Mike Dunford was a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studied evolution. Life as an army spouse has since moved him on to Pensacola, where he's currently trying to figure out what to do next. While he's doing that, he writes stuff here, although not usually in the third person. He's also a contributer to The Pandas Thumb. As is the case with everyone else here, his opinions are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of any organization he is affiliated with.
« links for 2008-07-15 | Main | links for 2008-07-16 »
Category: Religion
Posted on: July 16, 2008 8:57 AM, by Mike Dunford
Apparently, Chad's dog has at least some of the issues surrounding the PZ Myers/Eucharist desecration issue figured out. I'm not sure, but I think she understands them much better than some of the folks who have been commenting here. And she expresses things with so much more grace and panache than I usually manage.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Chad's post did an even poorer job of elucidating the distinction between a cracker and a cartoon than your previous post on the subject. The fact that you agree with it doesn't make it a good post - that's the kind of thinking that causes hordes of Pharyngula readers to agree with some of the ridiculous things PZ says.
I enjoy reading your blog precisely because it tends to not be that type of blog - the "I agree with this person's conclusion, so I will overlook their reasoning" type of post. Be as critical of the things you agree with as you are of the things you disagree with.
Posted by: Eric | July 16, 2008 9:58 AM
I'm gonna have to disagree very, very strongly with you on the aptness of Chad's analogy. This is where I think he's dead wrong:
Imagine if we actually applied this principle in real life, rather than in Chad's imaginary world. Remember that the entire religious right consider other people's private sexual lives to be part of "their lawn", and they bark like mad whenever anyone, anywhere (say, a gay guy in San Francisco) "pees on their lawn" by having sex in a way they don't like. They claim that the private practices of gays "violate their religious freedom".
Chad is absolutely, positively wrong when he says that what really matters is that the dog thinks it's his lawn, so we shouldn't tread on what he thinks is his property, but really isn't. We should not be deferent to people who can't mind their own damn business.
When someone barks to defend a lawn that isn't theirs, anyone who gives a damn about freedom should bark back. That the dog thinks it's his lawn is the problem. And being deferent towards the bullying dog is just a sign of one's own cowardice.
Posted by: Wes | July 25, 2008 2:51 PM