George Carlin is a national treasure—his “Touched By An Atheist” skit is beautiful. Hank Fox’s commentary isn’t bad, either.
Maybe it’s time for me to start ministering down at the hospital. The usual frauds there could use some competition. If only “evangelical” weren’t such a nasty, evil word!
In the software industry, nobody seems to object to the term “technology evangelist” for someone whose job is to promote some new “technology” (more likely a product, platform, standard, etc.).
To be honest, it makes me cringe a little, but that’s probably the old Catholic guilt coming back at hearing the term trivialized, rather than a secular offense at the religious reference.
My reaction would probably be different if the term was applied to a government official. I already dislike the term “czar” for a person in charge of a policy area (anything to suggest an erosion of democracy is no laughing matter to me). It would be quite disturbing if we had policy “evangelists.”
Language nerd point: ÎµÏ Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¹Î¿Î½ (evangelion) essentially means “good news” (with certain shifts in emphasis and meaning because the phrase was pretty much assimilated by Christians). “Gospel” was originally the same phrase in Old English, but was even more obviously taken over by the pious.
So theoretically, one could evangelize atheism. Maybe something like: “Have you heard the good news? The universe is real. We’re all free.”
There’s a quote I remember seeing somewhere … found it:
PaulC: It would be quite disturbing if we had policy evangelists.
I believe that “spin doctors” and partisan pundits and suchlike are exactly that.
Hmm – what a notion – an “Evangelical Atheist”
Somehow, I’m thinking it could turn into quite the Monty Python skit…
But isn’t that what Dawkins already is, with “Root of All Evil?” and _The God Delusion_?
We could use a few more, though.
I tried to come up with something to express the concept – someone who actively tries to deconvert people – without the apparent oxymoron in “evangelical atheist”, but couldn’t come up with anything good. “Atheist advocate” isn’t bad, I guess.
Of course, it’s possible PZ was just joking about “evangelical” being an evil word – words can’t really be evil, except to a magical thinker – but I for one wouldn’t care to be associated with it, any more than with “crusade” or other words with a bloody history.
Thanks, PZ. The video was hilarious! I sent it to some of my friends.
[Otaku] Let’s hear you say that when you’re staring down the barrel of a positron cannon wielded by one of those things. [/Otaku]
It’s not my fault that Japanese animators turn everything into yet another giant damn robot. Or something else oversized. Or something with tentacles.
I have to say, MadTV is about the last place I would expect to see such programming.
Does anyone know when that particular sketch was made? Because Touched By An Angel went off the air years ago.
Here is a link to two comments by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett on “bright rights”.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bright/bright_index.html
They suggest that rational people should be known as “brights” and that, as Dennett says, it is time for the brights to come out of the closet.
“Heaven’s like Ireland. Without the Pipe Bombs”
Brilliant!
“brights” is dorky, it’s like calling yourself “nifty.” not to mention some hellish windchime-and-crystal connotations. but dawkins gives me an idea: let’s go with something that’s already worked, let’s try to take the word “gay!” it’s already lost its original meaning, will be wonderfully confusing, and will make the right’s daily Two Minutes Hate much more convenient. And we can sell “evolution is totally gay” t-shirts!
Carlin’s “Toledo Window Box” schtick really helped propel me outta the atheist closet, back in the day. It’s great to see this kind of sketch get airtime; whenever it aired originally.
Despite my affection for the FSM’s noodly appendage, I’m thinkin’ that “Gay” may not be a much better moniker than “Brights”.
I’ll just stick with callin’ myself a silly human, and screw the political lables except for reference purposes. We’re all just ones of billions.
Does anyone know when that particular sketch was made? Because Touched By An Angel went off the air years ago.
Looks like that’s from February, 2000. I knew he looked younger there – somehow his cheeks are puffing out in recent years.
Hey! Don’t diss nifty!
I’m not sure that it is an indication of anything of importance but I look back on the Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV and count off the ones that have been used on prime time. Thanks primarily to NYPD Blues and a few others the seven have been whittled down to four. Adding a crass nature to public discourse may not be a good thing, but perhaps as society becomes less anal (can I say that?) and uptight there is hope.
I’m not convinced the concept of “crass” is meaningful, anyway. Looks like a lot of hypocritical looking-down-the-nose at people who actually, ick, *do something* to support themselves, to me.
shyster:
No. You are not allowed.
That’s not because it’s crass, but because it’s a cliche (inspired, I think, by discredited Freudian theories) that has been overused to the point of having only a very vague meaning. In this context, a better word might be “priggish.”
Carlin will be on Leno tonight. The other guest – Ann Coulter.
Let’s see how that goes.
Whoa, Chris, where did that come from? When did freely using “shit,” “piss” and a few of the other “seven words” become the sign of the true workingman hero? My comment had to do with a shift in societal/cultural views since Carlin’s classic. It was an observation, not a judgment.
Growing up in the South people used to say that yankees didn’t have a word for “tacky” and they sure needed one. My guess is that you are from Boston. I might also add that indiscriminate use of the “seven words” (even for a true working man) might just be a sign of a limited vocabulary. Well, back to my polo pony and brunch.
Well, that’s a shame, Paul, because in my current project I’m getting a lot of mileage out of the motto “putting the ‘anal’ in ‘analytic cytology'”.
Not sure how I can make “priggish” work in quite the same way…
Eh, maybe I was conflating different meanings of the same word. (Although I could argue that giving the same word two different meanings – “gross, indelicate, undignified” and “guided by or indicative of materialistic values” – *encourages* conflation.) But it seems to me that the attitude that “nice people” don’t talk about “shit” is one step removed from the attitude that nice people don’t clean out septic tanks, or even admit that their digestive system has an exit.
And I agree that you probably shouldn’t use profanity every sentence; you’ll weaken its emotional impact through overuse. But an insistence that it not be used at *all* is quite different.
There are few people more contemptible than a snob – and no, I don’t come from Boston.