Thoughts

“What is more, in all three cases, the more demanding the form of [church] involvement — actual attendance as compared to formal membership, for example — the greater the decline. In effect, the classic institution of American civic life, both religious and secular, have been ‘hollowed out.’ Seen from without, the institutional edifice appears virtually intact — little decline in professions of faith, formal membership down just a bit, and so on. When examined more closely, however, it seems clear that decay has consumed the load-bearing beams of our civic infrastructure.” — Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone

Why isn’t there a church for atheists and agnostics? Here we are living in a nation that purports to celebrate the freedom of religion, and yet those who decide to abstain from religion altogether are denied a public place of worship (or, rather, non-worship). We all know that churches actually front as places to meet people (provided, of course, that any given church, as most are, is open to newcomers). And yet while churches have become “tolerant” in opening up their doors to all walks of life, the church concept has failed to take a cue from Flannery O’Connor and whip up a Church Without Christ.

Where are the Churches Without Religion? True, Universal Unitarians come close. But I’m talking about a public hall that isn’t hell-bent on serving up insufferable hymns and slack Sunday morning service. A place that ultimately functions as a nexus point for decent people, without the required commitment to a deity.

Then again, who am I to generalize on the subject? Perhaps there is some comparative basis here. Likewise, the nature of social networks within these inner halls are ripe for examination.

These ruminations stem from some major thinking over the last several weeks on the subject and another long-term project that will replace Miguel Cohen’s Sunday rantings with something more observed and interesting. The idea, to give credit where credit is due, came from my sister. More to come.

You’re Entering Another Dimension of Theatre

Okay, I’m breaking the embargo again and then I shall again deactivate the Internet and return to the hard and happy world of revision.

Here in San Francisco, Spanganga Theater is putting on live recreations of Twilight Zone episodes. They’ll be performing two every weekend. (It started this week.) Upcoming productions include the paranoid Shatner romp “Nightmare on 20,000 Feet” and another great episode involving moral deterioration, “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.” SF Weekly has more. Each episode is being staged by a different director and slate of actors. And there are multiple Rod Serlings. This looks like a lot of fun.

Sunday Review Coverage Restored?

Not only can Maud be found in this Sunday’s Post, but as Ron notes, the Times has gone ga-ga over Vollman, albeit mammoth nonfiction Vollman. (And, on the whole, this Sunday looks as if it has considerably more fiction coverage than the last three weeks.) Is there hope for the NYTBR? Has Keller been listening? I’m positive that the gang over at the Saloon will have a tally and a summation of this interesting new development.

Dennis Moore, Stupid Blogger, Stupid Bitch?

It’s official: most popular bloggers are thieves. It ain’t just link poaching either. (And because I try not to be a thief, via MeFi.)

Also, who knew? (via Wonkette)

One more thing: Am I the only one who thinks that John Garfield was the Keanu of his time? Garfield has exactly two expressions he resorts to: looking up and looking down. This limited yet distracting dichotomy has worked against my total enjoyment of such films as The Postman Always Rings Twice and Body and Soul (and it’s particularly shameful in the latter case). When Garfield offers the rare expression working against the two looks, it comes across as a pretty boy using all six brain cells in his arsenal to come up with something tantamount to the worst community theatre histrionics. Garfield often looks pained when he attempts this, as if he’s suffering from hemorrhoids. And his posturing is egregious when he’s trying to come off as a tough guy.

I could be totally wrong on this, but frankly I just don’t understand why John Garfield should be regarded. Give me the underrated Steve Cochran or even straight-shooter Robert Cummings any day.

Okay, now I’m really outta here.

Rawhide

Ruthless deadlines keep me away from the blog until Monday. I’m not permitted one post, one word, one link until this work backlog’s caught up (the downside of getting well). So sayeth the self-discipline imp cracking the whip. I wish Tony Clifton would come in and guest blog while I’m away, but alas. Enjoy some of the fine folks on the left.