The Gory Underside of the Arts Communities' Oppression Fantasies

As various individuals purporting to represent Canada's arts community attempt to monopolize more and more media time with staged scandals and contrived outrage, it's becoming more and more clear that many Canadian artists seem to be both prone and eager to imagine themselves as an oppressed community in Canada.

The most public examples have been self-appointed "martyrs" Margie Gillis and Franke James. The former averaged more than $90,000 a year in arts grants over a 13-year period between 1998 and 2011. The latter is apparently outraged that the federal government chose not to fit the bill for her to take her mediocre anti-oilsands art on a self-lionizing tour of Europe.

But as it pertains to the tendency of some Canadian artists to imagine themselves as an oppressed minority, James and Gillis are but the tip of the iceberg.

An interesting case study is that of a band calling itself Trike. Originating from Vancouver, Trike now mostly plays in Europe.

In 2009, Trike announced they were going to stay in Europe. They haven't been missed.

They also apparently didn't lose interest in Canada. In July 2010, they uploaded a music video to YouTube entitled "Get Out, Get Out".

It's amazing that something like this could fester, largely unnoticed, on YouTube for more than 14 months.

The first thing that stands out about the video is the song. The first thing that stands out about the song is that, frankly, it's shit. God-awful shit. Irredeemable shit. Anyone who makes it past the 0:55 mark of the video should be applauded for their endurance.

After that, the next thing that stands out is the deranged nature of the video. While the two members of Trike drone on about murdering someone, someone wearing a hastily-constructed Stephen Harper mask smashes their keyboard and murders the band, stabbing them multiple times with multiple knives.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that the video is meant to suggest that Stephen Harper is killing Canada's arts community. Frankly, it's a comical notion.

In 2009, when the band announced its "exile" to Germany, they declared that Canada had become "anti-art".

“Canada is our home, but it’s going through a bit of a right-wing, bureaucratic, anti-art phase right now, which would make it next to impossible to live as artists.”

Those lacking the sense of entitlement that has come to afflict the Canadian arts know differently. Canada isn't going through an "anti-art phase", and no anti-art phase would be necessary to make it impossible for Trike to live off their art.

The banality and mediocrity of Trike's art is what does that. Trike can't live off their music not because Canada has become "anti-art", but because their music is just so goddamned awful.

The trinity figures of Margie Gillis, Franke James and Trike seem to bring an unsurprising reality to light: bad artists rely on government grants to keep them out of having to seek work in industries more appropriate for their talents... like fast food.

Bad artists also seem to rely on a shared sense of ideological vanity to make their art more marketable to those who share their political beliefs. In a video posted after the 2011 election, band member Xania Keane declares that she was considering moving back to Canada, but can't live in a country with a conservative government.

(She apparently hasn't taken note of Angela Merkel.)

Keane says she isn't coming back to Canada, and apparently expects people to care. It doesn't seem like many do. It all works out pretty well for Canadian music fans, who are now spared from having to be subjected to Trike's tripe.

The Sheer Comedy of Margie Gillis

"Iconic" interpretive dancer wants news network taken off the air

In the wake of the fevered response to Krista Erickson's June interview with "iconic" interpretive dancer Margie Gillis, an interesting subtext has emerged.

Canada's arts community -- despite enjoying millions of dollars in federal subsidies on an annual basis -- have convinced themselves that they are an oppressed group. And, like all self-imagined oppressed groups, they are now eager to re-invent themselves as the oppressor.

In a recent interview, Gillis -- who self-organized a boycott of Sun News Network's advertisers that has very clearly failed comically -- has suggested another "solution" to the Sun News Network "problem". She wants it taken off the air.

This is actually a more extreme position than her previous position, in which she and her cronies merely suggested that Sun News Network be ordered removed from basic
cable packages. Now she's calling for it to be removed entirely.

"I think the station should be taken off until they can prove that they represent Canadian values," Gillis declared in an interview with the Vancouver Observer.

Naturally, one would expect that Gillis would describe "Canadian values" within a very narrow set of far-left values. And it shouldn't be considered even remotely surprising that Gillis and her cronies would want to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Amidst a plethora of Orwellian messages to her followers telling them to "be compassionate" and "stay human", Gillis has held her bruised ego up as a rallying point for all the emotionally-unbalanced artsy types who are enraged that she wasn't treated with what they consider the proper deference.

In order to keep that rage alive, Gillis is still pretending she's some sort of victim.

“It was just an attack,” Gillis said. “She just didn't care what I was saying … I've never done an interview where they don't come back on to say thank you very much. I sat there in this little room. Nobody came in, nobody came out and I sat there for about 10 minutes just going: wow, that was an attack.”

Then again, perhaps Sun News Network staff had already had their fill of Gillis by the 8:50 mark of the interview, when Gillis very obnoxiously began to speak over Erickson, reciting self-scripted remarks even as Erickson asks her to stop talking over her.

Gillis and her cronies continue to pretend that Erickson "constantly" spoke over her. Erickson had indeed spoken over Erickson in the interview -- to self-correct an error she had made. Comically, Gillis objected to Erickson correcting herself.

Ever since, GIllis has been using the interview, in which both interviewer and interviewee did their fair share of the dirty work in turning the entire affair awry, as a lightning rod for every Canadian artist who feels they're being oppressed if they can't live as well as a doctor or lawyer off of their work.

Now Margie Gillis wants to take up the role of oppressor for herself. It would be frightening if it weren't merely comical.

The Far Left's Bizarre Love of Mediocrity Strikes Again... and Again

Canadian artist out to canonize herself as leftist cause celibre

It seems that, in Canada, if one really, really wants their 15 minutes of fame, one has to go out and get it themselves.

Since June alone, Brigette DePape, Kai Nagata and Margie Gillis have done everything they can to seize the imaginations of the Canadian left. In each case, each one was forgotten within weeks of their self-glorification.

DePape chose to spat on her job by holding up a "Stop Harper" sign during the 2011 speech from the throne. Her career as a leftist icon peaked with a job offer from Michael Moore that no self-respecting left-winger would actually take.

Interpretive dancer Margie Gillis appeared on the Sun News Newtork, then rallied her followers into petitioning the CRTC to order Sun News removed from basic cable packages. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council had enough of the whining of far-left gladflies, and said "no mas" very quickly. Gillis complained that interviewer Krista Erickson talked over her, when it was in fact Gillis speaking over Erickson.

Kai Nagata left his job as CTV correspondant for the Quebec National Assembly amidst complaints about how the national media selects political stories.

All were declared to be "inspirational" figures by the far-left -- somehow all of the far-left's figures are "inspirational" even when they're actually banal and mediocre.

That seems to be the case with artist Franke James, who has been her own best publicist, alleging that the Canadian government pressured sponsors of her planned European tour into withdrawing. She also complains that embassies that were planning to host her exhibit also pulled out, and that government funds for the tour were withdrawn.

Sources with the Swiss insurance company that was sponsoring the tour and the government have each since stated that the funds had never been promised in the first place.

This makes James not only the most recent far-leftist to attempt to canonize herself as a left-wing political icon, but the most recent to describe the government's decision not to supply funds that hadn't actually been promised as a "funding cut".

There may be one other reason why James' would-be sponsor chose not to support her tour. That reason is that her work is simply not very good.

That also sets James up for the next evolution of her ideological canonization: for a while, the far-left will ride the Franke James bandwagon. Then, shortly after, Franke James, every bit as forgettable as Brigette DePape, Margie Gillis and Kai Nagata, will be forgotten in favour of the next mediocre, self-serving "inspirational" figure.

The far-left will find someone new whose mediocrity they will love just as much as Franke James'. The far-left will again hold up that person's mediocrity as if it's excellence, and again Canadians shall yawn.

Think of it as part of the circle of life.

John Doyle To Be Added to the Tremendous Hypocrites Walk of Shame

It seems arts funding is only for failures

According to Globe and Mail columnist John Doyle, Alex Trebek belongs in a game show host hall of fame, if there is one. Shania Twain belongs in a bare midriff hall of fame, if such a thing exists. Rich Little would be a shoo-in for an untalented comedian hall of fame.

Doyle himself would be a first ballot inductee into a hypocrite hall of shame. If such a thing existed. It doesn't, but it should.

Doyle recently attracted the attention of the Hollywood Reporter for his opposition to a grant from Heritage Canada to fund a festival inducting Trebek, Twain and Little onto Canada's Walk of Fame in the Toronto Theatre District.

"On the cusp of Canada Day, I put it to you that our taxes are collected and spent by a government that has contempt for us," Doyle fumed. "They must think we are airheads, as they dole out our money to fund the celebration of the already rich and famous."

Doyle goes on to infer that Trebek's success renders him unworthy of taxpayer money being spent to celebrate his success on the Walk of Fame.

Doyle, it seems, is like a lot of people: he dislikes a winner.

But it seems necessary to remember that he loves a loser. Consider his outrage that Sun News Network personality Krista Erickson would dare ask "iconic interpretive dancer" Margie Gillis some challenging questions about her arts funding.

During the interview, Gillis would complain that her renumeration as the top "professional" in her field is allegedly unfairly dwarfed by the pay received by other top professionals (who are actual professionals). In other words, she chose her career and when it turned out that it didn't pay what a top doctor or engineer pays, it's up to the government to step in and cover her losses.

Doyle tried to mask his outrage in smug yet spiteful contempt. But the irration and illogic of Doyle's screed was unmistakable. This was, after all, mere questions he was complaining about.

Now the government, instead of doling out $1.2 million over 13 years (1998-2011 was not a 35-year period, as Gillis comically insisted), the government is doling out a mere $500,000 to celebrate Canadians actually being successful on the international stage.

And not merely successful... wildly successful. In fact, Trebek and Twain (perhaps not necessarily Little) boast the kind of success stories that inspires many other Canadians to follow in their footsteps, following their dreams. And Doyle doesn't like it.

It's a bizarre look into the Canada that Doyle imagines for the rest of us to live in: one in which failure is celebrated as if it were success, and success is ignored as if it were failure.

Frankly, it's the kind of backwardness that could only be considered preferable in the mind of a consumate hypocrite; one of walk of shame calibre. Sadly, it seems John Doyle is up to the task.

More From the Relentlessly-Whiny Canadian Left

When the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council waved a red flag in the face of thousands of rabidly-censorious Canadian left-wingers, Charlie Smith of the Georgia Strait interpreted it as a red flag in the face of a raging bull.

And he's the bull. In so many ways.

Smith, of course, is among thos outraged that Sun News Network personality Krista Erickson asked "iconic" interpretive dancer Margie Gillis some challenging questions about her funding.

Smith is outraged that the CBSC has called for a halt to the complaints. Gillis' self-organized campaign to complain to the council has amassed so many that it can't process them all. So he recommends that, instead, the implacably-censorious left go directly to the CRTC.

In going to the CRTC, Gillis' cronies would be scrambling for an even bigger fly swatter than the CBSC; one that cannot be ingored.

And the CSBC very much can be ignored.

As Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley recently alluded to, it was the CBSC that, based on a single complainant, attempted to direct all radio stations in Canada to air an edited version of "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits.

Radio stations decided to ignore the ruling. The CRTC directed the CBSC to revisit their deicision, and they backed down.

The CRTC, however, cannot be ignored. If they decided to give in to the demands being made by Charlie Smith and the rest of the mice following Margie Gillis in her pied paper act, they could pull the Sun News Networks' broadcast license.

There should be no doubt that those expressing contrived, sanctimonious and generally false outrage at Gillis being asked some tough questions are prepared to accept nothing less than that. They're already demanding it.

The Relentlessly-Whiny Canadian Left

4,100 Gillis-organized crybabies wirte the CBSC

If one were to judge from the volume of complaints received by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, one would think Krista Erickson's interview on the Sun News Network with Margie Gillis is a geat and terrible thing.

News outlets like the Globe and Mail and distinctly not-news outlets like The Mark and the Toronto Star have repoted that the CBSC has received more than twice the number of complaints about that one specific interview than it normally receives in an entire year.

However, they're declining to report a single salient detail:

The complaints are the result of a campaign organized by Gillis herself.

In a previous Facebook note, Gillis expressed sadness at the malicious hate messages being posted on Erickson's own Facebook page. That much is to her credit. But in the very same post, she recommended that her followers write to the government to complain not about Erickson's conduct, but rather about her views.

"Filing a letter with the CRTC , with copy to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and to the Prime Minister, stating that the unilateral view depicted in that interview is not what we want for ourselves or how we wish to be known in the world would be a far more fruitful action and it wouldn’t replicate the hatred we want to denounce," Gillis writes.

That's almost as comical as concluding her campaign call with a direction to "be brave, be clear, be compassionate."

Uh... what? What does compassion have to do with Margie Gillis' outrage at being asked some challenging questions on the Sun News Network? Or being confronted with her bizarrely-sanctimonious attitude toward Canadian society (the same Canadian society that supported her interpretive dance endeavours to the tune of $1.2 million over 13 years).

Speaking of sanctimony.

In a comical turn of events, the Star's resident hate addict, Heather Mallick wrote a column about the complaints, wherein she depicted Erickson as "venomous".

Mallick even seemed to echo Gillis' bizarre insistance that 1998-2011 is a 35-year period.

"Viewers are up in arms about the bullying the much-loved Gillis took from the angry, wired Erickson for having received a total of $1.2 million in government cultural grants over the decades," Mallick writes. Huh? 13 years "over the decades"? It seems that Mallick shares Gillis' extremely bizarre sense of time.

She acknowledged the Facebook campaign, but failed to attribute it to Gillis.

Quelle suprise!

One would almost think Mallick forgot that it was herself, not Erickson, who once penned a column in which she declared that then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin dresses like a porn star. That column blissfully ended her career at the CBC, even if the Star has breathed undeserved life into it. But the most salient detail seems to be that Mallick is so unashamed of her own venmous performance that she maintains it on her personal website.

No rational person needed the reminder, but that's how contemptible a person Heather Mallick is.

This author would love to see her go on the Sun News Network to defend her condemnation of Erickson in light of her own conduct. Unfortuately, Mallick is far too much of a coward to do anything like that.

For the CBSC, there should really be only one response to the complaints, spurred by Gillis' own wounded pride: severe disintrest in the complaints, and immediate dismissal.

After all, one could likely safely guarantee that if one were to examine the complaints submitted to the CBSC and compare it to the petition that Avaaz so feverishly organized in order to prevent the Sun News Network from ever coming to air, one would likely find each one of those 4,100 complainees had signed the petition.

Because that's what this is about: it's about the relentlessly-whiny, impacably-censorious left trying to run the Sun News Network off the air.

If the CBSC doesn't treat this comical complaints with the seriousness they deserve -- which is none -- the Sun News Network should summarily respond to them with a middle finger. Perhaps even an exploding one.

Shake it off, ignore the crybabies, and just let them wail. No one's listening to them anyway.

Margie Gillis: Almost Famous

Sheesh... Artists Are So Sensitive

Following a blogpost criticizing interpretive dancer Margie Gillis for her bizarre remarks during an interview with Sun News Network's Krista Erickson -- claiming that 1998-2011 was a "39-year period", and that receiving millions of dollars in government funds to do what she loves to do is a "sacrifice" -- a Grant MacEwan music composition graduate by the name of Andy AF Burns decided to take exception.

His "arguments" proved to be razor-thin, but when they weren't extended what he considered to be the demanded consideration of merit.

What followed was, without a doubt, one of the most pathetic displays in the history of the internet. While Mr Burns should likely have been reported to the police for uttering threats, it seems a public humiliation should serve better:

It requires a remarkably disturbed individual to threaten to run someone over with a car, and then call them a "fucking gorilla".

Perhaps it's as good a reason as any to not question an artists' sense of entitlement to a small fortune in government grants: in this case, Andy AF Burns' bizarre mix of sensitivity, irrationality, and primitive violence bubbling just under the surface.

But if any Edmonton-area readers happen to know Andy AF Burns personally, do him a favour: have him seek professional help. He needs it. Desperately.

The Far-Left's Bizarre Love of Mediocrity Strikes Again

Margie Gillis bumbles through interview, hailed as a hero for it

As the Brigette DePape episode has shown Canadians, there's nothing the far-left truly loves more than mediocrity, so long as it's ideologically-soothing mediocrity.

Little else could explain the far-left's sudden love of interpretive danger Margie Gillis, who recently was the quieter -- yet no more polite -- participant in a dust-up over arts grant with Krista Erickson on Sun TV.

Erickson outlined $1.2 million in grants Gillis had received from the Canada Arts Council over 13 years. Gillis accused Erickson of belittling the arts community. The Globe and Mail's John Doyle firmly took Gillis' side:

"Recently, the channel’s Krista Erickson accosted dancer Margie Gillis on air about arts funding and tried to beat her up, verbally. This was comedy of the raw sort. Erickson explained that Gillis is a very famous, award-winning dancer and choreographer. Gillis, who talks in a very soft voice, thanked her for the nice introduction and things proceeded. Erickson, aided by an onscreen crawl, pointed out that Gillis and her dance foundation have, over the past 13 years, received grants totalling $1.2-million. That’s $1.2-million spread over 13 years. She demanded to know why Gillis was costing taxpayers $1.2-million.

Gillis explained that all the money didn’t go into her pocket. It kept a lot of people going. Erickson then went wacky. She waved her arms around in a lame attempt to mimic dance movement. Not a wizard at the arm ballet is Krista, believe me. She looked like the Martin Short character Ed Grimley getting excited. 'This whole thing,' she barked, while frantically waved her arms, 'Why does it cost $1.2-million over 13 years?' Then she shouted at Gillis to try to drown out the response. "

As anyone who actually watches the interview would quickly realize, this actually bears very little resemblence to the interview itself.

Gillis may draw some sympathy from the far-left because of her soft-spoken demeanor, but that also requires them to overlook her own behaviour during the interview. She did her best to be slippery, refusing to answer Erickson's questions. Despite $1.2 million in grants over 13 years being outlined on the show, Gillis tried to insist that money was spread out over 39 years... despite the fact that the grants were listed year-by-year from 1998 onward. (There may well have been more grants, but they were not the ones Gillis was being asked about.)

Over and over again, Gillis declared that she had "sacrificed her life" to interpretive dance. Aside from this remark being a little bit creepty, it doesnt' strike a rational person as much of a sacrifice: Gillis "sacrificed" her life to be funded to the tune of millions of dollars in order to do what, presumably, she loves to do.

In fact, since 1998 Gillis has been funded by the federal government, through the Canada Arts Council, to the tune of nearly $100,000 a year. According to her remarks, she also uses that money to fund the salarty of at least one other individual.

But even $50,000 to travel the world spiraling her arms is a pretty sweet gig.

In reality, Margie Gillis hasn't made any discernable sacrifice. She isn't hard put upon.

Nor does her spiralling arms actually do anything toward the goal of world peace. A Canadian fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan does; Gillis does not.

If anyone expected that Gillis' experience yestearday would provoke even the slightest bit of self-exploration to determine whether her behaviour on Sun TV contributed to the argument or not, don't expect it. Gillis has posted a message on her Facebook page asking her followers to write the CRTC and complain about the "unilateral views" expressed on Sun TV.

(She did, to her credit, instruct her followers to stop posting hate messages on Erickson's Facebook page. However, readers of the Nexus are by now familiar with the hateful behaviour of the far-left. They probably won't listen to her.)

It's nothing new to Canada's far-left, who demand merit for every mediocre remark to tumble out of the mouth of their adopted icons. Fortunately for the rest of Canadians -- who are becoming increasingly conservative -- it works out to our advantage.

Harper the Musical, the Musical Harper

Art imitates life trying to imitate life imitating art?



Canadians will be the judge -- go see it.

Bravo, Canadian Arts Community

Way to justify all that public arts funding

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his attention to cut arts funding from Canada's budget during the 2008 election, his Conservative Party took what was actually a well-deserved dip in the polls.

Frequently a target of conservative thinkers, public arts funding provides a vital life line to cultural works that help develop and promote Canadian culture and identity.

But to say that governments of varying levels have a role in financially supporting arts isn't to say that arts and culture should be funded indiscriminately. The funding being indirectly extended to Homegrown, a terrorist-sympathizing play about Toronto 18 terrorist Shareef Abdelhaleem stands as a stark example of something that should not have been funded.

According to Catherine Frid, the producer of the play, Homegrown isn't actually a terrorist-sympathizing work.

“Homegrown does not promote, sanction or excuse terrorism," Frid insists. "It looks at one of the men convicted of terrorism and points out some of the many irregularities in the Canadian criminal justice system that led to his conviction"

"He wasn't planning to blow up Bay and Front Street with a truck bomb," Frid continues. "People don't know the whole story behind Shareef's conviction. I'm not speaking for all the Toronto 18, I'm just focusing on the one person I met and whose case I followed and I'm telling that story."

The problem for Frid is that her assessment doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

When Abdelhaleem was convicted, his defence counsel called no evidence regarding his guilt or innocence, and instead merely tried to argue that he was entrapped. in a subsequent ruling, it was ruled that Abdelhaleem was not entrapped.

The only means by which funding of a particular project can be justified is that it embodies Canadian culture, or promotes Canadian values.

All too often, "Canadian values" are passed off by the far left as a canard. In fact, there are very few values -- conservative or left-wing -- that could be definitively described as Canadian.

But there are some values that definitively are not, and sympathy for terrorism is one of those.

Even as the controversy builds surrounding this play, politicians are already beginning to demonstrate who gets it, and who just doesn't.

In the category of those who don't get it is Toronto City Councillor Adam Vaughn, who insists that government has no place deciding what art is or isn't exhibited.

Which isn't at all what this story is about. Very few people are suggesting that play such as the one Frid is producing shouldn't be exhibited publicly at all. (Some individuals are, and these notions actually are misguided.)

The issue is about what kinds of productions public funds should support.

Toronto City Councillor -- and member of the Toronto Arts Council -- Norm Kelly does get it.

"There is freedom of expression but there is nothing that says there should be freedom of investment," Kelly insists. "Art plays a number of roles in society... but [this play] would be going too far. If the court was correct in its assessment of their intent, I don't see much artistic merit in that portrayal."

Likewise -- as is so often the case -- the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Kevin Gaudet gets it as well.

“You want to put on a play? Fine. Hang up your shingle and ask people to pay for it," Gaudet said. "If it has to do with sympathetic portraits of terrorists who want to destroy my country, I won’t go."

A great many Canadians won't bother to go see such a play. A steep financial loss incurred by an empty theatre would serve as a stark lesson for individuals such as Frid about how far Canadians are prepared to sympathize with terrorists, home-grown or otherwise.

The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation opposes any and all funding of cultural festivals. In this, they are in error. But in opposing any form of public funding whatsoever for Homegrown, they are right on the money.

Homegrown should not receive a red cent of public funding in support of it. If Catherine Frid cannot provide or secure the money to produce it, it simply doesn't deserve to be made.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Blazing Cat Fur - "Your Taxes Really are 'Play Money'"

Alan Adamson - "Arts Subsidies"

Not Backwards, Just Fundamentally Different

Paradise Found is, in many respects, a remarkable film.

Made mere days after the 7/7 bombings in London, the spectre of Islamic terrorism is clearly on the mind of the film's producer, but he decides to make the film regardless of the episode, choosing to set aside the antagonisms between the western world and the Islamic world.

One of the most intriguing things discussed in the film is that of a Muslim-produced map. At first, the map actually looks like something one would find printed inside the cover of a fantasy novel; it looks more to the Western eye as a fictional construct than the real world.

Yet when the map is turned upside-down, it becomes evident that the map is, in fact, that of the world as we know it.

If there is any greater metaphor for the way that many see the global relationship between the western world and the Islamic world, one would be significantly challenged to find it.

Dichotomous thinking regarding the predominantly-Christian (now actually multicultural) and Islamic (now slowly secularizing) Islamic world permeates theories such as Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. Such theories have treated the Islamic world as a threat to the western world and its values.

Meanwhile, the theories of various Muslim thinkers also treat the world as dichotomous. In this vein of thought, the western world is decadent and immoral, and this threatens to leach into Islamic society through close contact between the two.

In the western world, a distressingly popular meme is to think of the Islamic world as backward and barbarous.

But the beauty of Islamic art should put the lie to this idea. While an unfortunate degree of ugliness has sprung forth from the Islamic world, an equally degree of ugliness has emerged within the psyche of the western world as well.

The Islamic world is not backward, but it is fundamentally different. It's a failure to respect these differences for what they are that has led so many people from each world to view the other as menacing.

Hmmmm. Yeah. About That Whole "Religious Nonsense" Thing...

Arrogance and historical ignorance rarely combine well

Readers of the Nexus will almost certainly remember Audrey, the proprietor of Enormous Thriving Plants, hanging her intellectual rear end out for a good flogging.

In the post in question, Audrey takes aim at One Nation Under God, a painting by Jon McNaughton featuring numerous American historical figures receiving the US Constitution from Jesus Christ.

In particular, Audrey dismisses the painting as "religious nonsense", as if that alone were enough to dispell the message it promotes.

Some other responses to the painting accuse it of being historically inaccurate, as if McNaughton would be shocked to learn that Jesus himself hadn't written and delivered the American Constition to that country's founding fathers.

It's a facetious argument, and clearly intended to be as such. But with metaphor so frequently proving to be the lifeblood of art, one couldn't accuse the painting's criics of reading too much into the work. Indeed, they could be accused of reading far too little into it.

Factually, Jesus Christ did not deliver the US Constitution in person, and most certainly not before George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, JFK and various archetypical characters. But Christian values were deeply imbedded in the establishment of the United States from the very conception of the British colonies.

As it turns out, Audrey and the sleaze who tend to populate Wonkette are only a few among the many, many people who could benefit from familiarizing themselves with the work of Molly Worthen.

Worthen's historical work has traced the influence of Christianity through the development of the United States in the form of the civil religion.

A civil religion is a political discourse that takes on the sacred elements of religion.

According to Worthen, the American civil religion is built around establishing the American colonies, and later the United States, as "God's model society", a social bluepint that could then be exported back to Britain and to the rest of the world. She identifies Reverend John Winthrop, the original Governor of Massachussets, as a central figure in the establishment of the American civil religion, the first man to speak of the American colonies as a "shining city on the hill", that enduring vision of American exceptionalism.

The spread of the Puritan religion westward in the wake of the Puritan's disillusionment with Britain led first to the undermining of religion as the central focus in people's lives by more imperative matters of survival, but eventually to various religious revivals -- which, according to Worthen, actually originated in Canada -- and eventually to the rise of Evangelical Christianity.

The influence of Evangelical Christianity can be found in notions such as the separation of Church and State -- Evanglical faith did seek to conversions, but demanded voluntary conversions, as opposed to conversions mandated or encouraged by the state.

In this, Secular Humanists and Evangelical Christians worked closely together.

As many of the critics of McNaughton's painting have pointed out, the US Constitution indeed doesn't explicitly refer to God or Christianity at any point.

But this doesn't mean that Christian principles -- particularly those promoted by Reverend Winthrop -- didn't deeply embody these values.

For example, in his speech "A Model of Christian Charity", Winthrop called upon his congregation "first to hold conformity with the rest of his world, being delighted to show forth the glory of his wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures, and the glory of his power in ordering all these differences for the preservation and good of the whole."

There is clearly a message of religious tolerance -- which is enshrined within the US Constitution in its support of religious freedom -- in this message.

Winthrop continued: "as it is the glory of princes to have many officers, so this great king will haue many stewards..."

Herein there is clearly support for the division of powers between the branches of government, as mandated by the US Constitution.

"That every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the Bonds of brotherly affection. From hence it appears plainly that no man is made more honourable than another or more wealthy, out of any particular and singular respect to himself, but for the glory of his creator and the common good of the creature, man."

If one were surprised to find how similiar this seems to "all men are created equal", as it is written in the preamble to the American Declaration of Independence, they really shouldn't be.

In fact, the influence of Christian thought -- especially that of Reverend Winthrop -- runs deeply through the Declaration.

As others have noted, this doesn't justify any use of the Declaration to suggest that the United States should inherently prefer Christianity to any other religion, or that Churh and State should be intertwined. Once again, American Evangelical Christians of the 18th century worked stridently to prevent this.

Uniting the various figures appearing in the painting -- many of whom are notably atheists, or are at least suggested to be believers in other religions -- is a religious inclusivist view of the United States, written in the tradition of not an American thinker, but rather of a British one: CS Lewis.

Lewis' philosophy regarding other religions was that any good work performed by the believer of another religion contributed to the Christian God's benevolent purpose, and so was actually done in the name of that God, even if purportedly done in the name of another.

What emerges from this particular strain of thought is the notion of multiple paths to the same God -- one that McNaughton hints at with his explanation of the intended meaning of the archetypical immigrant featured in his painting.

For those well-educated enough and open-minded enough to examine McNaughton's work for what it is, it becomes evident that McNaughton's work is not in favour of "theocracy" (as the sensationalist charge has been), but is rather simply symbolic of what Jon McNaughton sees as the state of the United States of America, both at present and historically.

Not everyone will agree with him. Not everyone will agree that Roe v Wade or Everson v Board of Education have been damaging to the United States.

But to ignore history is to forfeit heritage, and vice versa. To pretend that Jon McNaughton should be faulted for painting about the demonstrably deep Christian heritage of the United States is to demand that the history books be rewritten.

As much as the knee-jerk reaction to McNaughton's painting carries deep streaks of Philistinism, it's also akin to historical revisionism, and that is the real nonsense.

Conservatives Hate Art... ... ...Right?

More from the "philosophical left" on the "death of conservative intellectualism"

Admittedly, one of the fun things about keeping an eye on the portion of the far left who so frequently and applaud the alleged death of intellectual conservatism is noting precisely how often it is that they simply lack any kind of cogent argument.

In attempting to stake out intellectualism as the sole province of the left, many of these individuals have refined a rather curious argumentative technique -- that of picking out various bits of minutiae and using them as the basis of an ad hominem attack against the whole of American conservatism.

Audrey, the proprietor of Enormous Thriving Plants, has proven to be an amusing case study in this argumentative technique (one employed not by the entire left, but rather by the extreme portion of the political left who subsist nearly entirely on promoting hatred and contempt of their ideological opponents -- the hateful left identified here so long ago).

Recently, it seems, Audrey wants to talk about art. More specifically, Audrey wants to talk about the work of Jon McNaughton, and his piece "One Nation Under God".

Audrey insists that she has "no idea where this fits into the conservative game of denunciation", but notes that "the mouse-over text associated with of 'Professor', 'Immigrant', 'Mr Hollywood', 'Liberal News Reporter', and even 'Thomas Payne' are absolutely priceless."

Naughton has done viewers of his painting the service (or, some would argue, disservice, as art is often best left up to the interpretation of the viewer) of sharing the intended symbolism of each figure to appear in his painting.

It's clear that McNaughton has little use for the Professor, the Liberal News Reporter of Mr Hollywood.

McNaughton accuses the Professor of being contemptuous of viewpoints other than his own, and freely admits that this figure is a stand-in for the so-called "educational elite", and accuses him of believing that his intelligence makes him equal to God.

The Liberal News Reporter is accused of attempting to impose her own bias upon other people through her reporting. (To be fair, many liberal jorunalists have been earning this more recently.)

Mr Hollywood appears to be an extremely sleazy individual -- and its interesting to note that Satan himself stands over his left shoulder. McNaughton describes Mr Hollywood as particularly contemptuous of the Supreme Court Judge and the Pregnant Woman (the latter of whom, although she stands among a group that McNaughton seems to imply is under the influence of Satan, stands out as a message of hope), and is once more responsible for spreading a "liberal bias".

There's a good deal in McNaughton's painting that virtually anyone could disagree with, and that's actually a great strength in it: it provokes debate among those who are willing.

Audrey's objections to the treatment of the Professor, Liberal News Reporter and Mr Hollywood are actually understandable -- this is where the debate comes in. Objections to the treatment of the Supreme Court Judge would be warranted as well.

Audrey's specific objection to the treatment of the Immigrant and Thomas Payne are a little less defensible.

In regards to the Immigrant, McNaughton notes that "there are many good people in America, they are not all Christian." McNaughton seems to suggest that he believes that many newcomers to the United States wouldn't recognize it as a Christian country, and would be surprised to find religious freedom in a country founded on many of the principles of Christianity.

Writing about Thomas Payne, McNaughton states that Payne's role in winning the Revolutionary War was "indisputable", and notes that it's less important that Payne was an atheist, and more important that he was simply a good man.

One wonders what Audrey's objection would be to the revelation that there is, indeed, a place for everyone within McNaughton's theology.

But Audrey seems to miss all of this.

In the evident absence of anything better to say, she simply proclaims: "The good news is that Jesus is back, and he's armed with the the US Constitution! Take that, you heathen!"

There's great irony in this statement, one which only goes to demonstrates what becomes more and more obvious the longer Audrey blogs: the ideologically-imposed limits of her understandings of virtually any subject, particularly the multi-faceted relationship between religion and politics.

Planting the Seeds of Your Own Destruction

A&E's Biography: "The Saudi Royal Family" presents an often overlooked (at least by those who don't know enough to look) ideological linkage between the Saudi Royal Family and Islamic terrorism.

The episode presents the story of Ibn Saud, the founder of the Saudi Arabian state, and the man credited by some as the ultimate founder of Wahhabi Islam, the denomination of Islam that Muslim militants most often subscribe to.

If one accepts this to be true -- the matter is not nearly so simple in reality, but if one does -- then it stands to reason that Ibn Saud may have planted the seeds of his dynasty's own destruction.

Social theorizing on terrorism generally shares the conclusion that terrorism is rarely meant on its direct victims.

According to the crimonological perspective on terrorism, terrorism is a form of coercive social control, wherein those with little social, economic or social influence seek to enforce their values on their society.

In the case of Muslim terrorism, and particularly Osama bin Laden, many speculate that the true target of that terrorism is not actually the western world, but rather the Saudi Royal Family. The idea, clearly, is that if muslim terrorists can inflict great harm on the Royal Family's most powerful allies -- as they did on 9/11, that the House of Saud would fear what terrorists could do to them.

The years of opulant and leisurely lifestyle led by the House of Saud and their political alliances with western countries -- as well as the presence of foreign troops on Saudi soil, particularly too close to holy sites -- has led Wahhabi Muslims to see the House of Saud, from which their religious ideology is believed by some to have originated, as an enemy of their religion.

One can only wonder if, had he known what the future would hold, Ibn Saud would have done anything differently.

Now That's More Like It...

...But did Harper blink?

Over the past few days, Canada's opposition parties have been hailing the beginning of a "culture war".

It's ironic that a hallmark of extreme right-wing activism in the United States could be trotted out by Canadian left-wingers with so little protest from Canada's left, but one digresses.

With numerous polls suggesting that the focus on Harper's $50 million cut to arts funding may have been hurting his campaign -- particularly in Quebec -- Prime Minster Stephen Harper today promised to introduce $150 million in tax credits for parents of children enrolled in arts programs.

"The credit will apply on up to $500 of eligible fees for children under 16 who participate in eligible arts activities. This tax cut will encourage and make it easier for parents to give their children the benefits of activities such as music classes, drama or arts classes, and the parents will save money on their taxes," Harper said.

"For some children participating in arts, dance and drama classes these will be a fun and enjoyable activity. For others it could be the beginning of much more -- a life long interest or career."

In some cases -- notably, dance -- the tax credit would double with the already existing fitness tax credit.

Yet, at three times what the cut programs cost, one may wonder if this is merely an effort on Harper's behalf to regain some lost momentum in this election campaign. In other words, one wonders if Harper really cares about the arts, or if this program is merely another cynical attempt to garner votes.

For another thing, the program doesn't seem to go far enough. A good conservative arts program should include not merely tax credits for children to get involved in the arts, but also tax credits for those who would be interested in being patrons of the arts.

Many Canadians have long objected to tax dollars being used to support mediocre artists. If the Conservatives were bold enough to propose such a program, those Canadians could choose to support any artist they judged to be worthy of support and recieve a tax credit.

There certainly those who would suggest that artists should fund themselves and treat art as art, rather than as a vocation. After all, that's how Berthold Imhoff did it. Yet these individuals are certainly overlooking the fact that the modern-day Canadian artist doesn't have a personal or family fortune, as Imhoff did.

Art doesn't pay well enough to pay for the bills. While it certainly could be said that this should be incentive for some artists to seek a new line of work, there are many Canadian artists producing work of value that deserves to be supported.

Making it sensible for Canadians to support artists on a case-by-case and individual basis makes sense in this particular vein.

The new program is a step in the right direction, but not quite far enough. And many Canadians will wonder if Harper really is the "steady hand" he's portrayed himself as.