieve a political nirvana where it is possible to be robust, vehement and caustic while at the same time remaining punctiliously civil and decorous?
Sure, but that would bring to mind another Ambrose Bierce quotation: “Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.”
I think we should all attend the Institute. After all, certain philosophers maintain that New Atheists are deeply morally repugnant, and need schooling in civility. So I can’t wait to start saying things like, “Yes, Mr. Mooney, I think you have shown a certain reticence in engaging the substantive arguments of your critics, but I do adore your coiffure.” Or “Yes, Dr. Stangroom, I have indeed looked at that woman, and while I can’t say that I find her attractive, I wouldn’t for a moment deny your right to lust after the demimonde.”
One of the things I like about Gnu Atheists as afar as they can be distinguished from accommodationists is that they do not shy away from emotional language whether it is angry, rude, sarcastic, welcoming, or joyous.
There are things going on that almost demand an angry response and ridicule from atheists; the Westboro Baptist Church and Tom Johnson (the accommodationists’ little baby) are two such examples.
I remember hearing this announced and thinking it one of the silliest things I’d heard in a while. I mean, I don’t mind Mssrs. Bush and Carter pronouncing on civility. Seems like a harmless ex-presidential thing to do. But an institute? Is it going to be populated by retired mediators?
I blame Templeton. They’re always setting up pompous Institutes and Centers (and Centres) and the like.
Wasn’t GHW Bush the one that said atheists weren’t American citizens?
Pardon my french, but screw that guy, and his idea of ‘civility’?
BTW, are we allowed to cuss on this blog? I never know… but you can guess what word I would have rather used.
Yup. “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”
It should also be noted that none of the other reporters at that press conference aside from Rob Sherman of American Atheist Magazine, who asked the question, reported on it. In fact, up until 5 years ago the quote was disputed. The release of documents in 2006 however prove the quote as accurate. More here.
Hmm. They don’t really “prove.” Inference to the best explanation, probably, but prove, no. What he has is a letter from Bush’s White House attorney defending Bush’s view of atheism, and an inference that if Bush had in fact not said the thing in question, he would have denied it. He didn’t deny it, so he said it. That’s well short of proof.
Mind you, I believe Sherman, and I think the inference is reasonable. But it’s not proof.
Fair ‘nough 🙂 I guess I should have said “provided third party evidence”.
And thanks for that, which I forgot to say – I was unaware of it, and was aware that the source was just one reporter, so this is good to have. I mean it certainly is highly relevant that Bush defended the underlying idea, the bastard.
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm
Dear Professor Coyne,
After reading the linked OpEd, I am still a bit perplexed as to how President Carter enters into it. However, as you seem to insist on it, I am perfectly happy to accommodate your point of view.
Kindest Regards,
etc,etc
Just a mistake; now fixed, thx
I’m struggling today. I have to read everything twice to see if it makes sense. Normally I wouldn’t have caught that either.
I love the mention of Ambrose Bierce! “Devil’s Dictionary” is a true gem.
So, Mr Ham, I certainly recognize your right to peddles lies and miseducate the youth. Will you, in turn, in the interest of consistency, renounce the use of the internal combustion engine? Oh, how could I forget your hypocrisy. FSM bless you.
As per Winston Churchill, it is not “lie,” it is “terminological inexactitude.”
Can we now please haz an Institution of Fuckin’ Incivility?
After all, everybody knows that we need balance in the public sphere, to teach the controversy, to reaffirm the validity of all perspectives, and all the rest of that bullshit.
Cheers,
b&
Yes, please. And I think I should be its first executive director.
Because according to Jeremy Stangroom, no one is more incivil than me.
My mom is sooooooo proud.
By all means, have at it. It’s all yours.
Of course, this also means you’re now the one who has^Wgets to create the IFI….
b&
Oh my, I think I may have found a calling.
Godaddy tells me that incivilityinstitute.com is available for $11.99 a year.
So is just plain incivility.com
The temptation is darn near overwhelming.
Go for it!
I’ll even be one of your lackeys, provided the job comes with either stupid amounts of money or no responsibilities whatsoever. Heck, I’ll even be a lackey if it comes with both stupid amounts of money and no responsibilities whatsoever!
Cheers,
b&
P.S. Certain limited responsibilities, such as rubbing cat bellies, might be deemed acceptable. b&
Beat you to it.
incivilityinstitute.com
&
incivilityinstitute.org
That was mighty incivil of you … which makes you the right person for the job!!
Over-qualified, some might say.
I’ll sell ’em to the rudest bidder.
Oh, you could parallel the name of the centre more closely… the National Institute for Raucous Intercourse!
That sounds like fun to me.
Nah, if we’re going to go that route, we need a good backronym.
How ’bout the Foundation for the Unification of Civil Knowledge?
Cheers,
b&
Foundation for the Unification of Civil Knowledge, Youth Order United™?
You beat me to it.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribed to your newsletter.
(subscribing)
Why is it that there’s always a call for people to not SAY bad things about people who DO bad things, but dead silence from those critics about the people who do those bad things? It is as though they not only believe that rudeness about those people is worse than harmful actions, but that being quiet somehow makes those actions disappear. I mean, WTF?!?!
Because it would hurt the family’s reputation if you were to air these accusations against your father in open court, and your grandmother would be disappointed.
Oh, sorry, wrong topic. Same principle though.
This annoying “you’re such a meanie” topic is replacing the truly important and interesting issue: whether or not science and religion are compatible.
Maybe the gnus could just say “thank you for your opinion” and keep focused on what’s important.
I’ve been thinking this myself. ‘Twould be nice to be able to just focus on the message and ignore the tone trolls, which is basically all the accomos are.
‘Tis my opinion that if they were only “tone-trolls”, then we could ignore the “a-commies”.
But they are more than trolls.
They are actively retarding secular progress, and thwarting the eradication of truly infantile superstitious thinking.
Their precepts are both unsupported by any evidence, and very short-term oriented and narrow focussed.
In short: they are explicitly working against long-term educational progress through obsessive concentration on the symptoms, rather than the disease itself.
Jerry, I must inform you that the proper internet term is ‘lulzy.’
“A thouand apologies for my incivility; please do forgive my hitting you in the fist with my nose.”
By the way, if you ever need to tone up your impulse control, and as a consequence your “civility,” go substitute teach occasionally in the middle school “vineyards.”
“Die old man.” How would that be rendered? “May flights of angels bear thee to Paradise, ancient of days”?
“Get out of my face, canine female!”
Another: let’s see if I can faithfully transliterate:
“(Have sexual congress with) you(-rself), you wizened, venerable sage of indeterminate parentage!”
THere’s no need for this. The UK can supply courses from here:
http://www.londonschoolofetiquette.com/LONDON_SCHOOL_OF_ETIQUETTE.html
I would suggest:
~ Men Only – How To Be a Modern Gentleman
~ Women Only – How to Be a Modern Lady
Demimonde indeed! Lol. Let me try, “Dr Collins, your scientific contributions are all the more impressive considering your belief system has no basis in reality”. Or, “Mr Wright, although you sold out faster than bus tickets out of Tripoli, I do think your Testudine features are pleasantly soothing.”
Dammit but the “be civil” admonishment drives me up the wall.