Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, April 29, 2007 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version Print | Comments

Document Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

by Mike Daisey

Reposted from:
http://www.mikedaisey.com/2007/04/night-to-remember.sht
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IeMtQ-SZtA

Also see:
http://mikedaisey.com



Last night's performance of INVINCIBLE SUMMER was disrupted when eighty seven members of a Christian group walked out of the show en masse, and chose to physically attack my work by pouring water on and destroying the original of the show outline.

I'm still dealing with all the ramifications, but here's what it felt like from my end: I am performing the show to a packed house, when suddenly the lights start coming up in the house as a flood of people start walking down the aisles--they looked like a flock of birds who'd been startled, the way they all moved so quickly, and at the same moment...it was shocking, to see them surging down the aisles. The show halted as they fled, and at this moment a member of their group strode up to the table, stood looking down on me and poured water all over the outline, drenching everything in a kind of anti-baptism.

I sat behind the table, looking up in his face with shock. My job onstage is to be as open as possible, to weave the show without a script as it comes, and this leaves me very emotionally available--and vulnerable, if an audience chooses to abuse that trust. I doubt I will ever forget the look in his face as he defaced the only original of the handwritten show outline--it was a look of hatred, and disgust, and utter and consuming pride.

It is a face I have seen in Riefenstahl's work, and in my dreams, but never on another human face, never an arm's length from me--never directed at me, hating me, hating my words and the story that I've chosen to tell. That face is not Christian, by any definition Christ would be proud to call his own--its naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst.

And it wounded me in my heart, because I trusted these people. Scared parents and scared teachers running from a theater because words might hurt them, and so consumed by fear that they have to lash out at the work, literally break it apart, drown it. They've made me afraid of my audience, afraid of my craft, just the smallest amount, and that's the trust I will have to relearn tonight and every night. That's the work--the only way out is through, I tell my students, and it is true for me and it is true for everybody.

I tried to engage with the group as they fled, but they ran out like cowards, and not one of them would stand and discuss with me what they'd done. That cowardice still takes my breath away--that they wouldn't stand and speak like men and women and tell me in their voices their grievances. In spite of everything, I still believe--Jean-Michele says that's one of the reasons I'm a monologuist--and I fought to the end to get a single voice to speak and reckon with me, but they ran and didn't look back.

I had to stay onstage and tend to my audience, who was wounded and reeling--they looked stunned and shaken, as Jean-Michele and Kevin cleaned the table I talked to everyone, normalizing the pressures, rebuilding connections. We talked a bit, then I restarted the show, which was intense from a cold start--like passing a six pound kidney stone--and hesitantly, shakily, they came with me and we comforted each other with the story. At the end of the show they gave a standing ovation, which I didn't earn--they applauded because they had been through the same thing, and worked as hard as I did to carry the story to its conclusion. They were magnificent.

After the show I told the audience something, and it's been rolling around in my mind. It's common to think things will never happen where you are--never in Cambridge, never in New York, never in Seattle--that sort of thing, whatever it is, never happens here, not in our community. Then it happens, right in front of you, and you realize you were blind to it, that you forgot that intolerance and zealotry and viciousness are human currency everywhere, and it takes your breath away. You want to curl up and pretend it never happened, because they were fools, idiots--you make excuses and move on. Do the next show. Breathe. Forget.

But they are not simply fools and idiots--I saw them. They are young and old, they are teachers and students, they are each and every one of us. We are the same family, even if it hurts. The hard truth is that you reap what you sow, and I will not sow hatred and discontent--I refuse. I will not forget what that man, older than I am today, did to my work. I will not forget the cowed silence of those who left. I will not forget their judgment and their arrogance--but I will not hate.

I will listen. I will listen and learn and remember what has passed here, and when I tell it back it will be louder and longer and clearer. When I tell it back there will be place in the story for you and you and even you.

------------

More to the story:
http://www.mikedaisey.com/2007/04/aftermath-and-confrontation.sht

It has been an intense few days, and I would like to thank the thousands of people who have sent me emails, which have been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. They've come from everywhere, and in an age when we often seem terribly divided, especially in this country, it really means a great deal. Though now I will be answering email well into 2010, things could be much worse--when you let something explosive loose on the internet you can never predict how it will all go down. As of now I'm glad that I posted the video. I think it captures what it was really like in that theatre, and how incredibly chilling and incredibly dorky it was at the same time.

The group responsible for the incident is from a public high school, though they identified themselves to me as a Christian group as they fled the theater--it's barely audible on the YouTube clip, as an adult tells me they are a Christian group, then flees for the door, refusing to engage with me. Then in the lobby of the theater and on the phone to the box office they identified themselves again and again as a Christian group--I don't know what that says about the division of church and state in Norco, California. As a group, the people in charge freely identified themselves as a Christian group, until reporters call and they remember they are from a public high school.

As has been covered in other media outlets, I know now that the group bought their tickets that day. I have now spoken with the box office staff person who spoke with a representative from the school--when asked if the show had appropriate content for high school students, they were told it had strong language and adult situations. There are multiple corroborating witnesses to this phone conversation.

It bears noting that in fact, there were two high schools there that night--and the other high school STAYED, enjoyed the show, and I had a very good talk with them after the show discussing the work. That high school confirms that they were informed about the language and content of the show when they asked--the box office informs anyone who asks what the show contains.

I did speak with an administrator from the school, and with the individual who ruined my work. I think it's important to note that *I* found and called *them*--it is clear to me that I never would have heard from any of them again had I not hunted them down. In fact, they were surprised to hear from me, which I think speaks to the lack of understanding and civility on their part. My work had been assaulted, and I had a clear vision of this man standing above me, destroying my work, with hatred in his eyes. I refused to be a victim twice--first by being assaulted, and second by committing the sin of silence. So I knew I had to find them, and speak with the man who did this.

The first person I managed to reach was an administrator with the group, a woman who started the conversation repeating the same statement time and again, which undercut her apology: she insisted it was a "safety issue", and that "we had to get our students out of there." There was no discussion of language or appropriateness--it had become a safety issue, as though the students were in danger of being physically assaulted. I think it is tremendously chilling that the language of the war on terror, the language of security, has been appropriated for even this--we can't even begin a dialogue about what is and is not appropriate, because it has all become a "safety" issue. That ends a conversation before it has even begun.

She also insisted that they asked if the show was "clean"--a construction I think is a repulsive way to ask about content, and the way she said "clean", the finality of it, stays with me. I told her that I wasn't interested in that, but would prefer to talk about the assault and vandalization of my work, at which she became slightly more contrite.

I told her I would need to talk to the man responsible for destroying my work. She hedged and said that she'd let him know I wanted him to get in touch, but that she didn't know if he'd want to do that. I told her that I had a videotape of him destroying my work and a couple hundred witnesses, and that it was very important that I hear from him immediately. She then agreed, and I found it disappointing that a veiled threat had to be used just to bring people to the table for a simple conversation.

After talking to her I performed the show for the first time since the incident happened, and I had a hard time. Because the shows aren't scripted the relationship with my audience is key, and I was slightly hesitant--I could feel myself closing up over myself, wanting to hide. I pushed through, but it was sobering to see the damage done, real damage that extends beyond the event itself. I had hoped that it would shake off.

After the show, I reached the man who attacked my work on the phone. I would be lying if I said I wasn't nervous--Jean-Michele didn't even understand why I would call him; she was afraid he would simply attack me again--but I knew, especially after that second performance, that I had to try to find some communion with him. If I could look this person in the eye, hear their words and know them I would be able to move beyond that moment at the table. Never forgetting, but being able to walk forward--being able to breathe.

His name is David. At the beginning of the conversation there was a lot of silence--long, long silences that neither of us were willing to puncture. First I made him understand what he had done--that these were the only set of notes for the show, how I work with them, what he had cost me in terms of my physical work and in terms of what it had been like that next night to go out in front of them. I needed him to understand what he had taken from me.

He quietly said that he had heard me, and that he understood.

I gradually opened him up by listening, and responding, the one-on-one version of what I do with an audience. We talked about many things, for almost an hour, and step by step, his story emerged.

He has three kids--one is 21, and two are 17--and he's terrified of the world. Terrified by violence, and sex, and he sees it all linked together--a horrifying world filled with darkness, pornography and filth that threatens his children, has threatened them all his life. They're older now, but he says he still sees things the same way--and that the only way to protect his children and himself is to lock it all out of his life.

He also said he's had anger-control issues for years, and sometimes acts of rage come over him--he explodes, and then has to apologize, and doesn't know why it happens. He tries to lock it down, but it happens, and he's ashamed of it. I told him that regardless of where we both stand, I felt very strongly that the repression of walling off everything in the world and viewing it all as filth is connecting with these outbursts, and that it isn't going to work--until you deal with the root causes, and deal with the world, his anger and rage would keep using him.

He agreed with this.

It wasn't all agreement--he reiterated the administrator's line that it had been a "security issue" (his words) and that "we had to get our kids out of there". He said at one point, "You're probably more *liberal* than I am" and the word *liberal* had this hook on the end of it, one that he probably didn't even intend, but it was unavoidable for him--it sounded edged, like a slur.

He also casually used a coarse racial epithet to refer to black people in a very loose, unnecessary analogy, which was remarkable to me--in a situation where violence resulted from offense at language, our worlds are so far apart that he didn't think for a moment about throwing out this word. I believe strongly that everyone is free to speak, but we are also accountable for our speech--the casual indifference of it shocked me under the circumstances of our conversation.

The moment that was most illuminating was this:

We have been talking for quite some time, making progress, when I mention offhandedly in response to something that I had been raised Catholic.

At this, he makes this little sound: "oh!" It's a tiny exclamation, upward-inflected. I hear that sound, and my heart sinks.

It's a sound of surprise he makes, and of recognition. Of fellowship. And immediately, everything he says is the same, but it is surrounded with a superstructure of scripture--there are supporting arguments from Jesus, the apostles, the whole nine yards. His cadence and language is entirely different, because now he is drawing on over two thousand years of religious writing to enfold and magnify his arguments.

For the first time in the conversation, in my heart, I am furious.

What was I before that moment? I thought we were trying to speak to one another and I was honest with you--but this is your real face, and I only earn the right to see it if I say the right password and get let into your club.

Who was I before? Was I nobody? Was I simply a *liberal*, the word with the hook on the end of it? A dirty, pornographic artist? A purveyor of filth?

No. It's worse than that, worse than labels. I know the truth. I was no one. I was no one to you, not a real person at all--I wasn't real when you destroyed my work, and until the moment I said the magic word I wasn't real. When he made that sound, he betrayed his heart and finally spoke the truth, and I could see him fully. Now I know him, and now he has no power over me.

We keep talking, and now that I can see him completely he's just an angry man, angry and impotent. He is sorry, though not so sorry that he sought me out--and when I ask what the people in his group are saying about what happened, he confesses that no one is talking about it.

I ask him to do one thing for me. I ask him to talk to everyone in the group together, parents and students alike, and talk to them about what happened. I do not even ask him to apologize, nor do I dictate what he should say--that's his prerogative. I simply ask that he open the door for the conversation be allowed to happen. I believe in the truth, and I want him to let the group speak its mind to him and to itself. I do not know if he did this--I hope that he did, and I will continue to hope.

And then I forgive him. He is very quiet--he is obviously shocked. And I tell him, "I want you to remember that a liberal atheist has forgiven you today. I don't want you to ever forget that, as long as you live, do not forget what happened here. I don't have God behind me, but I speak for myself, and I forgive you for myself, and for you. Never forget this."

He said that he would. I wished him good luck, good luck with everything. He wished me the same.

Comments 1 - 50 of 54 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #35821 by Spiral on April 29, 2007 at 1:51 am

 avatarJust imagine someone doing that in a christian gathering.

Other Comments by Spiral

2. Comment #35824 by Logicel on April 29, 2007 at 2:06 am

 avatarAnd then I forgive him. He is very quiet--he is obviously shocked. And I tell him, "I want you to remember that a liberal atheist has forgiven you today. I don't want you to ever forget that, as long as you live, do not forget what happened here. I don't have God behind me, but I speak for myself, and I forgive you for myself, and for you. Never forget this."
________

Yet another example of an atheist teaching a Christian how to be "Christian."

Other Comments by Logicel

3. Comment #35825 by Machinus on April 29, 2007 at 2:26 am

This wasn't about homosexuality, or heterosexuality, or immorality. It was about profanity! The f-word! I can't imagine the profound ignorance and absolute incompetence necessary to get just one person to be this primitive - and there were almost a hundred of them! It's horrifying.

Other Comments by Machinus

4. Comment #35830 by Bob Russell on April 29, 2007 at 2:57 am

I agree Spiral....

Imagine if an atheist or a group of atheists dropped by a packed church and in the middle of the shaman's incantations, they all got up and noisily walked out, stopping to pour the holy water all over the shaman's book. Not one would get out alive.

Other Comments by Bob Russell

5. Comment #35831 by GodlessHeathen on April 29, 2007 at 2:58 am

 avatarthat was... astonishing. I've never witnessed such a crass, disgusting, hateful, self-righteous act such as that, and I hope seeing such a thing via video is the closest I ever get.

Mr. Daisey's description of talking with the bloke who wrecked his show outline is very revealing. This "Christian" man is just a run-of-the-mill sort, not driven by a lust for power or by a need to do great things, so his sample isn't tinged - and if Daisey's observations are correct, non-Christians are... what? Non people? I've seen that kind of thing before, folks treating other folks as things, up 'till someone mentions being a Christian, then it's all fellowship and smiles.

Is religion bad? Surely that demonstrates one of the primary reasons the answer is yes.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

6. Comment #35833 by Vee eL on April 29, 2007 at 3:01 am

 avatar"...., but they ran and didn't look back."

They probably were afraid to turn in salt pillars...

Sad dishonest human behavior.

Other Comments by Vee eL

7. Comment #35834 by Logicel on April 29, 2007 at 3:02 am

 avatarMachinus wrote, It was about profanity! The f-word!
________

And the head of the school outing was informed that the language would be 'adult' beforehand, and they still abruptly herded out the students anyway as if the appearance of such words was unexpected. Instead of owning up to their MISTAKE, they compounded their error by disrupting the show and destroying property. Also, I would imagine that they have actually terrified their own by their actions, by imperiously demanding immediate evacuation and labeling the utterance of the 'f' word as a security issue.

That's it, guys, call fire in a crowed theater when there isn't any, and the result will be the next time you do it, you will not be listened to--the opposite of what these Christian chaperons want to encourage.

Other Comments by Logicel

8. Comment #35849 by TimHill on April 29, 2007 at 3:57 am

Well that wasn't very nice.

I thought it was quite funny also.

Other Comments by TimHill

9. Comment #35853 by eirik on April 29, 2007 at 4:27 am

the the very idea of the protest was stupid; the form of the protest was, mildly put, childish and disrespectful; daisy's response (directly after it happened, trying to initiate a constructuve dialog with the people leaving, and in posting the video and text on the internet) was and is nothing less than highly admirable. this incident should be widely publicized, and daisy's response letter deserves popular recognition. that group of people thought they were taking a stand against daisy's show, but managed nothing more than embarrassing themselves. someone need to tell them that, because i don't think they are actually capable of coming to that realization themselves.

Other Comments by eirik

10. Comment #35855 by gcooke on April 29, 2007 at 4:36 am

 avatarThis video is hilarious. Firstly, the guy is actually funny. Secondly, his expression of total suprise when they walk out is priceless. Good to see that most of the audience stayed. The protestors come accross as rather ridiculous.

Other Comments by gcooke

11. Comment #35863 by Lagomort on April 29, 2007 at 5:57 am

Sometimes I get mad when the average Joe in the Islamic world does not speak up to the violence done in the name of their religion, then I see something like this. I forget what it must be like to live in a sea of self-righteous radicals that do not believe in free expression, and may kill you if you say or do anything contrary to their world view.

To those people, out there stuck, I am thinking of you, and I wish you all the best. I wish you were with me in a place where we could all be free to have our different opinions, and still respect one another as human beings...

Other Comments by Lagomort

12. Comment #35872 by slummingangel on April 29, 2007 at 6:57 am

 avatarthey've only reinforced the belief that they're close minded idiots

Other Comments by slummingangel

13. Comment #35893 by philos on April 29, 2007 at 7:59 am

 avatarOh get over yourselves, atheists.

It's not all about you and getting 'attacked'.

I support Dawkins' writings, but Paris Hilton 'entertainment' like this puts a bad taste in any reasonable person's mind.

The audience walked out because of the harsh language and graphic content; that's it.

Maybe they knew it would have been adult content, or maybe they didn't or maybe they didn't think it would be that bad. Do you have the flyer?

If I was a teacher and being a 6.8 level agnostic, I would take my students out of there without giving it a second thought.

Garbage is garbage and why waste time on this 'entertainer'.

I would have walked out too, with The God Delusion under my arm.

Other Comments by philos

14. Comment #35894 by Tomcat on April 29, 2007 at 8:06 am

This has to be the most disgusting and beautiful thing I have seen in a long time. I am floored by both the reaction of the old man and the way that Mike handled it. It was a great gesture of human compassion.

To "philos":

"The audience walked out because of the harsh language and graphic content; that's it."

No. He also had his work destroyed by a self-righteous bigot.

"I would have walked out too, with The God Delusion under my arm"

Like your own badge of self-righteousness? I suggest you get over yourself first.

Other Comments by Tomcat

15. Comment #35897 by cassdenata on April 29, 2007 at 8:26 am

philos, what a ridiculous self-righteous comment. Does all art have to be clean and pure. There are some artists and comics whose purpose is largely to be 'edgy' and push the envelope. You don't have to like it. But with your closed mind you are missing out.

Other Comments by cassdenata

16. Comment #35898 by Celandine on April 29, 2007 at 8:26 am

Philos:

The group was aware in advance that the show had adult content and strong language -- that is made clear in the second article. If the content was deemed to be a problem, they should not have attended to begin with. Disrupting the show, and more importantly destroying Daisey's work, is not an acceptable response.

Other Comments by Celandine

17. Comment #35899 by EvolvedDNA on April 29, 2007 at 8:31 am

Philos..Is this goup that destroyed this guys property a religious thought police? I would suggest that if this group had actully read the Bible they would know that that book had far more adult content in it, and is unsuitable for children.

Other Comments by EvolvedDNA

18. Comment #35900 by Boogie on April 29, 2007 at 8:34 am

 avatarBy the way philos, where did you get that avatar? Looks kind of familiar...

Other Comments by Boogie

19. Comment #35901 by cbelt on April 29, 2007 at 8:34 am

I associate with people who share David's warped and fearful view of world. There are lots of them in the US, but most don't act as aggressively. They react to their fear by isolating themslves from the world with Christian schools and home schooling, associating only with like-minded people from their megachurch, reading only Christian books, listening only to Christian radio, etc., which only reinforces their attitudes. This movement is extremely corrosive to our society, because it discourages mutual understanding and stigmitizes outsiders as not worth listening to. Of course, it also fills their children's minds with complete BS.

I think the one person most responsible for their paranoia is James Dobson. His newpaper column and radio show have a huge following. His formula is to skillfully take some modern "threat to the family", exagerrate it, associate it with secularism, identify the enemies respnsible and instruct the listener how to protect themselves.

Other Comments by cbelt

20. Comment #35926 by Jack Rawlinson on April 29, 2007 at 10:46 am

 avatarPhilos: did you actually watch the video? That was quite plainly a premeditated walkout. The whole group upped and left as one. They had been told in advance that the show contained "strong language and adult situations", yet they made a block booking.

And then there's the little matter of the free speech opponent who tried to destroy the guy's notes. I have no idea why you're trying to defend these people. Interesting.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

21. Comment #35929 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 11:09 am

Philos:

Don't be an idiot. The people who walked out were informed as and when they booked as to the content of the show as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the background to the story. Even then, if you don't like it just walk out. Don't try and bully someone by pouring water over their work. Where's the respect there?

What the hell has being a "6.8 agnostic" got to do with you choosing (if you were in the same position) to remove your kids from the show you fool? The guy's show isn't garbage - perhaps you've missed the wealth of critical acclaim this guy has recieved for his work.

Time and again the performer asked for an explaination. The only one that came was that they were a "christian" group.

How telling. How pathetic.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

22. Comment #35931 by dinoboy on April 29, 2007 at 11:13 am

 avatarWithout watching the video one might defend the "school group" chaperones with fearing a retaliation from the school board (or parents) - sadly, working in a school these days makes one practically tip-toe around many issues (sexual content/language being near the top of the list)

But this was not what we see in the video: What we see is a quiet, well coordinated evacuation. There was no explanation given or even a "by your leave" proposed by anyone in the group.

They showed no concern for the fact they were interrupting a show in progress for those still seated or the performer - quite the opposite there (though it seems possible that the vandal acted independently the actions of the group certainly provoked him)

Though I am confused by it; If this was to be a protest it was a odd and costly one, no? I mean, I don't go to Mass, place $2k in the collection basket, then WALK out... That will show those Christians!

Other Comments by dinoboy

23. Comment #35932 by Wilfred C. Lyon on April 29, 2007 at 11:15 am

This is interesting. Christian terrorists terrorizing someone with whom they disagree because that person doesnot comform to their religious concept of what is acceptable. And this in the name of protection, safety, and purity.

Does anyone else see the irony here? And we think that Christianity is "more developed" than that other "Abhramic religion".

Other Comments by Wilfred C. Lyon

24. Comment #35935 by Mango on April 29, 2007 at 11:22 am

 avatarMy interpretation of the events is that the group did leave pre-meditated.

Also, why did no one from the school (a parent or teacher) attend a prior performance to ensure its appropriateness before they bought 87 seats??

Ultimately the students are the victims of their parents and teachers who are teaching them to ruin something they disagree with rather than, say, merely writing a letter or protesting OUTSIDE the theater.

Other Comments by Mango

25. Comment #35937 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 11:25 am

Dinoboy:

"Though I am confused by it; If this was to be a protest it was a odd and costly one, no? I mean, I don't go to Mass, place $2k in the collection basket, then WALK out... That will show those Christians!"

I suppose they thought they the "moral point" they were making made the financial outlay acceptable.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

26. Comment #35941 by Vee eL on April 29, 2007 at 11:53 am

 avatarThe words between Philos and the other people is, I think, a typical American dispute.
I never seen a single theater flyer with some where the words: "adult content and strong language".

No Dutch comedian will think of putting that on his flyer. No law will even force them to do that.

So, it's not a big point over here. I just want to point out that there is a big cultural influence in this dispute, which makes it all a little bit odd to me.

Other Comments by Vee eL

27. Comment #35943 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Vee eL

The point was these people were apparently told what to expect when they rang on the phone to book their tickets.

What more can you do?

If they booked anyway then that's their own fault! Again, you don't have to ruin the guy's work - just leave.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

28. Comment #35947 by ImagineAZ on April 29, 2007 at 12:33 pm

I think we're too focused on the negative. This could turn out to be a huge lift for free speech, for performance art, for freethinking, etc.

And the honesty and sincerity of Mike Daisey shine through from the moment it happened to the last word of his second response article. I was impressed.

And what has already become a solid cult following could roll into a hugely successful career - all thanks to this protest group.

So in effect, the "terrorist attack" appears to be furthering the causes of everything the attackers despise.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

29. Comment #35949 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 29, 2007 at 12:48 pm

ImagineAZ I think you've got it spot on. Aside from making some christians look very silly I should imagine the fallout from this episode has done Mike Daisey the power of good and good luck to him too!

From looking at his website it looks as if he got a lot of very interesting material offer, there's certainly a book or two that I'd like to read on there.

Its a shame that the incident happened at all however, the guy struggled with his next show due to what had happened. I know it only looked tame but as the fella approached the stage (obviously to cause trouble) Mr Daisey must have been wondering whether he was going to be assaulted.

His reaction was commendable.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

30. Comment #35952 by Dog Boots on April 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Stupidity rarely impresses me anymore, so I was more amazed with Mike's handling the situation. Their attack was premeditated while he was unprepared. I can't imagine how the situation could be handled any better by a human being with it's two arms, two legs etc. Not looking like a fool for a single moment, keeping his cool the whole time. I don't think I've ever seen anyone win a fight more convincingly that that, ever, too bad many people won't appreciate it because it didn't involve a fist fight or an automatic weapon.

Simply exemplary!

Other Comments by Dog Boots

31. Comment #35961 by ghostbuster on April 29, 2007 at 3:03 pm

I'd like to organise 87 atheists to eat a full can of beans each and then attend that Church; watch them get up and leave again.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

32. Comment #35964 by tiff_seattle on April 29, 2007 at 3:13 pm

 avatarThis show was actually in Cambridge, not New York.

Other Comments by tiff_seattle

33. Comment #35967 by k1mgy on April 29, 2007 at 3:32 pm

 avatarMike is quite a fellow and the film of this incident left me in tears. Both of rage, and the way that he handled himself. I wrote him the day after this incident was published (by him: the media has ignored this story) suggesting that he should handle the situation aggressively.

The perpetrator was caught on film, as were several others. The fact that it was a group action suggests a conspiracy. The crime is criminal threatening with intent to do bodily harm (the second part of this is shown in court when the victim testifies that they felt their life in danger). Anyone in that audience could have prevented these people from leaving the theatre while awaiting the police. Then it would be time to take names, addresses, and see if any of them crank it up into a nice disorderly conduct charge along with others (the others requiring investigation and indictment), for a swift ride to the Cambridge Police lockup.

He also has a civil case for destruction of his property and the penalties there could be quite severe. As an artist, who had the only copy of his work destroyed, there is present and substantial future value.

In short, Mike could have had several of these creeps in jail and facing criminal charges along with a civil lawsuit. It is still in his power to do so.

Being a performer does not suddenly change the rules. You walk out of the performance. You don't attack the performer or his work. But apparently, being a "Christian" does, at least in the vacuous minds of these faithful.

I still don't know why he appears reluctant to face off with these people. Reading of the perpetrator's response, they seemed clearly, to use the word properly, "un-repentant". A wake-up call is needed. Severe and swift. If these cretins are members of a church, all the better. Drag them in as well to see if they're complicit.
I plead with Mike that if he did not make a stand then this would just embolden more of these alleged "christians" to do likewise, and worse.

Having thought on this, I would even say that, although Mike (and his audience) was a victim, his choice to let this go is a step back.

Of course, had I been in the same situation, there'd be a few of these assholes being bailed out and facing a trial. Plus, I'd own them.

This story has particular import as I live not far away and am very supportive of the arts and for freedom of expression. I attended the Maplethorpe exhibit at the ICA, not because I had a particular interest in his work, but simply to show support and to stand up to assholes.

I think Mike ought to know that there are many who are behind him and, at least in my case, would love to see him take this for what it is: an assault.

If that sounds retributive, so be it. Clearly, this bunch asked for it.

Other Comments by k1mgy

34. Comment #35970 by k1mgy on April 29, 2007 at 3:39 pm

 avatarPhilos writes, "The audience walked out because of the harsh language and graphic content; that's it."

No, that's not it. And, what graphic content? In your mind, brother.

Did you attend the performance? Did you see the video, or are you just blathering here.

Walking out is perfectly OK. Destroying someone's life's work and putting them in fear is NOT. This is not a matter of belief, or not. It's a matter of human decency and in this case - the law.

So tell us that this is unacceptable to you, or explain why you might think that what they did, over the word Fuck, is A-OK.

Other Comments by k1mgy

35. Comment #35971 by Patrick McArdle on April 29, 2007 at 3:39 pm

This makes an interesting counterpoint to the recent commentary on the aggressive atheism proclaimed by Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Hitchens. Nothing those men have written, said, or done comes anywhere close to this act of disrespectful vandalism. For whatever reasons, certain religious believers arrogate to themselves the 'right' to abuse everyone around them. Mr. Daisy, and all of the other audience members, had their show interrupted by the crass (and, as others here have noted, completely premeditated) actions of some self-described Christians. We've endured such abuse since (at least) the day when Cyril ordered Hypatia murdered for ignoring his edicts against her (or any other woman) teaching men. (Burning the Library of Alexandria, or dousing the performer's notes, shows the level of 'civilization' these people attain.)

As for the content of Mr. Daisy's work, I've seen two of his shows, and both engaged the audience in a very positive way. He does not insult his audience, or abuse them, as some artists do. While no performer should have endured this abuse, doing this to him was a larger injustice than it might have been in other cases. He took it better than most persons would have! Kudos to him.

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

36. Comment #35973 by davyB on April 29, 2007 at 3:49 pm

There's more to the story. Read the latest on the performer's web site. It may not have been pre-meditated, and the kids were probably not in on it. It was a choir group from a public school. The guy who had them walk out and then poured the water is a religious man with serious "issues." He said, "This is a Christian group," when he walked out. It could be that he was really stupid enough to take the kids to that show without knowing what the show was like. Or he may have been looking for an oportunity to become indignant.

I do not agree that it was okay to walk out en masse when the chaperone decided the language didn't suit him. They disrupted the show for everyone else, and probably caused considerable anxiety. Mind you, I have only heard the part that's on youtube. Still, "sticks and stones." The performer had none. Only words.

Other Comments by davyB

37. Comment #35975 by k1mgy on April 29, 2007 at 4:28 pm

 avatarDavyB writes, "It was a choir group from a public school".

If DavyB means "public" in the UK sense, then my ire is not further aroused. However in the US, "public school" means the national (still mostly secular) school system. Here, a "private" school, such as an academy, can be and are operated by all manner of wackos, and there's little the state can do if they meet the basic educational requirements (easy).

If it's a public school, I'd like to know which one has a "choir group", so I may be certain to avoid it.

As for the individual having issues: we ALL have issues. But when they spill over (quite literally) on another, then those issues become worthy of some serious attention.

Other Comments by k1mgy

38. Comment #35979 by davyB on April 29, 2007 at 5:03 pm

"Public school" as in run by a local government ("school district") and open to the public -- although the feds find ways to insinuate themselves.

It's all right here: http://www.mikedaisey.com/2007/04/aftermath-and-confrontation.sht

Other Comments by davyB

39. Comment #35984 by Ohnhai on April 29, 2007 at 5:33 pm

 avatarTo echo the theme of the first half.

Don't Hate. Pity, if you must but don't hate. For it is a corrosive thing ad will consume you until all you have is that hate.

I know this. I hated someone with a venom I -- now -- can scarcely account for. Indeed I was only brought out of it by a friend how asked "why do you hate him?" and I discovered I had forgotten why I hated, only that I did.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

40. Comment #35993 by k1mgy on April 29, 2007 at 7:35 pm

 avatarOhnhai suggests, "Don't Hate. Pity" and I find myself agreeing in principle, and I suppose there is a way, perhaps just allowing time to pass and nerve endings to settle, where the instinct to lash out is less immediate because the threat that launched it no longer present.

Or is it no longer present?

What of the next performer, whether atheist or just of another religious stripe, when they, like this one, are assaulted in equal measure or to a greater extent? At what point do we, as members of society concerned with a stable social order, choose to do something? When someone is dead?

Perhaps, this day, my own nerve endings are a bit tattered as on the radio just yesterday I heard stories and testimony of two former prisoners of the current US mal-administration. Both, young men, had been maliciously "sold" as "terrorists" (there are apparently bounties offered in Pakistan, where this occurred). They were taken in the night to a US air base where they were deprived of even the most basic things such as light, sleep, clothing, food, warmth. They were interrogated in ways that caused my stomach to wretch. If even a scintilla of what they say is true, then it's no wonder to me why the current US mal-administration is loathed throughout the world and by many within its own borders; many who love their nation so much as to have their hearts bleed when these stories come to light.

The two were among over 200 of the 350 currently residing in complete legal limbo in the US's Guantanamo torture facility who were recently released simply because, finally, it was admitted that there was absolutely no evidence that they had done anything in the slightest wrong. But, rather than their incarcerators and interrogators standing up like civilized men and women, and admitting their blunder, instead our government's fine fleet of lawyers attempted to force these innocents to sign documents which would absolve the US from its crimes and, most nastily, pledging the victim to not engage in "terrorism" once released. If there might be any more substantiation needed to convince people that this mal-administration has created more "terrorists" than they have possibly, and probably, brought to justice, it is this.

Incidentally, these many innocents have been deported to far away places and are not allowed, despite their innocence, from ever entering the US. Hence, one of the young men, who was a student at an American university and who had a great interest and love of our country, will be put out of the way so that the cameras and news will not, each day, recount their tales for all Americans to read. What a pity.

A reader might think this is all irrelevant, but I relate all of this because, quite frankly, I am convinced that these acts of barbarism on the part of a nation happen for just the same reason that prompted (at least one) religious wacko to attack a courageous and brilliant performer. It's an extreme and narrow world and life view that is fed by religion and, as Richard Dawkins and others warn, it is a growing danger.

What's worse is that it could well happen again. Why? Because we, through inaction, allow it to or pity it away. Not one has stood up and said NO MORE, or at least in sufficient numbers and with an unequivocal message that can not be ignored, and in the case of Guantanamo, and in the far lesser yet equally chilling case of the attack on this artist, someone ought to.

It is pitiful that a deranged individual would do such a thing and there is, I think, a part of everyone's thinking that might want to reach out in helpful compassion. The person may need medical assistance to overcome an organic brain disease, or the help of trained professionals to be extricated from a religion that has them so gripped they do some very foolish things in its name.

But there is still this act, and all the others, that cry out for someone to say: NO MORE, and in my view, no amount of pity can answer this need, nor should it.

Other Comments by k1mgy

41. Comment #35998 by arthursanford on April 29, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Shall we go protest a chruch sermon by leaving en masse and then pouring water on the minister's notes?

Anyone up for it? Come on! let's protest a church gathering by looking like a bunch of assholes!

Surely, if they are obligated to protest over the word "fuck" and the mention of sex with Paris Hilton, then we are obligated to disrupt a church service when they claim that everyone who does not agree with them will be tortured forever in hell. Oh wait... that wouldn't be very good of us would it? Never mind.

Other Comments by arthursanford

42. Comment #36000 by mintcheerios on April 29, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Those people ruined the show for the rest of the people in the audience. That makes them jerks.

Other Comments by mintcheerios

43. Comment #36001 by Veronique on April 29, 2007 at 8:33 pm

 avatarI think the whole thing was premeditated.

The content of the show was known beforehand the tickets were bought with that knowledge, the students may or may not have been in on it, 'David' went to that theatre knowing full well what he was going to do. It was a deliberate act of terrorism, if you like, put in place knowingly and well beforehand.

So it does make it an act of terrorism.

Daisey acquitted himself well, he recovered, kept his audience and was able to continue his show. Well done to him. And well done for tracking David down and trying to talk to him.

Daisey's comments show the effect the incident had on him when staging his next show. I take my hat off to him for refusing to be victimised.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

44. Comment #36020 by Liveliest Crib on April 29, 2007 at 11:33 pm

With all due respect to the eloquent artist victimized by his audience that sad day, I have to question the following quote:

[The protest's] naked righteousness and contempt have nothing to do with the godhead, and everything to do with pathetic human pride at its very worst.


Seriously? The godhead of the Old Testament is almost entirely about "naked righteousness and contempt," and he rears his ugly godhead in the sequel as well. And that godhead has far worse forms of protest than pouring water on an infidel's writings.

Why throw them such a diplomatic bone? After all, their faith is largely based on fearing that godhead. And indeed, the most revealing section of the artist's essay involves the "security issue," and the main culprit's terror of, well, just about everything in the world outside his house.

Having worked in professional politics on the Democratic Party's side of the American game, I have heard strategists lament the insanity of the "Christian Right" demographic, who seem continually to vote against their economic interests. How, it is asked, can people who should embrace notions of minimum wages or universal health care be persuaded to vote for politicians who have none of their interests at heart but for some shared religious prejudices. The most sensible answer that arises in these discussions (whether one buys the Democratic Party Platform or not -- this is not intended as a partisan diatribe) is that they're just plain afraid of everything. They have what they have, what little it might be, take comfort in their faith, and fear losing what they have at the hands of immoral, godless politicians who merely purport to have their interests at heart. One swear word, one support of "pornographic" art, one mention of teaching evolution in schools, etc., out of a Democrat's mouth is indeed enough to terrify them.

Somehow, we seem to have a frightening amount of people in the U.S. so isolated, so uneducated that even mere words scare them. Their whole faith is based on fear. (They'll say it's love, but they'll also call themselves "god fearing" before they will "god loving.") Our media is drenched with nothing but warnings of the next terrorist coming to kill us or the next drug or child molester entering our homes.

We need to puncture this culture of fear. I hope the artist's response to them at least demonstrates that he refused to cower in fear of them.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

45. Comment #36046 by Vee eL on April 30, 2007 at 3:38 am

 avatarStuart Paul Wood

You a right about it, you can't do more and the only thing really wrong here is the way they leave.
But I think that just because off spotlighting the fact that there is 'strong language', the reactions on it are a little bit stronger to. I'm not saying that this reaction is caused that, it's just a feeling that in America/England this is a bigger issue and therefor create sometimes(!) more reaction. I know feeling isn't a strong argument, but that's why I said this is a little odd to me.

Other Comments by Vee eL

46. Comment #36059 by k1mgy on April 30, 2007 at 4:35 am

 avatarLiveliest Crib has offered a comment I think we all ought to re-read. What an excellent summation of the problem and, I think, ways of solving it: education, and confrontation.

Puncture the fear like a balloon. Good show.

Other Comments by k1mgy

47. Comment #36111 by Lee Harrison on April 30, 2007 at 8:00 am

 avatarWhat an appalling thing to do! And arseholes like these have the effrontery to say that people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are unforgiveably rude for just writing books!

There are three things that made me feel good watching the video. First, a significant portion of the audience laughed at the cowardly arseholes, both as they were going and afterwards - this is a good sign.

Second was Mike's response - after he'd gotten over the initial shock and adrenaline response he did an exceptional job of making the audience comfortable again without trying to pretend that nothing had happened. As a performer myself (different field, though) I know how hard it can be to refocus an audience and it was good to see professionalism on display.

Third, his response at the time and afterwards as outlined in the article above are an exemplary illustration of how a rational atheist/humanist should respond to shit like this - strongly without a descent into the rabid raving that we see from 'the faithful' or that they falsely expect from us.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

48. Comment #36144 by Lamonte Cranston on April 30, 2007 at 9:41 am

Mike Daisey seems like an incredibly compassionate artist, a performer I've seen in the past whose personal anecdotes about being struck by lightning and working in a mental health facility were hilarious. We need more people like him who are willing to engage with religious/faith types in that same compassionate, personal way. Christians are humans, too, it is forgotten, though they have had their minds twisted by the fear that is on display in this and countless other videos.

Other Comments by Lamonte Cranston

49. Comment #36241 by relevo on April 30, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Hey, I know. How about we round up a group of public school students, and call up the local Catholic church. We ask if there'll be any religious preaching the coming Sunday, because we plan on attending as a group. Then when we show up at the church we act surprised at the content of speaker's wording, and cause a huge stink by being jerk-offs who throw the holy water in the preacher's face. When asked to answer for our actions as we leave, we self-righteously boast that we're a nonreligious group.

Oh wait, no, because then we'd be uberdouchebags as this supposed Christian group was on Mike Daisy's private show. Nevermind that this supposed Christian group is really supposed to be a NON-RELIGIOUS representative public school group. If this school is receiving government funding, it should be noted that the school's representatives are abusing their posts, and should be fired.

Other Comments by relevo

50. Comment #36267 by Allan Greene on April 30, 2007 at 5:30 pm

04-30-2007
Monday

These Christians are Christian clerical fascists.

There should be no mistake as to exactly what they are.

It is they who are the main reason that, since I reside in the bible-thumping state of Florida, and am myself atheist and leftist, I take advantage of the law permitting me to keep and own firearms, and the law that permitted me to have a concealed firearms carrying license.

I believe that art is threatened by religious fundamentalism, and that Christian religious fundamentalism in the U.S. organizes into fascist terrorist mobs -- essentially those sorts of mobs this individual encountered.

What should happen -- and has not happened -- is, there should be mass workers' defense guards of levelheaded men and women drawn from every variety of religion and no religion from workers' and labor organizations to defend the right of artists to do their art.

The New York City law against the right of the people to keep and bear arms (and I lived in New York for many years, and there found myself robbed and burglarized many times) should be abolished.

And atheists, blacks, gays, Jews, Musims, anyone on the hit list of these Christian clerical-fascist fundamentalist thugs should be armed and know the proper and safe handling of firearms.

There should have been a defense guard at this artistic gathering to preserve the right of the artists to do their art and to repulse this Christian clerical-fascist fundamentalist violent assault.

--Allan Greene

Other Comments by Allan Greene
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE