Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
I was trying to avoid weighing in on this one, but blogorrhea always wins.
I won't bother rehashing the details of the imbroglio---if you don't know, well, you've been sleeping. Go on...google "pharyngula cracker"...I can wait.
OK, now that you've caught up, here's my two cents.
I'm conflicted about this. It's not usually a good thing to offend people's deeply held beliefs unless those beliefs are deeply offensive. A free society requires a great deal of tolerance. This of course cuts both ways--if Catholics can expect reasonable peace, so can those who criticize their beliefs.
As I started writing this, my daughter took the pen out of my tablet pc and broke the clip off of it. I reacted angrily, and she gave me one of those "I'm gonna punish you by crying" looks. I grabbed her, held her tight, and said, "It's just a thing, honey. Things aren't important; people are."
And that helped put things in perspective---sort of. How would I feel if someone grabbed a Torah out of the Ark and tossed it on the floor? I'd be angry at the gesture, and possibly frightened, given the history of my people.
The fact that people are willing to die in the name of an object, rather than a person, saddens me. Objects, no matter how deeply revered, are objects. Fundamentalists often claim a unique insight into the value of human life, based on it's relationship to the divine. At the same time, they are uniquely able to imbue inanimate objects with that same divine presence. Atheists are often criticized for having no basis for valueing life, but, hey, how many atheists will threaten your life over a scroll or a cracker? Deification of the inanimate, raising the value of the inanimate above that of a human being is unique to religion, and a unique danger.
My daughter is smart enough to know that a thing is a thing, a person a person, and one is more valuable than the other. Perhaps the fundies need a lesson from a four year-old.
Comments
You're looking at the issue too rationally, Pal. Most of us can boil it down to cracker v. human, but if you believe in the transubstantiation of the Body of Christ, it isn't that simple.
But regardless if you believe it's just a cracker (it is) or the literal Body of Christ, I think most anyone with even a moderate grasp on reality can see the absurdity in threatening somebody's life for leaving church with a Eucharist instead of eating it. And doubly so for threatening the life and career of another individual simply for being critical of the previous events.
If I did believe in a God and even if I were a Catholic, I don't see how I could get so worked up about this. If God really took an active interest in the world, and if taking a Eucharist were such a sin, I'd be fairly confident God could take care of this problem himself through his ever-mysterious "ways".
Posted by: Will K. | July 12, 2008 3:35 PM
Because, Will, on some level even the believers know that God *won't* take care of it in his "ever-mysterious ways", and theirs entire faith is actually based on real world actions by followers, not their gods ineffable inaction. Some justify this as, "God wanted me to do it.", the crazier ones by, "God told me to do it.", and the only moderately unhinged as, "God will reward me for doing it." But, in the end, its all a shell game. They do what they want to defend the social club they are in, and then "justify" this by claiming its part of the great plan of something than never lifted a finger to prevent the original action, punish the person responsible, or do anything to help.
Simple fact is, if believers thought like you suggested and left "god" to solve these problems, we wouldn't have religious driven wars, blogs talking about the latest faith based idiot, etc. We also wouldn't find lightning rods on churches, since they wouldn't bother with them, figuring it was all part of "gods plan" if it burned down. And, you can find some of those people too. One bunch built a church without *any* architect, they finished it, and it promptly collapsed. Their answer wasn't, "Gosh! Maybe we should have found someone 'competent' to do it!", it was, "Praise the lord no one got hurt in the empty building, which god made fall down on a day no one was there!"
There is a song by Leslie Fish, called "breaking strain", that just about covers the thinking applied by these people. If it falls down, rebuild it, if it still does, rebuild it again, if it still does, maybe next time it won't, but never use the textbooks with tables at the end, which describe how much stress things can take, etc., oh Son's of Adam, that would be too *reasonable*. And this is applied to everything from building construction, to sex education, to Biblical interpretation, to moral constructs. If it fails, just rebuild the same mess and hope it doesn't fall down again. If it settles, only half the roof falls off, and it leans at a 10 degree angle, its a "success", because it didn't collapse on Sunday, with a full congregation, and kill half the people in it. And even if the later happened, well, God must have "called" those people early for some reason, lets "rebuild again".
The "moderates" all have pretty much figured out that the real world doesn't work that way, and grasp desperately at the remnants of what is left after you give up on the silly idea that God will do everything for you, never mind that "God helps those who help themselves", is 100% contradictory to *everything* in the Bible. lol
Posted by: Kagehi | July 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Thing is i'm torn on this too, it is rather like taking a child's security blanket and telling them not to be so silly. There are going to be tears.
Actually i do hope something explodes here rather than fading away to become one more blog entry, it will really show (hopefully) the lack of reality of this belief and that something is fundamentally wrong with religion and superstition.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 12, 2008 4:14 PM
Great post, as ever, but you forget that for Catholics, the Eucharist is not just a 'thing', it's a person. Actually, it's more than a person, it's the god that they worship (and would willingly die for).
You are probably aware that many Jews were murdered because they were suspected of 'desecrating the host'. The only thing holding people like Donohue back from advocating the same fate for PZ and the UCF student is the law of the U.S., which I'm sure they would love to change.
Interestingly enough, transubstantiation is a medieval invention; prior to that, Christians regarded the bread of communion to be merely a symbol of the body of Christ.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 4:15 PM
I see this as no different from the attacks on Danish cartoon writers or hysteria over English teachers naming a teddy bear Mohammed. Irrationality is dangerous, just because we have better laws protecting people from the mob here doesn't mean that their foolishness is any different from the extremism of other groups. Dobson is a classic mullah issuing a fatwah against any and all who blaspheme. The only thing saving us is that we live in a free country run by a secularish government which most the time protects us from the mullahs in our midst.
Posted by: MarkH | July 12, 2008 4:28 PM
Ugh. PZ is behaving like a child. I think the transubstantiation is stupid, but what is his little stunt accomplishing? Anybody learning anything about science or how science and faith can get along in society? No, it's about the biggest blog dick.
I agree with Mark that this is a lot like the Danish cartoons. The theory seems to be, let's do something insulting and prove that there are extremists. But we already know there are extremists in any religion and what the Danish cartoons and the PZ cracker stunts do is give power and fuel to those extremist movements.
Posted by: Boris | July 12, 2008 4:46 PM
"And that helped put things in perspective---sort of. How would I feel if someone grabbed a Torah out of the Ark and tossed it on the floor? I'd be angry at the gesture, and possibly frightened, given the history of my people."
This is NOT about the "object" - it is about calling for the followers of this Christian-hating academic to actively invade churches and to steal a sacred part of worship for public desecration.
Do you think it would be OK for PZ to tell his fans to invade Jewish synagogues to steal multiple scrolls and then hold them for public desecration while they cheer him on????
Honestly, try to rationalize this call for active actions of hate really makes all of you look like extremists how passively OK such actions.
How about a little intellectual honesty, even if you dislike Catholics?
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 4:56 PM
Dang it, Will beat me to it in the second paragraph, but I'd like to say this, in any case:
As I wrote my letter of support for Dr. Myers, I started wondering if I would not be similarly outraged at seeing a swastika spray-painted on a synagogue (or really, anywhere). Of course I would. Any civilized, reasonable person would. So what's the difference? Why does one sacrilege seem worthy of outrage, but another not? Can I honestly criticize the outrage expressed by the Catholic faithful when I would express a similar outrage upon seeing a neo-Nazi symbol superimposed on a building built for Jewish religious observance?
The answer is yes, I can.
Both acts are disrespectful and sacrilegious, that's true. However, there is a clearly-expressed threat of violence in the case of the neo-Nazi vandalism that was not present in the case of the student's disrespectful behavior. The student presented no threat or imminent danger to any recognizable property or to an actual person's life. The responses by the church and the religious community were entirely disproportionate to the student's actions and to PZ Myers' postings on the subject.
The issue wasn't that people were willing to die for a symbolic object, it was that they suddenly became willing to inflict bodily harm and even kill for it when there was no clear rational purpose or legal justification for doing so. What is more disturbing to me is that even among the religious moderates posting to Myers' blog, you find very few who actually repudiate the violence and extreme anger directed at the professor.
Hugs can't fix this degree of broken thinking. This wasn't an accident or a Valuable Life Lesson. The threats were deliberate, as is the continued silence from the majority of the religious community.
If this incident teaches us anything, it's that we must immediately start to undercut or dilute the ideas and cultural customs that make violent zealotry possible and justifiable.
Posted by: MrMarkAZ | July 12, 2008 4:59 PM
Boris wrote "But we already know there are extremists in any religion..."
To be honest, I never knew there were Catholic extremists (I always viewed the IRA as nationalists more than religious crazies). Sheltered life in the UK, I guess.
Brett (or is it Naz, k8, promo, baker, PZ is a fool, Burns, rumrunner, Dobbs, NYTs, KKKAthiest, Andy, CDV, BradJ, b7, PCD, NVFU, Your daddy, facebock, or baker?) wrote "This is NOT about the "object" - it is about calling for the followers of this Christian-hating academic to actively invade churches and to steal a sacred part of worship for public desecration."
PZ hasn't advocated theft. The magic crackers are given out freely. No end-user licence is signed by the receiver, thus there is no contract which can be broken, and no crime can be committed.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 5:16 PM
MH,
Wrong "Brett," however, you are the perfect example of a boorish, morally obtuse, extreme atheist.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 5:24 PM
There is a creedal "contract" for acceptance of the Holy Communion.
Any violation of this community contract is unethical and, if done so with the intent of malice or for public displays of hate towards a specific religious group, then it becomes a crime.
Are all atheist so socially autistic?
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 5:31 PM
Brett, I still agree that the whole thing is in poor taste and offensive, but not for those reasons.
If you are a member of the catholic faith community and buy into it all, then yes, it is obviously sacreligious and unethical to desecrate the host.
If you don't really buy it that much, catholic or no, the ethical obligation isn't really there. IMHO.
Posted by: PalMD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 12, 2008 5:35 PM
LOL, first you say that you are not the sock-puppet that has been trolling Pharyngula, and then you accuse atheists of being "socially autistic"*, just like the sock-puppet has being doing at Pharyngula!
Isn't it a sin to lie? Every time you do so, Jesus kills a puppy.
* let me guess, you're anti-vax too?
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 5:38 PM
Peter, FYI, the sockpuppet's IP is 68.231.xxx.xxx.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 5:46 PM
Pal: "If you don't really buy it that much, catholic or no, the ethical obligation isn't really there. IMHO."
So, a person should not extend ethical consideration to other groups in society if they do not hold their exact views/traditions/opinions?
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
It would be in the interest of moderate scientific atheists to distance themselves from extremists such as PZ, rather than attempt to rationalize or defend their actions.
My opinion, of course.
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 5:48 PM
Going to "threaten" me, MH????
Want my home address?
Like I said, keep up the good work.
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 5:50 PM
"Going to "threaten" me, MH???? "
LOL @ the drama queen.
No, Brett, the persecution is a figment of your imagination. I'm just exposing you for what you are.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 5:55 PM
MH,
Actually, you are projecting and exposing yourself for what you are.
Ironic, isn't it.
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 5:57 PM
"Ironic, isn't it."
About as ironic as rain on your wedding day, sweet-cheeks.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 6:01 PM
More projection.
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 6:03 PM
"More projection."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 6:05 PM
Yes, they're only "things." Is that an invitation for me to trash your car? How about the "art project" your kid did in second grade, just before she died?
People care about things. You can hurt them. Am I supposed to admire you for being able (and willing) to hurt people?
And yes, if you hurt enough people you're going to find one who overreacts. Congratulations, whatever that proved.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2008 6:32 PM
D. C. Sessions,
I wasn't aware that crackers were expensive or unique? And lets not forget that the magic biscuit was given to the student in question. He probably would have eaten it (after showing it his non-Catholic friend), if the church officials hadn't assaulted him.
What has been proven is that Catholics can be just as superstitious and reactionary as the Muslims that were riled at the publication of a cartoon of their pedophilic prophet.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 6:59 PM
MH:
If that's what floats your boat, fine. Does it follow that those are the only attributes that people are allowed to care about?
People have buttons. Wow. I'm, like, so impressed by the total maturity and advanced ethics of someone who has discovered that -- and apparently can't resist demonstrating it.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2008 7:22 PM
Sorry I hurt your feelings by pointing out that your analogies were completely flawed.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 7:28 PM
sorry it took me a sec to snip that IP. Please, continue.
Posted by: PalMD | July 12, 2008 7:28 PM
I think you've inadvertently hit on the key point here: You're comparing these outraged Catholics to children. In short, the very point here is that Catholics are acting like children - only possibly more violent. PZ's goal isn't to simply hurt them, like by taking a child's security blanket away, he wants them to grow up. And to do that, he's pressing one of their most sensitive issues to try to get it to sink in how silly it is. It probably won't work for the more extreme contingent, but some moderates might look at this and think, "Do I really want to be associated with those people, who are willing to kill over a cracker?"
Posted by: Infophile | July 12, 2008 8:18 PM
Sure, what he did was impolite. He punched some buttons, and didn't act in the most mature way possible. This is also what PZ and Richard have been on for a while. WHY is it ethically bad to point out that the Catholics are acting like children?
The result, however, is just a bit out of whack with the 'crime'.
Which side knocks on the door of my private residence and bothers me at home, acting rude and insulting if I dont let them? They're acting within the laws of society. But I think it's kind of rude and immature to be so in your face about things. DOes this mean they should stop?
And which side took something freely given, and did something unexpected with it? Does transsubstantion even happen if the person receiving it isn't Catholic (note big C)? Has anyone spilled the communion wine on the floor? What happens to them?
And yes DC, if you ruined my car, I would file charges. But I wouldn't send you death threats. That would still be rude.
Posted by: Brendan S | July 12, 2008 8:32 PM
WHY is it bad to point out that blacks are acting like a bunch of over-sexed idiots?
Does rephrasing the question make it easier to understand?
Sounds like you're getting upset over "just a thing."
Ah, but others do -- ever hear of "road rage?" So you're no better than them, getting upset over a "thing."
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2008 8:38 PM
Blacks acting like a bunch of oversexed idiots? The hell?
And basically, your point is that people get upset in different ways, so if you upset someone you should expect death threats? I mean, I'm just trying to understand here?
Posted by: Brendan S | July 12, 2008 8:44 PM
You mean that there aren't any blacks who act like oversexed idiots?
(Obviously I didn't get my point across.)
No, my point is the same one I taught my kids before they entered kindergarten: "don't make things worse." It doesn't matter whether other people are jerks, and it certainly doesn't matter whether they act even more like jerks when you push their buttons. What matters is that pushing their buttons is a Bad Thing. The person who knows how to push buttons and does is as responsible for the results as the one who blows up -- arguably more so, since he had the power to prevent the whole thing and chose to do it -- knowing the outcome.
As for the "oversexed idiots" line, the point is that you were engaging in that classic tactic of dehumanizing a group you don't like by taking the undesirable behavior of a few and painting the whole group. Niggers, kikes, WOPs, chinks, honkeys, wetbacks, the list is endless. It's bigotry.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2008 9:00 PM
Fair enough, I'll be more specific. Of course, I'll expect you to come running to chide anyone who takes the actions of Dawkins or PZ and paints 'Athiests' with the same brush.
And, it seems like your point is that PZ should have kept his mouth shut, and let just kinda run amok? I don't think PZ is really the only one at fault here. And maybe you're not saying that, but it does sort of seem that way.
It could easily be conjectured that the college kid who took the item didn't know he would cause such a fuss. And clearly from your previous statement, you don't believe him to be at thought. But the "Catholic overreactors" (In an attempt to be specific.) arn't exactly innocent here. You'll note that it's not like the people in the Catholic Church who I say are overreacting were exactly silent before PZ put his two cents in. Expulsion? From School? Armed Guards?
Posted by: Brendan S | July 12, 2008 9:18 PM
Buzz, wrong again, DC Sockpuppet. Bigotry is when you say "All (insert group here) are (insert insult here)." When we say that *THESE* Catholics who got so upset over a cracker are acting like spoiled children, that is not bigotry. You can use all the racist words in your vocabulary, it won't change the fact that these people, in this case, are acting like spoiled children.
Posted by: LanceR | July 12, 2008 9:19 PM
There's supposed to be "whatever you call the people who overreacted" betwen 'let' and 'just kinda run amok'?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2008 9:22 PM
There's supposed to be "whatever you call the people who overreacted" betwen 'let' and 'just kinda run amok'?
P.S. The whole 'It's your fault for pissing me off and I can't be responsabile for my actions' (Not you, but, for instance a given person that sends death threats) but smacks of the news story I saw recently where North Korea is blaming South Korea for North Korea shooting one of their citizens.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hGHDlrwOLnQjEoPnJ7rjraM5wbfg
I realise this is an extreme example, but you seem to not mind taking ideas to extremes.
Posted by: Brendan S | July 12, 2008 9:25 PM
Just because the "Catholic League" issued a press release to say that the kid in FL should be disciplined by his college, DOES NOT mean that all 25 million American Catholics were gunning for him.
You atheists were just looking to pick a fight --- and that is EXACTLY what PZ did with his foolish and dangers threats to attack Catholic rituals.
The funniest part is that this pussy, PZ, then calls for help! after his outrageous incitement of hate.
Right.....PZ is the victim....more like he was the one who yells fire in a crowded theater.
PS - you don't have to believe what Catholics believe to realize that this PZ's call for desecration was a extreme threat against their community.
What is wrong with you people??? Have you no decency, sirs?
Posted by: Sardine | July 12, 2008 9:34 PM
Brendan S:
Do Roman Catholics do that? I've never seen it happen.
Posted by: Pseudonym | July 12, 2008 9:35 PM
Happened to me in college all the time.
And I went to Iowa State. Not a traditionally Catholic school.
PZ knows exactly what he's doing. I'm sure it's more like a game to him. But it is funny to hear "everyone" come and claim that since PZ posted something on his blog that "the people of the Catholic Faith who are overreacting" have no control over their actions! It's not their fault! It's PZ's fault for saying stuff.
Posted by: Brendan S | July 12, 2008 9:43 PM
Brendan,
You are right!
People should just ignore calls for hateful physical action against specific religious or ethic groups and their traditions...
Who needs civility? Who needs "society"? Why can't I scream fire in a crowded theater? It is my right to free speech!
You guys are really lacking for logic.
Does free-thinking = no thinking? It sure looks that way.
Posted by: Sardine | July 12, 2008 9:53 PM
Oh, and just because I can't help myself:
You atheists were just looking to pick a fight ....
Just because PZ wants a cracker to dispoil doesn't mean all million Atheists in the US are out to get (Catholics?).
Posted by: Brendan S | July 12, 2008 9:54 PM
You can't scream fire in a crouded theater because it is a threat to public saftey. I fail to see the parallel to anythign we're talking about here. Please explain it or stop saying that.
And the people who you are defending are threatining physical action jsut as much as PZ did. Even if you put Catholic blasphemy on the same level as murder, all you're doing is saying that they responded in kind. Two wrongs make a right after all eh?
And you'll note that I didn't say what PZ did was nice. I even said it was rude (I guess I said impolite). I do think it's rude. I wouldn't do it. That doesn't mean that license if given for the reasion that ensued.
Posted by: Brendan S | July 12, 2008 9:58 PM
Read above. It's not, "*THESE* Catholics." It's "Catholics." As in,
"What has been proven is that Catholics can be just as superstitious and reactionary as the Muslims that were riled at the publication of a cartoon of their pedophilic prophet."
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2008 10:07 PM
Brendan,
There is a difference between "free speech" and actually calling for action against a particular group (in this case, Catholic).
He can say the Catholic League are assholes, or he can blasphemy Catholic rituals all day long on his blog until he is blue in the face; however, he cannot incite hateful actions in the real world and, if it happens, it will be considered hate crimes against this group.
Big difference: free speech (of course, all day long), calls for physical action against faith groups (insanely wrong and possibly criminal if carried out).
There is a connection between the word "fire" and the violence that ensues in the theater -- the same goes for any unethical/criminal actions that PZ or his followers take due to his words.
PS - PZ is a bigot - no two ways about it.
Posted by: Sardine | July 12, 2008 10:17 PM
Let's be clear here: there is plenty of assholiness going around for everyone. Nothing new about that.
However, one of the most fundamental principles of a free society is the right to be wrong. Related is the right to be different -- which means that you don't have to share my values or my ideas of what is important (you can thank me later.) Perhaps most important is the principle that reasonable people of good will can disagree.
Lose those and you're headed for a holy war, and it doesn't matter whether it's Jihadists, Communists, John Birchers, the Spanish Inquisition, or the Weed on Wednesday Party.
The intrinsic frictions of diversity causes plenty of irritation at best. Some people don't handle that well and instead of getting on with their lives decide to return the grief with interest. Some go out of their way to stir the pot. If there are too many of those compared to the ones who shrug off annoyances and those who actively make peace, here comes the Jimson Weed Jihad.
So, no, I'm not making excuses for anyone. I am, however, particularly calling out the High Priests of Assholiness who make excuses for (or even encourage) people who chose to go out of their way to reduce the overall civility of society.
Is that maybe just a little bit clearer now?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2008 10:23 PM
I think it's disingenuous to continually shift between the object and its referents.
"Niggar" is just a word.
The US Flag is just a piece of cloth.
The Koran is just a book.
Yet you can be sued, arrested, have your career destroyed for using/abusing any of those; people have died for them. Not for the actual word or object, but for what they symbolize.
It looks downright silly to argue over a word, a piece of cloth, a book -- and that's not what this is about. But it sure is convenient to say it is when you're trying to appear guileless.
"How would I feel if someone grabbed a Torah out of the Ark and tossed it on the floor? I'd be angry at the gesture, and possibly frightened, given the history of my people."
Exactly. It is not just a simple case of vandalism. It's a statement, and in today's society, a hate crime. Even if no legal charges were brought, the perpetrator would likely be socially ostracized and vilified. And, to not coin a phrase, "most decent people would agree with that".
How would you feel if "someone" was replaced with "PZ"? Now it's ok?
It's sometimes a fine line separating legitimate criticism from hateful acts.
Posted by: Larry | July 12, 2008 10:34 PM
And that's the point. That's why such thinking (religion, nationalism, etc.) is so dangerous and destructive. That's why PZ pointed it out.
Posted by: Alexandra | July 12, 2008 11:03 PM
Alexandra: "That's why PZ pointed it out."
The only thing PZ points out to the greater public is the the myopia, illogic and danger of atheism taken to extremes.
How ironic...
Posted by: Sardine | July 12, 2008 11:08 PM
Which system of economics are you using to define "inherent value?" People have fought and died over those systems.
In the end, "value" is like any other abstraction, no more than "freedom" or "truth." What you really mean by "inherent value" is "value according to me." Which is just fine, as long as you're talking about your "things." However, as I pointed out above, people don't agree on the value of "things" -- including you. And if you think that you're not a "thing" then you haven't learned the lessons of history (with Santayana's consequence) from the chapters on slavery (among others.)
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 12, 2008 11:32 PM
"The only thing PZ points out to the greater public is the the myopia, illogic and danger of atheism taken to extremes."
Yes, Extreme Atheism* leads to horrible dangers. If you're a cracker, that is. Otherwise, not so much.
*Extreme Atheism sounds like an event at the X Games. Perhaps sponsored by Mountain Dew, which I hear is great for washing down illicit crackers.....
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 12, 2008 11:42 PM
Burning a flag or creating a depiction of Mohammed or desecrating a consecrated wafer are provocative but constitutionally protected acts. (Please note that only Catholics believe that a commonly available wafer is transformed magically into a sacred object. The rest of us are not obligated to share that belief, nor to grant it the same status as a reliquary or a Torah scroll.)
However, merely writing about committing such acts is not the same as committing them. It's odd that so many seem unable to grasp the distinction.
Posted by: bad Jim | July 12, 2008 11:49 PM
PalMD - I think this would be an excellent time to have a refresher post on the common fallacies of logic which are being so finely presented before us.
Posted by: TheNerd | July 13, 2008 2:38 AM
The fake sense of outrage is rampant projection on the part of the religious nuts. Historically speaking, the people who refused to acknowledge the Magical Cracker are the ones who were in danger from the cracker worshippers, not the other way around. And I don't mean in danger of having their feelings hurt, or being offended, like these crybabies are.
In 1252, Pope Innocent IV made torture an official policy of the Catholic Church in his bull, “Ad extirpanda.” The Inquisitors were allowed to torture boys of fourteen and girls of twelve years of age. The Hounds of the Lord were so totally shameless that they saw no reason to conceal their crimes. They were doing the work of God and “his Holiness.” As a result, “trials” and burnings were done in broad daylight. In this way, they terrorized Europe with ruthless energy for six hundred years.
Posted by: melior | July 13, 2008 4:38 AM
I don't want to live in a world where people get angry over a stolen cracker. It's weird and illogical and CREEPY.
How am i supposed to deal with people like that, how am I supposed to know what will and won't offend these people in advance. When they get angry for whatever reason, am I supposed to take it because i'm the logical one or because someone who uses a similar label to me makes trouble therefore I'm to blame?
If people do not stand up for logic, do not push the illogical people back or expose them instead of tiptoeing around them in case they explode then we will get nowhere as a society. I have decided that I stand with PZ. He may have done it for the wrong reasons, but i think some people need to have their security blanket taken and told to grow up.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 13, 2008 5:46 AM
I agree with you Richard. They should keep their cracker worship inside their churches. They would be within their rights, in my opinion, to excommunicate the lad who 'stole' the cracker in the first place, if he's broken their rules, but the threats of violence are over the top and inappropriate. If they insist of inflicting their delusions onto the community at large, they should be told to pull their heads in. Although I reckon PZ got a little carried away toward the end of his original post on the subject, I agree wholeheartedly with his basic position. It is just a freaking cracker, after all.
Posted by: Katkinkate | July 13, 2008 6:34 AM
Bad Jim notes: Burning a flag or creating a depiction of Mohammed or desecrating a consecrated wafer are provocative but constitutionally protected acts. (Please note that only Catholics believe that a commonly available wafer is transformed magically into a sacred object. The rest of us are not obligated to share that belief, nor to grant it the same status as a reliquary or a Torah scroll.)
Why do you get to decide that a reliquary or a Torah is more of a religious object in my religion than the "cracker"? Fascinating.
Anti-Catholic violence in this country is not unknown. Philadelphia's cathedral has no low-lying stained glass windows. Why? It was built after anti-Catholic riots in the city during the 19th century. Ironic in a city founded with the hope of religious tolerance.
Posted by: Michelle | July 13, 2008 9:14 AM
Anything that gets people passionate about their superiority to others is enough of a rallying flag to tear down civil society. The rhetoric on this thread would be enough to demonstrate that point, even if we didn't have previous examples such as (for instance) O'Hare's attempt to force all religious symbols out of public view.
The historical irony is stunning.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 13, 2008 10:10 AM
The point people are missing is that we all imbue certain objects with emotional value--it's not rational, but it still pisses us off when somebody shits on them. If my daughter makes me a drawing, I value it even though it has no aesthetic worth outside of my own mind.
Now, if I give you that drawing, or even if you take it from out of the trash and you take it home and wipe your ass with it and then post on your blog a picture of you wiping your ass with my daughter's drawing, I am going to be pissed off. Why? Because you have disrespected what I value.
How is the world any better with more disrespect in it? Even--and this is where PZ Myers needs to learn something--even if you believe the people you disrespect don't deserve your respect at all.
Remember how Michelle Malkin acted with the Muhammad cartoons? PZ Myers--same thing.
Posted by: Boris | July 13, 2008 11:50 AM
Precisely. This just stinks of "I don't have to respect you because I don't agree with you." That way lies holy war, and frankly the world has had enough of them. Voltaire may not have actually said it, but it still bears repeating as one of the great fundamentals of a free society.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 13, 2008 12:37 PM
Why? Because you have disrespected what I value.
So you'll threaten to kill someone for disrespecting your symbol?
fasciating...
Posted by: Graculus | July 13, 2008 1:14 PM
The swastika example was clearly flawed, as many people have pointed out. A better example would have been carrying in a part of a pig or smearing pig parts or fat (with rapid cleanup, so it's not permanent) in a mosque or synagogue. Or eating a blood sausage in a synagogue. There's no threat of violence, there's no permanent change. It's highly disrespectful to the persons who believe in the religion even if it's just meat to the person engaging in the act. Maybe it wasn't even done publicly or in a showy way (although PZ is quite arguably offering to do it in a highly public way).
Regardless, it helps nobody and indeed makes the situation only worse. Doubly so, since the rational people on both sides get drowned out in the furor and are generally afraid to post in the frenzied attacks against the other side. I know I personally am; this is the first blog where I felt that my opinion would not necessarily be jumped all over.
In short, nobody wins and everybody loses. Intentional disrespect is a no-win scenario.
Posted by: Joseph | July 13, 2008 1:18 PM
One of the flaws in the analogy is a power thing. When jew's religion or culture is openly mocked, it has often led to violence on a horrific scale. Catholics are not, nor have they ever been, under such a threat.
It's still not nice though.
Posted by: PalMD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 13, 2008 1:25 PM
Well, mosque anyway. They're really touchy that way; the Jewish dietary laws only apply to Jews, so my understanding is that there's no problem as long as it's kept out of the kitchen.
However, you don't have to invoke religion. Having a bit of KFC at a PETA meeting would do as well.
Bingo. Intolerance is intolerance. Read up on the insanity that went on for centuries in Spain for a good example. People weren't being killed for washing their hands because Catholic Christianity was opposed to handwashing, but because it was a possible sign of being a "secret Jew."
I don't like the idea of a future where that can happen again, whether to Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or Pastafarians.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 13, 2008 1:50 PM
You're right about the flaw in the analogy due to the Holocaust, and that there's no immediate example wrt Catholicism nor Islam (I included them in the example; how about eating a hamburger in a Hindu temple?)
In addition, the analogy is semi-flawed in that no other religion save Christianity (not Catholicism) being the current dominant religion in the USA and therefore may well be interpreted to carry meaning beyond the immediate disrespect of the action itself. However, this is certainly not true around the world and at all points in time. A quick Google search for "catholics were burned" brought several historical and current examples of violence against Catholics. As the base question is hypothetical, we may predicate the question on choosing a point in space/time to negate the change due to different cultural backgrounds (or even not needing to choose a specific point in space/time, e.g. eating a hamburger in a Hindu temple in an India in which there's no Muslim-Hundu violence).
Posted by: Joseph | July 13, 2008 1:51 PM
Michelle:
Very easily. Here are two crackers from the same batch, outwardly indistinguishable. The only difference between them is that a priest uttered a magical incantation above one and not the other, a magical incantation which I am not obliged to take seriously. From my point of view they are still two identical crackers.
There is a difference between a blank sheet of paper and a child's drawing. There is a difference between a stack of blank pages and a book, and the difference is more than a few words and a gesture of the fingers.
Posted by: bad Jim | July 13, 2008 1:51 PM
Pal: "When jew's religion or culture is openly mocked, it has often led to violence on a horrific scale. Catholics are not, nor have they ever been, under such a threat."
Really? Know anything of history, Pal?
Thousands of priests were also killed by Hitler.
10,000 religious (priests/monks/nuns) were targeted for systematic execution by the Republican forces in the Spain's civil war.
Same thing happened in the Mexican Revolution.
The big daddy of all Catholic/Orthodox cleansing is Russian Bolshevik Revolution where thousands were killed an persecuted for religious belief.
Atheism has played a part in all of these historic disasters.
This is why "science blogs" should stick to science....
Posted by: Sardine | July 13, 2008 2:08 PM
Sardine: Please be respectful of others; an informative tack would have been a much better approach IMHO, and left your points intact while not infuriating those whom you apparently seek to inform.
Posted by: Joseph | July 13, 2008 2:17 PM
And obviously that's the only point of view that counts.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 13, 2008 2:19 PM
Joseph, the rational people always get drown out by the nuts. The fact is, at no time in history, has via and opinions about *anything* that is dangerous been changed without someone doing something that either got them assaulted physically and with words, sometimes jailed, and more than a few times killed. As a rule, when this has happened, society at large has reached the conclusion, "These people are dangerous and fracking nuts!", and either abandoned the organization in question, or passed laws making what ever the hell insane behavior illegal. Worshiping a cracker doesn't rise to the level where law needs to be invoked, but sane people should be really seriously wondering about the validity of being associated with the collection of nitwits responsible for "both" the original events, and the verbal threats to PZ when he went a bit over the top. And that is a distinction that should be clear. Most rational people are not going to go to the house of the guy that wiped his butt on the daughters drawing and posted in on the net, and try to kill them. They might call the cops. But, the cops, the courts and everyone else is going to laugh their asses off, or at best, slap the guys hand and tell him, "Don't do that again.", if all he did is either imply that he *might* do such a thing, or suggest someone else help him.
And, to be even more clear, when people like Donahue say something, they damn well don't mean it in jest at all, and its highly disingenuous, not to mention unlikely, that they are going to backpedal and claim they didn't mean it when some nut takes them on their word and does assault, kill, etc. PZ's comment was taken as the satire it was intended to be by everyone "other" than the loonies being talked about, and if someone actually did it, we know damn well that he probably wouldn't do what he implied, nor would his denial of anyone that did appear unreasonable to reasonable people, since it wasn't meant to be a command, or even a believable suggestion.
We have spent decades playing nice with people, not assaulting their sensibilities and never pointing out how stupid they are acting, and all its gotten us is the religious right, a nation where you can't get elected to the presidency unless you kiss some imaginary gods ass enough times, a nation where more than half the people get 90% of science and even history wrong, because they value what the priests tell them is true over what is provable, and everyone will jump on someone that suggests worshiping a cracker is stupid because it "offends their sensibilities ever so much!", but none of the same people give a shit that nearly every damn thing they insist on shoving in our faces is just as offensive, because, and they even admit this, as long at its Islam doing it, or some cult, their world view tends to cause **actual** violence by followers who have no sense of humor and take "everything" said as a literal command to screw up people's lives.
Sorry if I find the reaction just a "tad" more insane than PZ's joke.
Posted by: Kagehi | July 13, 2008 2:20 PM
Hmmmm.
I'm not Catholic, so I'm up for some edification here: Can the wafer transubstantiate for someone who doesn't believe? Does transubstantiation occur prior to ingestion?
If it transubstantiates before, then the fellow who didn't swallow has a piece of Jesus in his mouth, and the power of Jesus should protect it (and him) from harm. If it transubtrantiates afterward, then it doesn't do so when the guy keeps it in his mouth and leaves the sanctuary -- no foul.
The furor suggests that those who grouse don't have the faith that they're supposed to have in the power of Jesus.
What we'd need, maybe, is some scripture discussing the issue, suggesting whether food for sacrifice, left over, can be consumed.
Why don't the Myers bashers take that route?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 13, 2008 4:13 PM
There is a basic right on one's own property to set one's own rules and have one's property and customs respected. If you don't wish to abide by those rules and respect those customs, don't enter that property.
A similar situation might be if I wake up and find someone in my house stealing or breaking my stuff. The issue is more than the stuff; this person has set his life against mine by using his life to invade and violate mine. I might well threaten that person with injury or death, and it's not because I value my *things* more than his life, but that I value my right to live my life in peace without being violated more than his life.
I do agree that in this case the Catholics in question have over-reacted, but I understand why and I think their position is not completely baseless. Someone has not only entered their space with the intent to cause them distress and disrupt their lives, but also has then urged others to do the same, and it really is only one short step from there to persecution.
Catholics are a big enough and well enough established group in this country not to have to worry much about widespread persecution any more, although active anti-Catholic bigotry in this country is still within living memory for some people. But the principle also carries over into treatment of smaller groups that have no such societal status. And an attitude where people think it's OK to go screw with the lives of people who believe differently can and does spill over into violence and extreme action, even in this country in the present day. Branch Davidians. anyone? How about the polygamist group in Texas from whom *all* their children were taken on the basis of allegations of abuse of a few (fortunately even the Texas courts saw that for what it was and made the CPS give the kids back, but even so, that will have been an extremely traumatic event in the lives of most of those kids). (And I do recognize the irony in that many if not most of those Catholics over-reacting about the cracker probably think the Waco disaster and the polygamist raid were just fine. The point still stands that the principle of screwing around in the private business of others is wrong and dangerous.
Personally, I'm atheist, and think the transubstantiation to be a really silly myth. But I have no business going into the church or home of a Catholic to tell them so or to try to piss them off into a reaction. They have as much right to their beliefs as I do, and as much right to practice those beliefs without being harassed about it. And it's not surprising that when those rights are threatened, that a strong defensive reaction is provoked.
PhilB
Posted by: Philip Boncer | July 13, 2008 4:40 PM
Ed: Good question. I didn't know either, so I Googled for it with site:.va (Vatican) The answer:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist."
So it doesn't matter. To a Catholic, it's Christ as soon as the priest consecrates it. The receiver's faith or lack of faith is irrelevant.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, but your statement: "then the fellow who didn't swallow has a piece of Jesus in his mouth, and the power of Jesus should protect it (and him) from harm." is directly contradicted by Jesus' own death, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your meaning here.
Posted by: Joseph | July 13, 2008 4:41 PM
"I do agree that in this case the Catholics in question have over-reacted, but I understand why and I think their position is not completely baseless. Someone has not only entered their space with the intent to cause them distress and disrupt their lives, but also has then urged others to do the same, and it really is only one short step from there to persecution."
Who are you talking about ?
Webster Cook is the person who removed the wafer. There is no evidence that he entered the church with that intent. If you have some you need to produce it.
PZ Myers is the person who satirically asked people to score him some consecrated wafers. Note that part about satirically. That means he did not actually intend for anyone do it.
Note that Webster Cook and PZ Myers are not the same person.
Note that you think Cook did enter the church intending to steal a wafer, and that you have not bothered to read what PZ said, and that you cannot even work out Cook and PZ are not the same person.
There is no point addressing anything else until you have fixed those rather basic errors.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 13, 2008 4:48 PM
Don't dis the biscuit?
How many millions of Body Of Christ(tm) are handed out every day? Are they all accounted for?
Isn't god (creator of the universe et al) capable of handling the situation of Body of Christ(tm) being inappropriately handled?
Several years ago, I gave the house cleaner a gift of a potted plant (she had just bought a house). I have no idea what she did with that plant. I am not going to visit her and demand to know if it is still thriving.
Posted by: khan | July 13, 2008 4:50 PM
comments from a lurker:
There are times analogies just crumble under the weight of the uniqueness of the subject; in this case, the consecration of the host. Stop trying to equate the desecration of the host with race, or even other religious qualities. We are discussing an act whereby a person orchestrates the creation of physical bits of a god. He then takes little bits of god and gives it to people to eat. They eat little bits of their god every day. If you describe the event rather than dance around in false comparisons, the angst suffered by atheists is more understandable.
Here is an analogy, (right after I said there are none... but be patient). If I went to the bank to get a loan so I could pay Charon when it came time to cross the river Styx, the banker would laugh.
Is he a bigot? Absolutely not.
Does he hate me? No. Not unless I call him a bigot.
Is he persecuting me? No. Neither is he HUMORING me.
Does he disrespect me? No, but he has no repect for my belief.
That is what PZ is guilty of doing. He has failed to repect or give credence to the mysticisms of faith. Go back in the Pharyngula archives. Catholics are mentioned no more that other (mostly Christian) religions for their absurdities. Why pick on Christians more than other religions? PZ is based in the US. Look around and figure the rest out for yourselves.
OK... but what about civility? Why is it so hard for non-believers to show respect for the mysticisms of religion?
The ANSWER: Because religions have used the power of those mysticisms to control the actions of their people - sometimes for good and sometimes for evil. The atrocities go back as far as the written word to describe them.
Recently: 911, Bosnia, the Hindu/Moslem clashes in India, the Taliban... the list goes on. Faith gives religious leaders the power to use the mysticisms of the religion - ANY RELIGION - to get people to act in violent and uncivilized ways. (Imagine if you could have had a beer with Mohamed Atta on the night on 9/10, and convinced him that there are no virgins waiting for him in the afterlife.)
It is that quality that makes priests such devastatingly dangerous pedophiles. They hold the power of mysticism. They literally feed god to the children. Who would NOT trust such power. What true believer would deny his instruction? What child carries that strength when adults show little more.
Atheists have a hard time watching masses of the faithful, blindly following their Cardinal, or Mullah, or Brahma to the next holocaust. We do not ridicule to hurt the faithful. We ridicule in the hopes that people will ask questions, and start to think for themselves. Why ridicule? Ridicule is most nearly the thought process opposite to faith.
Peter: Catholics have been the subject of violence, mostly throughout the Southern and Western US from the 30's through the 50's. I make no comparison to atrocities suffered by Jews, or other groups, just keeping the discussion honest. Actually, there are few religious groups that have NOT suffered - usually at the hands of other religious groups.
Posted by: MpM | July 13, 2008 5:29 PM
Please be respectful of others; an informative tack would have been a much better approach IMHO, and left your points intact while not infuriating those whom you apparently seek to inform.
How utterly ironic.
Posted by: Barn Owl | July 13, 2008 5:45 PM
There is a difference between a blank sheet of paper and a child's drawing. There is a