Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure a large portion of my readers also read PZ's blog so they're already aware of this, but I missed it for a few days and the whole thing cracks me up. It all started when a student at the University of Central Florida went to mass and instead of eating the wafer during communion, he took it out of his mouth and took it with him instead. Why that would upset anyone is beyond me, but some hardcore Catholics have gone completely off the deep end over it.
Webster gave the wafer back, but the Catholic League, a national watchdog organization for Catholic rights claims that is not enough."We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."
They're demanding everything but the crucifixion of the student. One priest says this is kidnapping!
Regardless of the reason, the Diocese says its main concern is to get the Eucharist back so it can be taken care of properly and with respect. Cook has been keeping the Eucharist stored in a plastic bag since last Sunday."It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."
PZ had a rational and ideal response: it's a fucking cracker, people. A piece of bread. Get over it. And he asked his readers to send him some "sanctified" eucharist crackers so he could really show them sacrilege:
Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them -- my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure -- but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.
Pointless provocation? Maybe. But boy are these drama queen halfwits begging to be ridiculed in this way. And it provoked the ire of - who else? - Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, about whom the Warren Zevon classic Excitable Boy would serve as understatement. He wants the student expelled and he wants PZ fired for threatening to offend him. One of these days I expect to see Bill Donohue just explode from an overdose of highly exaggerated outrage on national television. I just hope it happens when I'm watching.
And just to take things from the ridiculous to the surreal, now Donohue and his idiots-in-waiting are demanding that the Republican National Convention increase security because PZ lives in Minnesota and might hurt them. No, I'm not making that up. There really is no limit to just how absurd these people can be. There is no bottom to this barrel.
Comments
What really got to me was when I read that, as a result of Mr. Webster's actions, the church in question began having security guards escort the crackers to be sanctified and then remain on hand to ensure that everyone participated in their required act of metaphorical god-cannibalism. I expect to read about this stuff when I'm studying a text from 13th century France, not when I'm reading about current events in Minnesota.
I guess the whole things goes to show just how powerful and absurd the grasp of superstition can be.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 9:50 AM
You say some hardcore catholics were up in arms, but AFAICT, people actually tried to pry it from his hands during the mass.
He claimed to have palmed it in order to take it back to his seat and show it to a curious friend he brought along, and decided to take it with him when people in the congregation freaked on him.
I don't suppose his friend came away with a sense that catholics are into peace and love. Even during mass.
Posted by: rpsms | July 12, 2008 9:55 AM
I suppose I am one of those Neville Chamberlain types that doesn't find PZ's provocative nature to my liking. But, that Bill Donohue is a complete nut and I am willing to forgive anything that gets his panties in a bunch. I remember seeing Donohue on the Colbert Report complaining about how the media is controlled by secular Jews. Talk about coo coo for Cocoa Puffs......
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 12, 2008 9:56 AM
And yet hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans go to church with their crackers unmolested or even knowing who PZ or Donohue are. And I personally can't think of how the Convention Committee can increase security more than it already is. Its already passed insane.
Posted by: yoshi | July 12, 2008 10:05 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | July 12, 2008 10:13 AM
Ah, Ed, you're wrong on this one, at least in part. And so is PZ. And Donahue being a moronic gasbag does not change that.
It's a fucking cracker to PZ. It's not to believing Catholics [of which I am not one]. It's the body of Christ for them, the "real presence" as the doctrine goes. Regardless of how ridiculous you or I or PZ may find that belief, it is their belief. And this particular belief and practice harms no one who is not a believer.
Going out of his way to find a way to offend such believers as PZ is doing does not speak well of him. What he wants to do is, of course, not illegal, nor should it be. But it's a reprehensible thing for him to do, none the less. There is no point... no valid one, I think... to looking for ways to offend others merely for the joy of offending them. And that's what PZ is up to. It does not, as I said, speak well of him.
Posted by: flatlander100 | July 12, 2008 10:30 AM
indeed Mr. Hanley, though you have to admit that its kinda sad that people felt so deprived of justice in this federation that they felt the only way to secure it was to pass laws that made a crime out of the reasoning behind their persecution.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:31 AM
Kidnapping? Get real! While I treat the elements of communion with respect, I would never accuse a member of kidnapping Christ if they did this! (Although I would try to have a conversation with them at a later time to find out why they felt compelled to receive communion and not heat the wafer). And this is from the same church who created the habit of "kidnapping" by keeping the Mass in a language people didn't understand. They thought something magical was going on up there (we get Hocus Pocus from Hoc est corpus-this is my body). Taking the wafer from church in medeival times was common practice. People would place the Host in their house for good luck.
Guess the "Church" hasn't progressed much since then.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 12, 2008 10:35 AM
I have such mixed feelings about this. I sometimes wonder what PZ's motives are--is it to command an army of mouth breathers? Or is to affect change--to preserve the science classroom for science? If the latter, it seems to me that he should have made his points regarding the attacks on the student who took the wafer and left it at that.
When PZ wrote about the Danish cartoons, he was split on the matter. While pointing out that he found Islam as insane as all other religions, he also wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/poxridden_houses.php
Now you can always play the "Oh, but that is different" game, but I don't see it. In this case PZ is the Danish cartoonist, and the Catholics are the outraged Muslims, sans, thus far, the inclination to riot. I think, given that he is "basically flipping off" Catholics, that he is not being consistent with what he wrote concerning the cartoons. (Not that it is trivial for any blogger to remain self-consistent over any extended period.)
On the other hand, playing "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?" one can only wonder what would be happening if Donohue had taken the high ground. If had published a polite, open letter to PZ asking him to reconsider his threat to desecrate a smuggled Eucharist because of its importance to millions of Catholics--if Donohue had done that rather that playing the poor-persecuted-martyr card he might have effectively disarmed PZ.
This is a really hideous battle where one side looks like peevish children and the other side looks like-- peevish children.
Posted by: heddle | July 12, 2008 10:35 AM
I'm sure somewhere there is a Catholic priest who would eagerly volunteer to spank both PZ and the college student who set off this tempest in a chalice.
Posted by: Elf Eye | July 12, 2008 10:38 AM
Oh, pull the other one, flatlander.
I thought we all agreed after the 300 years of religious war following the Reformation not to get bent out of shape over disagreements regarding dogma. Do you knuckleheads really want to leap so joyously overboard in the hope of denying that right-of-mockery to atheists? You know, we've always been here, and we've been your political leaders, artists, writers, lawyers, judges, and some of your better priests and monks for centuries; why don't you Christians just get over it already and accept that you can't muzzle and cow us into denying what we really think anymore.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:39 AM
Notice that stealing a holy cracker magically imbued with the spirt of your imaginary friend's friend is a hate crime, actually assaulting an actual young man for stealing said magic cracker is perfect fine, no crime there.
Hopefully Ed you'll get a shed load of hits on this one (PZ did), the bad news is most will be from whiny relgious rednecks banging on about "respecting thier feelings/traditions/beliefs". Do Catholics refuse to eat animals (respecting Buddist beliefs) or not eat shellfish (Jewish) or cows (Hindus) etc.? Oh silly Dingo we have to respect thier beliefs (ie never, ever criticise or point out thier arbitary idiotcy), while they blithely ignore or trample the beliefs of others.
Freedom of relgion for these fools equals to no free speech (except for Rightwing Catholic blowhards) -DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | July 12, 2008 10:40 AM
At the risk of being taken to task (again) on a new blog:
Overreaction on the congregation. Period. Overreaction on the part of Donohue. Period. Overreaction on the part of PZ. Period.
Now two people, one of which is supposedly rational, both puffing their chests out going. "Oh yeah? Oh yeah? OH YEAH?" and playing it out like a couple of media whores.
Obviously, where religion is concerned, irrationality still reigns supreme.
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 10:41 AM
"Obviously, where religion is concerned, irrationality reigns supreme."
Um, I think that was PZ's point. Don't colleges still assign students to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?
Posted by: Elf Eye | July 12, 2008 10:45 AM
Oh yes, if anything counts as a hate crime, it's certainly this.
I hate to think what kind of stink these folks would make if someone really *were* persecuting them.
Posted by: Hypatia | July 12, 2008 10:47 AM
The difference, heddle, is that u.s. citizens don't have a history of tyrannizing and murdering swathes of catholics, whereas the Danes do have a history of doing that to the peoples of the Middle East, albeit under the auspices of other European powers. AS unfair as it might seem to you, those sections of the world which we Westerners have been dicking with since 1600 sort of get a pass these days from us when it comes to outrage. Beyond this, the Danish cartoons, as Myers implies, also encapsulated certain racist ideas about Near Easterners which not eating a cracker just doesn't possess. So, the Danish cartoon situation is different, and generally a more difficult situation for a Westerner educated about our history being The World's Biggest Jerks (tm) to deal with.
Having said that, though, the main point, that Danish cartoonists have a right to make fun of anyone, and that the same idea lies behind what you and I can do with crackers is correct, even if it misses the point and is a blatant attempt to change the subject from an argument you know you can't win :p.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:47 AM
Hypathia: They'd do what they always do; loudly declare their readiness to die in the name of Christ and beg their persecutors to kill them. See "Lives of the Saints".
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:53 AM
Julian:
You wrote: Do you knuckleheads really want to leap so joyously overboard in the hope of denying that right-of-mockery to atheists?
You did note, I hope, that I said that what PZ is doing is not illegal, nor should it be. I questioned the propriety of what he's doing, not its legality.
You wrote: You know, we've always been here, and we've been your political leaders, artists, writers, lawyers, judges, and some of your better priests and monks for centuries; why don't you Christians just get over it already and accept that you can't muzzle and cow us into denying what we really think anymore.
If the "we" above means atheists, sorry to tell you I'm one of them. Your assumption that I must be a Christian because I critized PZ's gleeful plan to offend Catholics just for the joy of offending them is flat wrong.
I think Pineyland got this one right when he wrote:
Overreaction on the congregation. Period. Overreaction on the part of Donohue. Period. Overreaction on the part of PZ. Period.
Posted by: flatlander100 | July 12, 2008 10:56 AM
I am having several tee shirts with the words: "It's a F***ING cracker!" (litterally) on them for World Youth Day* let them try and fine free speech. -DJ
*World Youth Day is a Catholic celbration of youth - no Muslims /Jews /Hindus /Shintoists /Budistits etc. allowed. What part of 'wrold youth' do they not get?. And it lasts A WEEK. Catholics aren't good at counting either apperently. And, is it just me or does Ratzi's inaction on pedophiles make this just a leettle creeepy?
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2008 10:57 AM
Oops; it just occurred to me that the kid's name was Webster Cook, not something Webster. I'm a doof. I suppose that should be "Mr. Cook" up there at the first post then.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 10:58 AM
Julian,
No mas! I get it, oppression of the masses, etc. etc. I saw Monty Python's Holy Grail. I recall the peasant's manifesto. But thanks for your rendition.
Posted by: heddle | July 12, 2008 10:58 AM
In the course of his Crusade, Bill Donohue has committed blasphemy, violated the first commandment, and demonstrated a lack of faith in God and Jesus so profound that it's nearly as certain as my own. I don't have a problem with any of that, but one would think that other Catholics or the Vatican would be calling him on it.
Bill Donohue is a Golden Calf for the 21st Century. We really should commend him on his great success in demonstrating the shallow and uncertain nature of the fanatically religious mindset. He's accomplished more in this regard than PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Ed Brayton and Daniel Dennett combined.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 12, 2008 11:01 AM
Hmm lets see.
Is not eating a cracker that was given to you a crime?
Is threatening and physically assaulting someone a crime?
Is saying you are going to eat a cracker a crime?
Is threatening physical harm, incouraging others to harass and threaten physical harm, a crime?
Is threatening and harassing someone's boss, in order that they get fired because they said something you didn't like, a crime?
Ok Pineyman, you want to rethink, who overreacted? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2008 11:10 AM
Elf Eye -
If your question wasn't purely rhetorical...don't know. Been out of college for 30+ years.
And my point was regarding both PZ and Bill D:
Bill D: Yer sacriliggin my stuff...
PZ: Grow up you ignorant rube and join reality. Oh, and here's a start on the journey...
Flatlander covered it pretty much as I would as far as PZ's reaction. Take a step back, take 10 deep breaths and then explain why its overreating, not 'I'll see your rightous indignantion and raise you a sacrilege...'
1...inhale...exhale...2...inhale...
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 11:10 AM
Dang!
Should've been "overreacting" not "overreating" Freud's slip is showing...
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 11:13 AM
Second, there's no such thing as "sacrilege" if you don't buy into the superstition in the first place. That's the whole point. Nobody should be expected to take someone else's superstition seriously, particularly in a culture with enough educational resources that people should know better than to believe in witchcraft in the first place.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 12, 2008 11:16 AM
Posted by: chelydra | July 12, 2008 11:17 AM
Two comments from flatlander:
...
I critized PZ's gleeful plan to offend Catholics just for the joy of offending them is flat wrong.
What? It appears you haven't been paying attention to what set this whole thing off.
Did you just not notice that he sought to offend Catholics because of how they treated that student in Florida? I mean, did that motive just completely blow by you? Is it incomprehensible to you that he might have had a purpose other than someone's personal feelings?
I don't see how anyone could miss the fact that it was the treatment of the student that set this bullshit off to begin with, unless they wanted to miss it. I mean, shit, the whole "cracker desecrating" quote that has everyone's panties in a bunch is embedded in a long article discussing how outrageous the incident was. How could you miss that?
Posted by: Wes | July 12, 2008 11:23 AM
I have to agree with flatlander100. I don't think the kid should face legal consequences. And the people who overreacted are hilarious as always. But that doesn't make that kid any less of a douchebag. The logic is simple.
*Even if these crackers mean nothing to you, they were important to the Catholics in the church.
*Most Catholics are good people who don't deserve to be insulted.
*This kid went out of his way to offend people who seriously didn't deserve it.
*Therefore, the kid is a douchebag.
Here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go to the next atheist meeting and scream at the top of my lungs, "Atheists suck!" Then if anybody gets offended, I'll write a blog post titled, "It's fucking soundwaves, people." Then I'll go to the NAACP and wear a white hood. Blog post, "It's a fucking hood, people." Then I'll go to your house wearing the corpse of a dead relative. "It's a fucking sack of meat, people."
So this student and PZ Myers have every right to do what they're doing. That doesn't change the fact that they lack the basic level of decency that is expected of human beings.
Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2008 11:23 AM
Oops.
I fucked up my blockquotes on that last post. The block quotes should continue past the ellipsis, and my comment begins with "What?"
Posted by: Wes | July 12, 2008 11:25 AM
Mike -
I think we are in somewhat violent agreement, as we discussed on your blog. I don't expect anyone to hold to the sacrilege if they are not of the same belief. Agreement?
Where I disagree with you is the next statement. While you may consider it idiotic and superstitious, that's fine. My opinion, totally my own and written here for the purpose of expressing myself and not to proselytize, is to respect the beliefs of others as long as they do not harm or try to convert me.
And I do not respect either side for what they are doing.
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 11:32 AM
And Pineyman, these people physically assaulted someone for taking their magical cracker. Then they threatened and harassed him. Then they assaulted him again. That's what their belief engenders. Respect is somethig to be earned; such behavior should make them subject to the ridicule of their beliefs in the first place.
It should also be pointed out, once again, that nobody actually DID anything here, other than the people who actually assaulted the student in the initial incident. You want to be entitled to your opinion? Fine, you are.
So is PZ Myers. Did any of his statements advocate proselytizing to or doing harm to others? If not, then you are inconsistent in your assertion that the beliefs of others should be respected when this is the case.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 12, 2008 11:40 AM
It's a fucking cracker to PZ. It's not to believing Catholics [of which I am not one].
But that's the rub of the matter - it is most certainly a cracker and not a human body. It lacks all of the major organs, not to mention DNA. You may humor a child with their fantasies, but adults deserve no such patience.
Posted by: jeffk | July 12, 2008 11:40 AM
PZ has never been the most diplomatic of disputants and his hyperbolic comments about communion wafers have been taken entirely too seriously. Elf Eye's reference to Jonathan Swift is right on the money. (Though, frankly, I've never been able to take Swift's arguments seriously after he proposed that the Irish eat their babies!) PZ would have been better off to have taken it down a notch, but the true overreaction has been on the part of ostensible Christians.
More commentary here, complete with my helpful, loving, and constructive recommendations for all those religiously deranged people out there.
Posted by: Zeno | July 12, 2008 11:42 AM
@heddle
It IS fundamentally different. One ridicules someone for who they physically are (something they can't change), the other ridicules a belief (something they can change and must justify). If the second is bigotry, then we may as well throw any possibility of discourse, rational or otherwise, out the door. Beliefs are always fair game.
Posted by: Jeff Schmidt | July 12, 2008 11:43 AM
I was raised in a Catholic home until my parents divorced in 1963, and my mother flat out said "I don't believe in God". I later attended a Catholic Church as an adult, at the request of my alcoholic girlfriend. I spent months talking to this incredibly boring priest, and taking classes and went through the confirmation process. It never once occurred to me that the cracker was supposed to be literally Jesus. I thought it was all symbolic bullshit. And trust me on this, I asked a lot of questions, 90% of which were never satisfactorily answered. I attended Catholic Churches, took communion and never once thought it was Jesus. It tasted like a fucking cracker! Anyhow, I'll be happy to get PZ or anyone else that wants one, a fucking cracker. I'll kidnap and hold the son, who also happens to be the father, AND the creator of the fucking universe, hostage. I'll let the pope know that he can have Christ back for a cool $1,000,000. They've got the money. If they don't pay, Jesus goes in the Campbell's Tomato Soup with some Premium Saltines.
Posted by: soboco | July 12, 2008 11:45 AM
Two things:
1. It does seem to me that catholics who feel threatened in their believe because someone takes a wafer out of mass (which happened regular, at least in the past), are very weak in that believe. If objects become so crucial that it threatens your religion, the objects have become the religion, and it is not longer in yourself.
2. What PZ does is brilliant. First of all, he takes away the heat from this poor boy who did not think about the consequences. PZ does think about those, and he is upping the stakes so that everybody is going after him and not the guy in question. And I think one reason he does it to show how fragile the believe of people is as I indicated under 1. As PZ is tenured, they cannot just find a feeble excuse to fire him or something, and if they would succeed, he will smack them down in court hard.
Quite frankly, if just taking some wafers out of mass is having such an effect, I see a very effective way to destroy a whole religion if that where my purpose (it is not), and that is to systematically go in, secretly remove wafers, and desecrate them in public. What a marvellous weapon did the catholics deliver those that truly hate the church. Good job guys, you just showed your weakest point (after condoning the rape of young boys over and over again)
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2008 11:50 AM
Jeff Schmidt,
I don't see your distinction, but I don't care to argue about it. But I would comment that this is not about ridiculing belief, but ridiculing belief appropriately, tactically, and strategically. I don't think PZ's theatrical destruction of a Eucharist, should he carry through with it, is illegal. I think it is mean-spirited, childish, and uncivilized.
I think the Mormon faith is ludicrous. When the LDS evangelists come to my house, I invite them in, offer them a bottle of water, and have a discussion about why I think their faith is ludicrous. I don't take out a Book of Mormon, put it on the ground and piss on it just because I can, just because it's free speech.
Posted by: heddle | July 12, 2008 11:54 AM
Andrew Sullivan had a post chastizing PZ for boorish behavior in this matter. I more or less agreed with it, until I read these dissents:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/dissent-of-the.html
Now I see that I too am much more inclined to give religions which I grew up around a break from ridicule. Probably I'm not respecting the religion as such, but the good people I know who happen to espouse it - whereas I don't know the good people (I'm sure there are some) who espouse other religions.
I blame evolution, for making us territorial.
Posted by: JimV | July 12, 2008 11:55 AM
Someone infiltrates an organization under false pretenses, takes part in a ceremony with a set of rules (and I would imagine an implied consent to conform), then lies about his role by stealing an artifact of the ceremony for the purposes of ridiculing the organization for their beliefs and/or practices. Sounds like a jerk-maybe a thief. To ingore him would have been the best option, though, I think.
Posted by: Phil | July 12, 2008 12:00 PM
Some of the comments here have chastised PZ for his insensitivity to the beliefs of others...Catholics in this case. I might be inclined to accept that chastisement if it were not for the fact that this religion is one that denigrates homosexuals and strives to deny them full civil rights or even a place at their cracker table unless they deny their true selves. Such a religion deserves none of my respect for anything they do. Tolerance begets tolerance, its a two way street. Catholics, among other religions, do not keep their superstitious beliefs to themselves quietly in their churches. They use them to bludgeon others over the head if they do not fall under their rules for living.
Posted by: Cyril | July 12, 2008 12:05 PM
If I believe I own the Broojlyn Bridge, and I want to stop all traffic using it so I can built a house on the bridge, the courts would ask me to produce documents proving the sale and of ownership. It is irrelevant to the courts how deeply and sincerely I believe in my ownership of the bridge, the court needs facts.
Similarly no matter how sincerely and deeply Catholics believe this wafer to be the body of Christ, no actual crime was commited in not eating the wafer but removing from the church. Not even theft since the wafer was voluntarily given to him. However if threats and violence toward the kid who didn't eat the wafer CAN be proven, then a crime HAS occured, and can be prosecuted.
Donahue's basis for claiming "kidnapping" would require the church to prove the wafer IS the living body of Christ. How would they do this? Also how would they prove that the wafer was, in fact, even consecrated?
PZ Myer asking someone to send wafers to him so he can desecrate them, also, is not a crime. "Descrating" a wafer is not illegal, and even if it were, no crime has actually ocurred, since this is a future act.
Inciting others to send hate mail isn't illegal, unless words were used that carried an imminant, specificlly targeted, explict threat. But I don't think Donahue would be quite that stupid. However those threats that were sent to both Myers, and his boss might be libable for action.
All up it is the Catholics who seemed to acted illegally here not the young man or PZ Myers. -DJ
PS Since, if taken litterally the Euchrist is a form vampirism and cannibalism (laying aside the disturbing oral sex angle), if this cermony was held in a public park could it be reguard as 'offensive behaviour'?
Posted by: DIngoJack | July 12, 2008 12:05 PM
One of these days I expect to see Bill Donohue just explode from an overdose of highly exaggerated outrage on national television. I just hope it happens when I'm watching.
Man, it would be on Youtube forever! I for one would burn it on DVD to loop over and over endlessly :-).
Posted by: Brian | July 12, 2008 12:10 PM
Eating cows is offensive to a billion Hindus, yet few people argue that we should not do it on the grounds that it violates a central tenet of a major religion. Respect for other people's religious delusions is not something that one can rationally argue is deserved. And speaking as a former Catholic, do you really think that student is the only recipient who ever left the Mass with the wafer unswallowed? The whole notion of transubstantiation is so creepy and ghoulish that, for many Catholics, it is not a subject for deep consideration.
Posted by: drb | July 12, 2008 12:10 PM
Mike -
I surrender!!! I AGREE with you that the church overreacted in doing what they did! YES, really truly I do! The nun who "tackled" him could've just as well took him to the side and explained why this was wrong. Case closed, no shitstorm. I get the impression that the kid was scared spitless and just wanted to do a "take over". Fine. Let him.
I was raised Catholic and have seen and gone through things similar to WC's...not as extreme, but similar. Does that cause me to hate the Church? No. To me, hatred is a waste of energy. But I did leave. What it did is cause me to really look at the humans who ran it. Pretty much into the ground. And starting at the local, parish level all the way up to the Pope. As I have said, I am agnostic. The politics are disgusting. The treatment of people is disgusting. But I have respect for the people who can get past that and accept the idea of love and respect of other human beings no matter what the background. And keep the religiousness to themselves.
And no PZ did not advocate violence. But he did know what he was doing in riling up Catholics. My position is, if he wanted to defend the kid, he could've done it more diplomatically.
Gotta sign off for a few hours. I have a different ceremony to go to with my wife. A 50th Birthday party. Hopefully there won't be a ruckus over the cake... Looking forward to all the responses when I get back....
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 12:14 PM
To add to my comment: I also don't think that they even truly believe it anyways. Believers' actions always show they're much more interested with the attention they get in the real world than what they think about the afterlife. In the modern world, even the most daft idiot has to really kid themselves into believing in all the Catholic tripe; I suspect most of them, whether they're aware of it or not, are just along for the ride, and enjoy being victims.
Jeff:
Exactly, and I think it's also worth pointing out that a person's (for example) skin color only tells you statistical things about them. You still don't really know anything about them until you get to know them. But just knowing someone's a Christian, I know a lot about them: specifically either that they're a sucker or that they don't pause to carefully examine what they espouse to believe.
Posted by: jeffk | July 12, 2008 12:19 PM
I agree, it's a slippery slope. How do we go about picking and choosing which beliefs and practices are to be respected when they're contradicted by another religion? Islam certainly doesn't believe that communion wafers become the flesh of Christ. Is it okay to disrespect Islam by respecting Catholicism? Is eating a hamburger a hate crime against Hinduism? Should we all become vegetarians so we don't offend the Buddhists? Aren't Protestants being disrespectful to Catholics? Isn't atheism automatically disrespectful to all religions by not sharing any of their beliefs? If we can't privilege every single religious practice, then why are we expected to do so with this one?
Posted by: Chayanov | July 12, 2008 12:21 PM
I loved the talk about denying communion to politicians that support abortion rights. I imagine intelligent, educated men like John Kerry know that crackers aren't really Jesus, although I may be wrong. When I read that originally, all I could think about was some old doddering priest, who in his younger days slipped his dick in the mouth or hand of some 11 year old boy, denying John Kerry a cracker and a sip of wine. What bullshit.
Posted by: soboco | July 12, 2008 12:32 PM
I do think that PZ's offer to "desecrate" some eucharist is pointless and goes a bit far. I think the point was made merely by pointing out that it's just a damn cracker and making fun of those who are overreacting on the other side. But the overreaction to PZ threatening to harm a cracker is just as silly as the overreaction to Webster taking one out of the church. I think it's a perfectly reasonable reaction to say that PZ is engaging in needless provocation; I don't think it's a reasonable reaction to want him fired or to consider him a threat to anyone. This post is aimed at the latter, not the former.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 12, 2008 12:32 PM
Phil wrote "Someone infiltrates an organization under false pretenses, takes part in a ceremony with a set of rules (and I would imagine an implied consent to conform), then lies about his role by stealing an artifact of the ceremony for the purposes of ridiculing the organization for their beliefs and/or practices. Sounds like a jerk-maybe a thief."
Did he sign a end-user license agreement? He certainly didn't steal it, as it was given freely. His 'crime' was taking it back to the pew in his hand rather than in his stomach. After he was assaulted, he decided to take it out of the church and keep it in a bag (and he later returned it in-tact). The other worshippers masticated it, dissolved it with stomach acids, incorporated it with shit, and flushed it down the toilet. So tell me, who treated that little bit of 'Jesus' with more respect?
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 12:40 PM
Why must they justify their beliefs?
To whom must they justify? Can't remember you being elected judge & jury.
If you happen to be a materialist or believe material reality is an illusion go for it.
Only if you try and convert me to your beliefs do I have a case for requiring any justification on your part.
You have the other obvious problem of course, I may not consider your evidence valid and may simply class it as delusional idiocy.
So it is OK to insult someones beliefs at any time you feel like? Strange, why would you want to cause emotional hurt to someone not impeding you exercising your beliefs (they might stop you acting on your beliefs via democratic means such as civil/criminal laws but that is another matter)?
Posted by: Chris' Wills | July 12, 2008 12:43 PM
Julian,
If you think that the Danes have a history of tyrannizing and murdering the peoples of the middle east then I think it is you who need a history lesson. And what racist stereotypes do the Danish cartoons embody? Are you one of those people who can't tell an ideology (Islam) from a race?
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 12, 2008 12:54 PM
{begin clip}
Cook claims he planned to consume it, but first wanted to show it to a fellow student senator he brought to Mass who was curious about the Catholic faith.
"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."
{clipped from a news site linked at PZ, closed the link before citing, apologies}
Further, he was physically accosted at his seat. He is a catholic, he filed a complaint afterwards, returned the wafer. This wasn't a stunt, and he did not appear to "infiltrate and organization under false pretenses."
The hyperbole surrounding the event, mostly from profesional offendees painted this as some sort of Jackass© event, which does not appear to be true.
Posted by: rpsms | July 12, 2008 12:58 PM
"If you think that the Danes have a history of tyrannizing and murdering the peoples of the middle east then I think it is you who need a history lesson. And what racist stereotypes do the Danish cartoons embody? Are you one of those people who can't tell an ideology (Islam) from a race?"
One can only assume Julian thinks Greenland is to be found somewhere in the Middle East.
Posted by: John Doe | July 12, 2008 1:05 PM
Don't you end up taking the fucking cracker with you either way?What about this body of jebus fucking cracker thingy coming out the other end?How come it's just poop now.Why don't some pointy hat bullshit holy man give it a proper send off.Clearly mere stomach acid can't break down the body of jebus!I say fuck-em.Good job P.Z.and to anybody offended fuck you too!The priest fucking little boys offended me.The cover-up offended me.It's a fucking cracker!
Posted by: ed | July 12, 2008 1:08 PM
It should also be noted that not all communion ceremonies require the wafer to be ingested immediately. It is sometimes allowed to be taken back to the pew to be prayed over. And the concept of transubstantiation didn't even exist for the first millennium of the Church's existence. It was a medieval invention.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 1:33 PM
(I posted this at Wilkins' blog as well)
I've been following this in the various Sciblogs, and one thing I don't see recognized enough is what I feel the primary point PZ was trying to make...
Believing that a wafer magically turns into the physical body of a guy who died 2,000 years ago is absurd and goofy to a very high degree
Oftentimes, once such absurdities become ingrained in a society long enough, they are blindly accepted without much thought, and a bit of "blasphemy" serves as a collective wake-up call that exposes the insanity for what it truly is.
Look at the Sciblogs treatment of the creation museum in Kentucky. We all looked at it and rightly pointed out just how stupid, ridiculous, and insane it is to believe that people rode around on dinosaurs like the Flintstones. Some laughed, others shook their head in disbelief, and others still were rather outraged. Why? Because the whole thing is blatently stupid.
So maybe someone needs to explain why it's ok to be rude, disrespectful, and nasty towards fundamentalist Christianity's creation museum, but it's in bad taste to be the same towards Catholicism's belief that not only does a cracker turn into flesh, but that once it does, you're supposed to eat it?
I'm sorry, but I put this whole "transubstantiation" thing on the same level as flat-earth geocentrism, young-earth creationism, and faith-healing. They're all pathetically ridiculous beliefs that can quite easily be demonstrated to be wrong, and thus not only deserve ridicule and disrespect, their very nature demands it.
Was PZ rude? Yep...but no more rude than many here have been to various forms of creationism.
Posted by: Jason F. | July 12, 2008 1:40 PM
Assuming the student in question is a Catholic, why not just excommunicate him? Has it seriously not occurred to the pitchfork-toting mob to simply call for a religious punishment for Mr. Cook's religious "crime" of wafer-napping, rather than going off the deep end with attempts to have him expelled or charged with hate crimes?
Posted by: Martian Buddy | July 12, 2008 1:44 PM
"Some Catholics are mean, therefore they're all poopy heads and I don't have to be nice to any of them." You are just fucking brilliant, Cyril.
There is a distinction between eating a hamburger and waving a cow's head in front of a Hindu's face going "Na na na na na na I'm eating your sacred cow." The latter is what PZ Myers just did to Catholics. It isn't hard to extend that courtesy to all decent people, and doing so is vital to a pluralistic society. Heck, there are Muslims who think it's offensive for a women to show her body in public. Doesn't mean you should start hiring strippers to give surprise lap dances to everybody who's wearing a turban.
Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2008 1:51 PM
I think you are overlooking a key element of the reaction -- the psychological significance of symbols. A flag is just a piece of cloth. But you know what will happen if you burn an American flag in public, or use it to patch the rear end of your jeans, etc. etc. Is the flag America itself? Of course not, it is just a piece of colored cloth, etc.
The wafer has no significance to me. But I am not so blind as to miss its symbolic significance to devout Catholics. I don't share their beliefs, but I'm not surprised at the reaction. Are you?
Is there any object in your life that has great symbolic significance to you, but that would have no meaning to a stranger?
Posted by: Dave | July 12, 2008 1:53 PM
It turns how you can get 250 authentic eucharist wafers for $5.47 online... with a little more diligent shopping I'm sure I could get a better deal. For 39.95 you can get a 210 set of prefilled cup with a eucharist chaser... the only crime here is one against 'creation' --- how very very wasteful.
So to anyone curious or artistically inclined, there is a ready supply of holiness - without the hassle of a congregation of hysterics chasing you out the door.
Perhaps the easy access to the commonditized cannibal snack should be a more serious concern for the seriously concerned. I mean ANYONE and I mean ANYONE can buy 500 of them for a mere 85.00 and go to town on a binge and purge session and no one would be the wiser... Therefor I suggest a RFID tracking system for all containers of wafers traded globally, so the scourge of cracker kidnapping can be avoided.
I side with those that say more serious crimes than 'disrespect' have and are being committed by those attacking the young man physically and the career of PZ Meyers.
Idolatry for those interested in religious breech would be the thing that any concerned Priest should be chastizing his gullible flock for...
the wafer in question = a golden calf
Those concerned about 'respect for Christ'...need to go check out this TERRIBLE animated avatar explaining the benefit of the easy open Eucharist kit...
http://www.kingdom.com/category.aspx?categoryID=430&adcode=Google&gclid=CLXi29rzupQCFQOjFQodWnPeSw
Posted by: Cityzenjane | July 12, 2008 1:57 PM
DarkSyde at DailyKos wrote about this cracker kerfluffle Friday, July 11 and has received 657 comments so far.
"PZ Myers is in holy hot water."
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | July 12, 2008 2:00 PM
If the priest can consecrate the wafer [magic], why can't he deconsecrate it? What do they do with the leftovers? Do they keep them in a consecrated pile for the mass next week, or do they get rid of them. If the latter, then the priest could just say the magical words and deconsecrate the wafer in Cook's possession. Nya, nya, nya. End of story. But no, we have to make a huge fuss about the matter, give Cook more than his 15 minutes of fame, give PZ a chance to show how silly this is, and show how religious wars can start.
Posted by: natural cynic | July 12, 2008 2:01 PM
Dave said:
In a word, yes.
There is no symbol whose desecration would provoke me to physically attack someone and advocate their arrest, no. You could burn a picture of my grandmother, tear up a copy of the Bill of Rights, defecate on a copy of my birth certificate or high school yearbook....nope, can't think of a one that would elicit more than a bemused look on my face and probably laughter.
I actually don't think that PZ is overreacting by offering to desecrate as many communion wafers as he can get his hands on. He's trying to send a message, and it's a very important one: no one gets to decide that their symbols are so precious that they are justified in attacking people who disrespect them. That is the essence of free speech. The moment somebody gets confused about this, one of us should probably spit on their particular symbol of choice out of sheer principle, even if we have nothing against it. Each time some moron proposes an amendment to the Constitution banning flag burning, I immediately want to burn a flag. It's dangerous when symbols get confused for people, and when this line gets blurred it is imperative for people who care about free speech at all to make sure that it is clarified.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 2:06 PM
I don't think PZ had any real intention to "desecrate" a communion wafer. As far as I can tell, his offer to do so was meant to draw attention to the overreaction on the part of a few very loud Catholics. And he was perfectly right to do so.
@heddle: I don't think I've ever agreed with anything you say on this blog, but in this case, you are right. The fury over the Danish cartoons was exactly parallel to the fury over the "stolen" wafer.
Posted by: Gregory Earl | July 12, 2008 2:06 PM
Cityzenjane, you can even buy them in grocery stores. I was wondering, if you got a consecrated wafer from a Catholic friend who decided that he didn't want to eat what he had been given, and you puréed it up with 180 lbs of shop-bought wafers, and then made it into a statue of Jesus, would it then BE Jesus?
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 2:07 PM
We allow people to wave around big signs with pictures of dead and dismembered fetuses on them, you know. It's protected speech, even.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | July 12, 2008 2:10 PM
Natural Cynic asked "If the priest can consecrate the wafer [magic], why can't he deconsecrate it?"
Even more effective would be to pretend that the doorway of the church had magical properties which would de-consecrate any magical cracker that passed through it. I mean, why not? It's all make believe.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 2:12 PM
Brandon wrote "There is a distinction between eating a hamburger and waving a cow's head in front of a Hindu's face going 'Na na na na na na I'm eating your sacred cow.'"
According to Vedic scripture cows are to be treated with the same respect 'as one's mother'. Don't you think that the thousands of burger joints in the U.S. are basically waving cows heads in front of the Hindu population's collective face? What about all the adverts for burgers (and other beef products) on TV? Are you going to advocate their banning? No, because you don't actually think that all religions should be respected, do you. Hypocrite.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 2:21 PM
Apparently you can get them in 'whole wheat' -- which begs the question what of our gluten intolerant Catholic friends... Is it possible that Christ causes terrible IBS pain, without of course, intending to? The Cavanaugh brand is made "strictly without additives" and is packaged in a very high end well designed box, the wafer itself - never touched by human hands before being wrapped in plastic (which may or may not contain biphenol-a.)
The more economical eucharistic suppliers ship in little plastic tubs, with very little marketing efforts going into the container design... From a designer's perspective I would suggest that 'going on the cheap' for your flock shows real disrespect when the G*diva of wafers is available online right next to the crappy Micky D's version...and your priest chooses the cheap-o wafer. Where is the love?
Also - you can get them in a nice glass bottle, a plastic bag or box. The bag and box might be the best choice, for the planet...but it begs the question..can the temporary home of the host be properly recycled? If it can and it is not, is the priest then subject to the same kind of approbation as PZ Meyers when he blithely tosses such a holy conveyance to the garbage?
Also I am shocked to find the old bait and switch with regard to the 'blood of Christ' - fermented wine can apparently be switched out for grape juice (also available in handy once off disposables.) The mind reels. Was this just a cost cutting measure on the part of penny-wise pontiffs or a conciliatory gesture to salvaged sinners on the wagon?
Also for a mere 40.00 from "Aquinas and More" you can get a handy freeze-dried package of holy grape juice 'granules' for those moments when popping an actual cork is just too darned inconvenient!
Has the Vatican sanctified whatever facility is freeze drying the 'blood of Christ' for convenient packaging and shipping?
The host is also available in 'extra thick'...and I will just leave THAT ONE just as I found it.
Posted by: CityzenJane | July 12, 2008 2:25 PM
Sorry belief DOES NOT construct reality. If I really, really shut my eyes tight and believe I am the King of Ireland... it don't make it so.
The beliefs of these idiots is totally irrelavent. The law of the land prevails in privite houses too. If I believe that beating the shit out of my wife is my god-given right in my own house, it is still domestic violence. If I believe I should be able to have sex with 8 year olds, it is still statutory rape. If I believe killing and eating teenage girls strenghtens my supernatual powers, it's still murder & cannibalism. But not eating a waver that is given, freely, to me, IS NOT A CRIME. Since it was given to me without condition (there are no signs up saying I MUST eat it immeadiately, or even on the premises) what I do with it is no-one's business but mine.
Would a reasonable person expect such a condition to be applied? Since (here) about 28% are Catholics then at least 72% of the population would NOT expect such a restriction. Thus it is unlikey a reasonable person would KNOW that such a condition appied. HOWEVER assault IS illegal, and even nuns and preist know that such behaviour is against the law.
Was PZ Myer provocative? Yes, Is it illegal to say other's beliefs are moronic? No. Therefore the Catholic Church has not a legal leg to stand on, no matter how "hurt" they feel.
Again if this ritual is performed in a public space, such as a park (as opposed to a space open to the public, like a church), bearing in mind the litteral meaning of the ceremony, could it be considered to be 'offensive behaviour'? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2008 2:33 PM
DingoJack said:
My boyfriend suggested to me that it might be, if the guy took the wafer under fraudulent circumstances (i.e., acted as if he would eat it according to the communion ceremony, but then did not). I would love to see somebody try to make this case in court.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 2:42 PM
One thing I've taken away from all this is a firm conviction that I have no duty to respect the beliefs of others. I have to respect their right to have those beliefs, but the beliefs themselves? How can I think something's absurd and respect it at the same time?
Posted by: Taz | July 12, 2008 2:43 PM
Don't worry, I know the difference between dickish and illegal. If I say something is wrong, that doesn't mean I think it should be banned.
Not really. If a Hindu is offended, he can always choose not to watch TV and avoid those burger joints. Having a burger commercial on TV is not the same thing as wheeling a TV into a Hindu temple, during services, and playing that commercial.
I'm not sure you understand how this whole arguing thing works. You're supposed to let the other guy answer the questions, not answer them yourself.
Posted by: Brandon | July 12, 2008 2:49 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 12, 2008 2:56 PM
Brandon,
There are some religious groups that advocate racist views based on their interpretation of holy texts. Are their religious views to be respected ?
Posted by: John Doe | July 12, 2008 2:56 PM
But you're still comparing a blog posting saying "send me a wafer and I'll show 'em some real blasphemy!" with waving a bloody piece of a dead animal around in someone's face. Don't you think that's a bit of a reach?
Posted by: Martian Buddy | July 12, 2008 3:07 PM
Martian Buddy,
(I know you didn't ask me, but) the difference to me is that the former is impersonal, whereas the latter is personal. PZ is not going into the face of any particular Catholic and setting wafers on fire (or whatever he intends to do with them), which is why I don't have a problem with it.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 3:15 PM
Bill Poser: If you think that the Danes have a history of tyrannizing and murdering the peoples of the middle east then I think it is you who need a history lesson. And what racist stereotypes do the Danish cartoons embody? Are you one of those people who can't tell an ideology (Islam) from a race?
Julian may indeed have overreached a bit with the "history of tyrannizing and murdering" bit.
But there is one difference here in that in Europe "anti-Islam" is a surrogate for "anti-brown-skinned immigrant". Spain has "problems" with Moroccans, France with Algerians, and Germany with Turks. But anti-Arabic ethnic slurs aren't any more cool in Europe than they are here in North America, so provoking "Islamists" is really a safe way of race-baiting. I don't completely believe that these newspapers were really well-intentioned exercises in free expression.
News coverage here in North American tends to be oversimplistic, so I never really got a good feeling at how much the Islamic protests and riots were the result of outrage over sacrilege and how much were really due to an understanding (perhaps not totally conscious) of the colonial/racial overtones in the incident.
Note of those with problems with reading comprehension: I am not condoning the behavior of Muslims in that incident. I'm just pointing out that, as usual, no analogy is perfect.
But, come to think of it, I wonder if the Catholic League sent a letter to those Danish newspapers expressing their outrage that they would be so insensitive to the religious beliefs of the Muslims?
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 12, 2008 3:23 PM
My point is that he hasn't really done anything at this point; the most he can be accused of is soliciting his readers to send him a wafer to abuse. In my opinion at least, that doesn't merit death threats and attempts to have him disciplined by his university.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | July 12, 2008 3:31 PM
Martian Buddy said:
Err, are you saying that if he has abused the wafers already, then such things are appropriate?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 3:48 PM
I am appalled at the attitudes of Mr. Brayton and others here. Consecrated Eucharist is the real flesh of Jesus Christ both God and man, It is the holiest thing on this planet bar none.
That is our faith, and through the centuries many of us have died for it. We are careful never to partake of it even close to a meal of food so that we would never take it for granted as simply food.
Even the particles of Eucharist are considered so sacred that the vessels used to distribute it are washed out with clear water and swallowed by the Priest, lest any of it go down a drain.
Please, if this is not your faith, respect ours and do not desecrate even the mention of this most sacred object of our faith.
Posted by: makemeaspark | July 12, 2008 4:04 PM
Brandon, I'm the only Cyril that I've seen on this blog so I assume you are responding to what I had to say about Catholics and homosexuals. "Some Catholics are mean, therefore they're all poopy heads and I don't have to be nice to any of them." You are just fucking brilliant, Cyril"
I don't want to get into a diatribe with you. You made up that childish quotation, I never said such a thing and you totally missed the point. I'm not attacking Catholic individuals but the dictums of their heirarchy from the pope on down.
P.S. you reveal some of your own intellectual character with your sarcastic insulting response to me. But I digress!
Posted by: cyril | July 12, 2008 4:33 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 12, 2008 4:35 PM
I am appalled at the attitudes of Makemeaspark. Spaghetti and meatballs are the real flesh of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, It is the holiest thing on this planet bar none.
That is our faith, and through the centuries many pirates have died for it. We are careful never to partake of it even close to snack-time so that we would never take it for granted as simply an appetizer.
Even the drops of tomato sauce are considered so sacred that the vessels used to distribute it are washed out with rum and swallowed by the Captain, lest any of it go into the sea.
Please, if this is not your faith, respect ours and do not desecrate even the mention of this most sacred object of our faith.
[Makemeaspark, maybe this will make you realize how ridiculous your religion looks to us (though I don't hold much hope)]
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 4:37 PM
Death threats? Never. Some form of discipline? It would depend on exactly what sort of unspeakable act of wafer molestation PZ performed, and how he performed it. In the analogy of the dead cow's head on the stick, for example, I'd imagine that harassing someone in that manner has to break some sort of law. In other words, I wouldn't support him being punished merely for the "crime" of sacrilege.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | July 12, 2008 4:42 PM
Brandon "I'm not sure you understand how this whole arguing thing works. You're supposed to let the other guy answer the questions, not answer them yourself."
Right, so I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths, like:
"Some Catholics are mean, therefore they're all poopy heads and I don't have to be nice to any of them."
Okay, got that. Have you?
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 4:42 PM
I cannot imagine a more perfect example of religion making an otherwise intelligent person say something completely insane.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | July 12, 2008 4:44 PM
Dave wrote:
I find that reaction to flag burning just as ridiculous as this reaction to the "diving kidnapping."
Of course I'm not surprised. Appalled, yes. Not the least bit surprised.
No.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 12, 2008 4:44 PM
YES. That's exactly right. This is called free speech. Everybody has the absolute right to insult everybody and anybody's beliefs at any time they feel like it! Here:
Jesus is a load of nonsense.
Mohammed licks camel asses.
Buddha had a weight problem and smelled of old socks.
Ganesha needs a fucking nosejob already.
Ahura Mazda is a doodoo head.
Carl Sagan is boring.
The pope smokes dope.
Moses was a hallucinating psychopath who led a bunch of unwitting dupes in the desert when they already had promising careers in architecture.
The emperor of Japan isn't wearing any clothes.
The Tao that can be spoken is just as good as the one that can't.
Your mommy isn't a saint and is unpleasant to behold.
Zeus takes moose up the caboose.
The goddess turns tricks.
I think of him foully so I call him Crowley.
Discordianism is juvenile rebelliousness dressed up in poor humor.
The Church of Scientology is a brainwashing cult of cut-throats run by people who couldn't make it in used car sales.
Joseph Smith made it all up.
Did I leave anybody out? OK, all together now....
HATE SPEECH! Oh, the vileness! Oh, the humanities!
Not only is there no free speech without the right to question, and even to insult, the beliefs of others -- religious and otherwise -- but no deity that requires the efforts of its followers to defend it is worth worshiping in the first place. If the omnipotent and omniscient is willing and able to stand up for its own honor, what good is it going to do for anyone else?
I can't even believe that someone has to ask the question, "So you think it's alright to insult the beliefs of others whenever your feel like it?"
YES. A million times, YES. If you want to go around having beliefs, be prepared to have them insulted. If you don't want that situation, then try basing your world view on something that can be argued factually one way or the other. Beliefs boil down to an unending game of yes it is/no it isn't. If they could be proven, they wouldn't be beliefs anymore.
I have to go now. The Quran I set on fire is just about done and I have to roast some marshmallows over Timothy so that I'll have enough energy to play Kick the Talmud with my friends tonight.
It's just WORDS. It's not the advocacy of violence, and that's exactly why Bill Donohue doesn't only say things like "our beliefs have been insulted." So what? He has to provoke fear in the rubes to fulfill his fantasy-life as the man powerful enough to defend the omnipotent -- a bit of delusional paranoia if there ever was such a thing.
Did I mention that anyone who thinks that the sabbath isn't on a Tuesday is stupid? Sorry. Throw that in there, too.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 12, 2008 4:47 PM
Dave said -
You're actually insulting devout Catholics with this statement. They do not believe the wafer is merely symbolic. They believe it is transformed into the actual body of Christ (while still somehow maintaining it's own physical structure).Posted by: Taz | July 12, 2008 5:18 PM
At first I thought Mr. Cook's actions and the threat by PZ to desecrate a host were a bit puerile, but after the seeing the insane overreaction to them I am beginning to wonder. Maybe we actually need MORE of that kind of thing to demonstrate just how irrational religion can make otherwise sane people become.
Posted by: MS | July 12, 2008 5:31 PM
I have absolutely no use for the Catholic League(or any other religious "wingnuts" of any religious tradition). There are plenty of people of faith(all faiths) who are good, decent people, and try to live their faiths as best they can. But I really, really, wonder about somebody who would attend a church on Sunday, go to Communion, take the wafer, and then carry it around in a plastic bag. What is the point of this? Was he deliberately trying to be provocative? And why? For what purpose? He must have known there were people he wold offend. And PZ Myers? Much as I respect his opinions, he is merely adding fuel to the fire by claiming a Communion wafer is merely a "f---ing cracker" and enjoining people to "get over it". It may be a "cracker", but it is a symbolic "cracker", and an important symbol, for many people, at that. Please, if you're going to make a case for atheism, make one sensibly, folks. That side really doesn't need people "pulling stunts" like this. Nor does it need PZ Myers adding fuel to the fire by inserting his own opinions into this explosive mix.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | July 12, 2008 5:43 PM
makemeaspark
Do you eat beef
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 5:50 PM
Anne G - see my previous comment. Devout Catholics believe the eucharist is the ACTUAL body of Christ, not a symbol. I think that belief is absurd, and I think my opinion is fairly reasonable. But people (and especially public figures) would hesitate to express such an opinion. I think PZ is using shock tactics to move the general discussion a bit towards the rational side of the spectrum.
Posted by: Taz | July 12, 2008 5:51 PM
Go ahead and order as many as you want. The Catholic Church teaches that it doesn't transubstantiate until the right words are spoken. Until then, I guess you could put it in your tomato soup.
Oh, and they do make a gluten-free version of communion wafers. If I ever had someone come up to me and tell me they had a gluten issue, I would switch ours right away.
BTW our belief in communion is a bit differnt than the RC church.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 12, 2008 5:59 PM
Well, I guess you know what your job is now, Rev. AKB. ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 6:04 PM
The simple, elegant solution would be, send the kid to prison for kidnapping. PZ should be arrested and put on trial as an accessory after the fact. Kidnapping God's son cannot be tolerating as it is the first step down that slippery slope to kidnapping all our sons.
Posted by: tguy | July 12, 2008 6:05 PM
Oops, could've sworn my finger was on the "J" button just then...
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 6:06 PM
Oops make that "tolerated".
Posted by: tguy | July 12, 2008 6:06 PM
And people call me "materialistic" because, as an atheist, there is no object or symbol that I can imagine sending someone a death threat over.
People can dunk a photo of Charles Darwin in a glass of urine for all I care. It won't hurt him, and I don't think that bodily functions are "bad."
Bush is holding the planet hostage by refusing to do anything about global warming (leaving the problem for the next administration), and all this fuss over a wafer. Someday, people are going to ask why. What will the Catholic League say then?
Posted by: Kristine | July 12, 2008 6:11 PM
Rev AJB wrote "The Catholic Church teaches that it doesn't transubstantiate until the right words are spoken."
Abrakadabra or Presto chango?
I'm curious, how do you know that the incantation is correct? How do you test to see whether the cracker has changed into Jesus? Maybe the wrong one has been used for the past thousand years; maybe priests have been feeding their flock bits of Cthulhu? Maybe it only works if you are facing the right way, or wearing the right hat or underwear?
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 6:11 PM
I want to comment on this issue, but I'm not sure how to go about it without being yelled at or berated.
I'm a lapsed Catholic. I'll probably always be Catholic, even if I disagree with some of the Church's rules and teachings. I just can't conceive of not being Catholic, the same way I'm sure that many others can't conceive of not being whatever faith they are.
As a Catholic, I'm confused by what the student did. I mean, it's just never even crossed my mind to abscond with the Eucharist. Even putting it in his mouth, and then removing it, I just don't get. Communion wafers are designed to dissolve quickly. It'd have to be soggy and mushy when he took it out again (I'm still trying to figure out how he did it).
Anyway, absconding with the Eucharist - I disagree with his actions, especially as he apparently was Catholic himself. He should have know better. I mean, it's something that children contemplate before they receive their First Communion. And, if I recall correctly, prior to my First Communion, one of our parish's priests brought in a bag of unconsecrated wafers so we could look at them and try them. Curiousity taken care of, important ritual uninterrupted.
When I say that he should have known better, I mean that the student, as a Catholic, should have known the importance of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Once consecrated, the communion wafer becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. To abscond with it is kind of like biting off Christ's finger and running away.
This brings up the subject of transubtantiation. According to Catholic doctrine, once consecrated and offered up to the congregation by the priest, the Host is the Body of Christ. It is not a physical transformation: it is a spiritual, symbolic transformation. It is an act of remembrance, an act of uniting with Christ. As a sacrament, the Eucharist bestows grace upon the receiver for a short while.
As a rational, thinking person, I know that the consecrated Host does not become the actual flesh of Christ. It's about achieving grace, remembering, and being part of a community in Christ. It's an incredibly important part of being Catholic.
As a rational, thinking person I still don't get why the student did what he did. Supposedly, from what I have read, he was going to show his friend the communion wafer. I think that he could have gone about this differently, perhaps by meeting with a priest or nun before or after Mass, or even a professor that specializes in Catholicism.
However, I absolutely do not agree with how the congregation reacted. It was completely uncalled for, and even though the student should not have absconded with the Eucharist, the congregation should not have reacted the way they did. Unfortunately, when emotions are running high, people do not think rationally.
The student wants an apology and a meeting with the Bishop. The Diocese wants the Eucharist returned. The student won't consider giving the Eucharist back unless he gets his apology and meeting. Obviously, they're at a stalemate.
The student deserves an apology for the actions against him. The congregation should not have reacted with violence towards him. However, he should not have absconded with the Eucharist. The Diocese deserves an apology for his actions against them. Both parties are in the wrong, and should apologize to each other. No legal action should be taken against him, and he should be allowed to remain in school. If anything, maybe his position as a student government official should be suspended.
In regards to PZ's response to the whole issue, I can see where he is coming from. To non-Catholics, a communion wafer, even when consecrated, is just a cracker. It doesn't mean anything to them. It's not a sacred item. It's just a cracker. However, to Catholics, consecrated communion wafers are the spiritual Body of Christ. They are holy, blessed items that should be treated with respect. PZ is deliberately trying to disrespect an integral part of Catholicism. I think that is immature on his part.
Bill Donahue is a complete nutjob. Seriously. If anyone is completely overreacting in this whole situation, it's him. Totally and completely crazy. By calling for the student to be expelled and PZ to be fired, he's showing how immature he is and embarassing himself. Not that embarassing himself is hard, but still. Shut up, Donahue.
As I have previously mentioned, I am an extremely lapsed Catholic. I disagree with a lot of the Church's teachings. I recognize and firmly believe that much of Church doctrine has been directly influenced and caused by historical events, not God. I just thought that I would offer the opinion of a current, if extremely lapsed, Catholic.
Posted by: Neviditelny | July 12, 2008 6:18 PM
"The student wants an apology and a meeting with the Bishop. The Diocese wants the Eucharist returned. The student won't consider giving the Eucharist back unless he gets his apology and meeting. Obviously, they're at a stalemate."
It's been returned. Keep up ;-)
Meanwhile, what's left of the rest of the bit of Jesus from that particular communion are sloshing along in the sewers, on their way to the treatment facility. Doesn't seem like a very respectful way to treat your deity, does it?
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 6:24 PM
tguy big. tguy make noise. TGUY ANGRY. TGUY SMASH.
TGUY SMASH!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 6:35 PM
Rev. BDC, I took tguy's comment as satire, but I could be wrong. Of course, your comment could just be playing along with him. It's hard to tell these days.
Posted by: Taz | July 12, 2008 6:38 PM
I hope it was satire.
But yeah, Poe's law is in action, with a vengeance these days.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 6:40 PM
WTF? Are those the only two options? Do they apply to every post he makes? Every thing he does? "PZ, are you eating the ham sandwich to command an army of mouth breathers, or to preserve the science classroom for science?"
Posted by: pough | July 12, 2008 6:46 PM
Nevidetelny:
I suspect that something north of 80% of American Catholics have no earthly idea who Mr. Donahue is, and if they did, they'd be as appalled as you [and I] are at his blithering idiocy. Part of what I find a little disturbing in the discussion so far by [some] of my fellow non-believers is their tendency to take Mr. Donahue as a representative of Catholics collectively. That makes about as much sense as believing David Duke represents Republicans collectively. Or that Dodson represents Christians collectively.
Posted by: flatlander100 | July 12, 2008 6:48 PM
I was telling a friend of mine about this and he told me that his friend's grandfather will go to the church late at night/early morning (I'm talking like 1-4am here) to pray over the wafers to make sure they aren't stolen or sinned upon or whatever. The amount of seriousness these people put in some bread is just astounding.
Posted by: Kele Cable | July 12, 2008 6:54 PM
I think the fact that some people have called Cook's actions a hate crime is a seriously creepy and disturbing equivocation deserving of the harshest criticisms. I don't find it amusingly absurd, I find it sickening.
As PZ pointed out, it's utterly demeaning to those who have been victimized. Matthew Shepherd, Teena Brandon, Megan Williams, James Byrd Jr? Those are fucking hate crimes. And these deluded morons thought it was perfectly ok to compare a wafer misappropriation to the suffering, pain and torture of real human beings.
How low does a person have to sink to say that being raped or beaten to death for the crime of being different than the perpetrators compares to a kid not eating a fucking wafer in a timely manner?
It's an insane and grotesque devaluation of humanity. We should criticize it, and if PZ wants to do it the form of wafer abuse than more power to him. That said, in my wafer snuff film, I would cut it with heart-wrenching courtroom or victim testimony from people who have suffered this kind of targeted brutality. Just to make it clear.
Posted by: Leni | July 12, 2008 6:59 PM
I'm surprised to hear you say that you think PZ is going to far with his offer to do something 'unholy' to a cracker.
Flatlander, Ed, and others who agree. It seems this scenario is the similar enough to the Danish cartoon or Mohammed that it should be supported.
Explain to me where you see the difference. (I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'm curious about your reasoning.)
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | July 12, 2008 7:04 PM
Flatlander, with all due respect, Bill Donahue wasn't in the church when this happened.
He wasn't the one who sent death threats to Cook, and he isn't the one now sending threats to PZ and probably his employer now as well. Bill Donahue is a first class jackass, but he certainly isn't alone in calling wafer misappropriation a hate crime.
Posted by: Leni | July 12, 2008 7:07 PM
"Part of what I find a little disturbing in the discussion so far by [some] of my fellow non-believers is their tendency to take Mr. Donahue as a representative of Catholics collectively."
Can you provide us with links to Catholic groups/blogs that are disgusted with the things Donohue has said? I'm not saying that you're wrong (I really hope you're right), but after reading so much irrational shit over the past couple of days, I'd love to see some rational Catholic commentary. Thanks.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 7:07 PM
MH - I see that it's been returned. I'm sad that Cook felt so pressured and threatened by Catholics. I hope he's been apologized to by the Diocese.
Honestly, I've never given much thought to what happens to the Eucharist after it leaves the body. However, if you want a funny take on it, there's a scene in Angela's Ashes where they have to deal with that very issue.
According to my handy-dandy Catechism of the Catholic Church book:
"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharist species subsist. Since this remains for about fifteen minutes when in the human body after being swallowed, we should spend this time in prayer, thanksgiving, and adoration, and not turn quickly to wordly occupations."
So, after fifteen minutes, the physical communion wafer is dissolved, taking with it Christ's presence. I guess someone worried about the respectfulness of the end product.
Posted by: Neviditelny | July 12, 2008 7:09 PM
Fastlane wrote, "It seems this scenario is the similar enough to the Danish cartoon or Mohammed that it should be supported.
Explain to me where you see the difference. (I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'm curious about your reasoning.)"
I think the big difference is that what PZ proposes to do says nothing about the Catholics who criticize his proposed actions. The only objection I have to the Danish cartoons is that they played off stereotypes of Muslims. Of course, the response made the portrayal accurate (unfortunately). In both cases, they are essentially performance pieces in which the audience provides the entertainment. In fact, PZ's proposal came after the hoopla made over the UCF case -- where the host was merely taken home. PZ, in essence said, if you think that was sacrilege, wait until you see what I do. The mere utterance of these words set off Donahue -- and he has yet to do anything.
In a separate note, as for the Catholics who are offended by those who don't take their religious objects as seriously as (some, maybe even most) Catholics do: stop praying for the conversion of others! The mass includes prayers for the conversion of Jews. How does this show respect for other religious traditions?
Posted by: Greg | July 12, 2008 7:16 PM
"So, after fifteen minutes, the physical communion wafer is dissolved, taking with it Christ's presence. I guess someone worried about the respectfulness of the end product."
But why fifteen minutes (how did they ascertain that) and where does "Christ's presence" go? Does it get absorbed into the soul? Can one OD on it?
All rhetorical questions, of course. The more I read about this subject the more it seems like a discussion of the abilities of Sauron, or the culinary skills of the witches in Macbeth.
'night all.
Posted by: MH | July 12, 2008 7:23 PM
Very sad to see so much vitriol poured over this, but it really does show the friction at the interface between the spiritual and the material. I imagine that there would have been less heat in this series of comments if the "culture wars" had not been fanned to such a glowing heat in recent years.
I am afraid that I rather love symbols, and invest much emotion to them at times. It pains me to see an American flag being abused or neglected, and especially seeing its image cheapened through over-use on bumpers all over the country. Similarly, I try to have a decent reverence for the communion elements; knowing that they are not physically flesh and blood, but that they are the physical sign of an intimate bond with Jesus. To "eat His flesh" and "drink His blood" are to surrender my own life and will to His. The act reminds me that we are to inherit both glory and suffering.
It is sad that some in the church and its self-appointed representatives have chosen to react so strongly to a simple misunderstanding. Mr. Cook may be lacking in his spiritual education, but he meant no harm and did no harm. An understanding priest could have taken the incident to be an opportunity to teach the meaning of sacrament to Cook and to the rest of the congregation, perhaps satisfying the visitor's curiosity at the same time. By being so eager to take offense, this teachable moment was lost to many.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | July 12, 2008 7:35 PM
Greg,
The Danish cartoons were drawn because the artists were asked to depict Mohamed in any way they saw fit. Not all of the depictions were even negative (nor were all of them even of Mohamed-- some poked fun at the newspaper instead). PZ is not even mocking Jesus (right now, at least); he's mocking a Christian ritual in response to an irrational hoopla over that ritual. In neither case is the intent to offend all members of a given religion, or even mainly to offend. It's to make a point about certain members of a religion. However, this of course will not stop other members from assuming that the goal was mainly to offend them, and react accordingly.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 7:39 PM
Neviditelny wrote:
"So, after fifteen minutes, the physical communion wafer is dissolved, taking with it Christ's presence. I guess someone worried about the respectfulness of the end product."
Hmmm . . . Holy s**t?
Yes, I am generally respectful and mindful of symbols, but I couldn't let that one pass without comment.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | July 12, 2008 7:48 PM
Rev AJB -
The RCC does not allow anything other than wheat wafers. Big case here in NJ. 8 year old wanted to receive FHC, but was gluten intolerant. Parents applied to the Diocesan bishop for a waiver. NO CAN DO. Wheat or burn. I believe the parents went to the Pope, but haven't heard if they succeeded. Three more converts to something else.
One of the ongoing reasons why I left.
Posted by: Pineyman | July 12, 2008 7:51 PM
A little off topic, but speaking of Catholics and bodies, I recently read about a ghoulish part of Catholic history that was a new one on me.
In 897 CE, Pope Stephen VI had the body of the previous pope, Formosus, exhumed 9 months after his death to stand trial on a variety of charges leading to the invalidation of his election and all of his official acts. The Vatican's prosecutors propped his rotting carcass on a throne, tried him, convicted him, cut off his fingers of consecration and excommunicated him.
Talk about habeas corpus...
Posted by: Dr X | July 12, 2008 8:12 PM
So, hey, do you think that the guy who was interested in Catholicism is going to convert now?
You know, Webster's friend. The one Webster Cook took along to mass, to show him about being a Catholic. Cook was planning to show him the host, to illustrate this communion thing to a potential convert.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 12, 2008 8:43 PM
Gretchen,
Thanks for the reminder and clarification about the cartoons. I didn't pay close attention to the cartoons themselves. I meant to include something to the effect that Muslims (well, devout ones anyway) would have been offended by any depiction of Mohamed (if I remember correctly, Islam prohibits portraits of religious figures, considering them idolatry), much less "offensive" portrayals of him. In that respect, any drawing of Mohamed would as blasphemous or offensive to practitioners of Islam as messing with a cracker would be to Catholics. Your comment makes me wonder -- how many of the cartoons (even of Mohamed himself) were drawn to draw attention to stereotypes held by Westerners in general.
Posted by: Greg | July 12, 2008 9:18 PM
Greg,
There are images of Mohamed used all over the place by Muslims-- in story books, in paintings, and so on. Perhaps you're right that they're not the most devout. I suppose you could say that the Catholics who are not up in arms about this Cook guy taking the Eucharist with him are probably not that devout, either. And thank goodness for that! As far as I'm concerned, the few devout there are (of any brand of religion), the better.
None of them, from what I recall. The point was for the artists to present Mohamed as they saw him. No doubt some of these depictions were more stereotypical than others, but they weren't meant as a comment on Western stereotypes of Islam. At least two were comments on the newspaper, as I said, a couple were comments about negative aspects about Islam, and the remainder appeared to be honest attempts to represent Mohamed accurately. The whole thing happened because a man trying to write a book for children about Mohamed was unable to find someone to illustrate his book as they were afraid of potentially angering Muslims, and the Jyllands-Posten took the opportunity to show different representations of him from different points of view-- which, you could say, was a big "Fuck you" to all Muslims who think it's wrong to visually depict Mohamed, but I would say the larger and primary goal was to say "We value freedom of expression in this country, despite what your doctrines may command, and this is how we're going to show it." In that respect, I would say that the cartoons and PZ's announcement to desecrate communion wafers have a lot in common.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 9:33 PM
PZ meyers is first class bafoon simply because he believes in any aspect of evolution. In addition, so are the rest of you! I challenge you all to debate this with the greatest of all of Jerry Falwell's disiciples--myself!
Posted by: darwin was a fool | July 12, 2008 9:38 PM
Yawn.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 10:15 PM
Dave wrote:
Yes, there may be. Indeed, there may be symbols the desecration of which would cause great anger, perhaps enough to engage in some sort of violence (although there would have to be a confluence of various other factors), BUT I would not expect the government endorse my actions, to punish the offender, of the offender's employer to fire them. I understand that symbols that matter to me may not matter to some-one else, so I have just have to suck it up and keep myself under control.
If the people involved in Cook's incident had done that, admit that they'd gone a bit too far in assaulting Cook, and they're sorry, but could he please pretty please not take the eucharist again, I would have agreed with them and told Cook not to be a dick, but they just took it too far.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 12, 2008 10:30 PM
MH -
""So, after fifteen minutes, the physical communion wafer is dissolved, taking with it Christ's presence. I guess someone worried about the respectfulness of the end product."
But why fifteen minutes (how did they ascertain that) and where does "Christ's presence" go? Does it get absorbed into the soul? Can one OD on it?
All rhetorical questions, of course. The more I read about this subject the more it seems like a discussion of the abilities of Sauron, or the culinary skills of the witches in Macbeth.
'night all."
I think there is a special part of the body that absorbs the residual Christ Essence, along with the incredible stomach acids. I would be surprised if anything is digested or broken down within fifteen minutes. But that does bring up a few points:
1) If the individual gets sick off it (as I did one day as a child - had to run outside and throw up), within that 15 minute time frame, is that sacrilage, and am I obligated to pick up the pieces and reingest them so as to not lose the "holy"?
2) If the requirements are the loss of physical integrity, isn't merely breaking it in half or chewing it sufficient?
3) If the requirement is the breakdown of the molecules of the host, then I do challenge that fifteen minute time frame. I honestly have no idea how long it takes food to break down, especially bread, but I am skeptical as the fifteen minute claim. What studies have been done to show that that is the correct time, and what is the percentage of digestion - does 50% count? What studies have been done to show that this spiritual essence is actually released, and, again, at what percentage - does it have to be 100%? If I did throw up at 8 minutes, was any Jesus released into my body, or was it a gradual bit and I got a little over 50%? What is the effect of that on my soul?!!!
4) What if a man dies of a heart attack after taking the host, or they have an allergic reaction and die before they can digest the host. Is it a requirement for the hospital workers to remove the host and ensure that it is disposed of properly?
5) How much wood could a woochuck chuck.... sorry, got carried away.
I do wonder at the words, as the Rev says. Considering that, from what I remember, different sects use different words, and across the world, different languages are used. Does that have any effect? Have people not been eating the body of the god correctly? Do they indeed ingest Great Cthulhu in those instances, grow gills, and get a longing for the ocean? Or is it just cannibalism, in the spiritual sense, but without the god parts to make it good. Mmmm - god is tasty.....(actually, haven eaten many of them, they are bland and a bit nauseating, like eating cardboard, but without the flavor).
Posted by: Badger3k | July 12, 2008 10:39 PM
I understand that the communion wafer in question was of the fat-free variety.
"I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus."
Posted by: A different MH | July 12, 2008 10:48 PM
flatlander100, writing back on July 12, 2008 10:30 AM, was 100% right, and said nearly everything that needed to be said, except...
This act was done on private property, to private property. Say whatever you like. Transubstantiation is a terrible doctrine. Bill Donahue is a jackass. Fine! But they have a right to be offended. And they have a right to say, "Don't do this in our house." Some of you people are so hyper, you can't even practice empathy.
That really should be the end of it. There's nothing more to say. The number, the ugliness, the intolerance, and the stupidity of so many of these comments is stunning, coming from a crowd that generally a) is Progressive and b) is Educated. Some of the language here seems like the very knuckle-dragging that's DESERVEDLY criticized here routinely.
Posted by: Jim Babka | July 12, 2008 10:59 PM
Jim,
I don't recall anyone saying that the Catholics in question don't have a right to be offended. And if you're going to castigate people so severely, it really would help if you'd be more specific about exactly who you're talking about, and what terrible things they did.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 12, 2008 11:10 PM
Jim Babka-
By "this act", I assume you mean the two instances of assault perpetrated against the catholic college student, who only wanted to show his (non-catholic) friend the cracker in question before eating it, by a church leader, in the church?
If not, your comment really doesn't make any sense, based on the facts of the case.
And yes, they do have a right to be offended, just as I have a right to be offended by their taking offense at something so silly. However, they do NOT have a right to assault people, try to have them expelled or fired from their jobs, expect and campaign for the government to punish them for offending someone, or send them death threats; all of which was done BEFORE PZ Myers even got involved. Being offended grants you NO special rights or privileges, and I have only one thing to say to people who think it should: Fuck you!
If that happens to offend anyone...Good!
Posted by: Kaerion | July 12, 2008 11:52 PM
A totally-beyond-ridiculous response to an action not even worth doing, let alone writing about.
And let's not go off on a tangent about hate-crimes. Whatever one may think about hate-crime laws, this is not a hate-crime, and one idiotic statement by someone in the diocese does not a commentary on hate-crime laws make. It is, at worst, discourteous behavior on the part of a guest (PZ) toward his host (the church whose ritual he kinda-sorta-maybe "disrupted"). It's a bit like going to a dinner party only to box up your meal and walk out as everyone else sits down to share the meal.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 13, 2008 12:11 AM
Kaerion -- not to mention that they (the UCF church people or maybe just Donahue) considered the removal of the host (freely given to the kid in question) an act of kidnapping!
Badger 3k: growing up Catholic, some classmates of mine (I had gone to a different school and church previously) had been told that it was wrong to bite the cracker since that would be harm to Jeebus's body.
I thought I read somewhere on this thread someone asking if you could get too much Jeebus: there are apparently limits on how many times you may receive communion a given day or even mass (apparently you can usually go a second time a day, but I haven't seen a clear rule about that).
Gretchen -- from what I gather it seems that most Muslims would regard any portrait of Mohamed as going against their religious tenets, but those views have varied historically and as you correctly point out, there have been images of Mohamed over the years.
Of course, how many adherents to Islam or Catholicism (or even other branches of Xianity) have been terribly offended by one or the other episode is probably fairly low. Church attendance in the US is high compared to Europe, but even then according to one poll only 20% of Americans go to church every week (a similar poll of pastors cut that number in half!), and Uzbekistan -- where most of the residents are Muslims -- apparently eats a lot of pork (I have only the words of a Uzbek woman for this; she told me it was a commonly eaten meat there). I can see not-so-devout practitioners of one or the other faith (or both) saying that the cartoons or crackergate were wrong and maybe being a bit put off by it, but I suspect most won't care. Meanwhile ... Donahue makes Catholics look a lot like the Muslims who were upset by the cartoons (and most Westerners probably thought of terrorists when they heard about riots). If anything, PZ shows (again) that religious people act a lot alike -- that is, irrationally.
Posted by: Greg | July 13, 2008 12:22 AM
I seem to recall the use of a consecrated communion wafer in a Dracula movie. The antagonists found the empty coffin, broke the wafer into four pieces and embedded them in the soil in the coffin, in order to deny the vampire his place of rest.
Would this use of a wafer be considered desecration?
Posted by: bad Jim | July 13, 2008 12:56 AM
Neviditelny wrote:
In my experience, and having often had a case of dry-mouth of a Sunday morning, those wafers only dissolved when soaked in the vinegary, instant heart-burn inducing "wine" (or rather, "blood"). I clearly remember the interminable wait for the "blood," so that I could get the gluey, dry, flavorless lump of "body" off my tongue without losing skin. I have been thinking sympathetically about how much of Mr. Cook's skin was removed from his tongue when he pulled the dry, sticky wafer off it. Would it be so very hard to put a cinnamon/sugar coating on those nasty things so that my saliva could have been activated and softened them a bit.
Jim wrote:
Sure they do. But they most assuredly do not have a right to assault Mr. Cook. Was it not the responsibility of Mr. Cook's CCD indoctrinator to instill in him the proper way to take communion?
I find the response of Republican delegate Thomas Foley to be just laughable. It brings to mind images of dozens of mindless, drooling biology students (a la Return of the Living Dead) descending on the National Convention, chanting, "Give us your crackers! If you love us, you'll let us eat your crackers!" Perhaps the Catholic attendees fear they will be pithed and dissected. There certainly have been no threats of violence against them, unlike Mr. Cook and Prof. Myers, who have both received death threats. Who needs protection here?
Posted by: RebekahD | July 13, 2008 1:05 AM
Hello Rev. BDC.
If I were big and green the world would be a much, much different place. For starters, Kong wouldn't stand a chance with the girl.
Posted by: tguy | July 13, 2008 1:49 AM
Ok once more with feeling..
a) BELIEF DOES NOT MAKE REALITY. No matter how much I might believe that gravity is a myth, I still will plummet to the ground if I jump off a tall building. These Catholics might believe that a craker is the ACTUAL body of a semi-mythical dead guy, but can they prove this?
b) ONCE GIVEN AWAY YOU DON'T OWN IT. The cracker was given freely and without the expectation of return. Mr Cook, once given it, could do anything he damned pleased with it, since Mr Cook owned it, not the church.
c) REASONABLE EXPECTION. Where were the prominant signs that read "All wafers to be eaten immeadiately"? Would a reasonable person expect this rule? Even if Mr Cook was a Catholic, some churches (evidently) allow parishioners to take the waver to thier pews to cast more magic spells over it, others don't. How would a participant know this?
c) THE LAW IS UNIVERSAL. I might deeply and sincerely believe that murdering and eating children will allow me to fly. Even if I murder and eat the children inside my own property, out of sight of all other humans, it is still murder & cannibalism. That the church is privately owned (although open to the public) is irrelavant, as is the depth of the beilief of these Catholics, an assualt is STILL LEGALLY considered an assualt. Having one's beliefs offended by someone else's actions is not enough to justify such an assualt, and the law should be applied in a church exactly as if it were in the street. Can fundamentalist Muslims crash tackle someone who disbelieves in Mahommed? Would this be acceptable behaviour anywhere?
d) KIDNAPPING LOGICALLY REQUIRES CERTAIN CONDITIONS. Kidnapping would require that a living person was taken unlawfully and against will. How would the Catholic church PROVE the magic cracker was the living body od Christ? What tests would they apply? If the cracker was given freely (see above) was the cracker taken illegally or against it;s will? How do you determine the will of a cracker? Is there proof that Mr Cook had ANY INTENTION of removing the cracker from the building BEFORE he was assaulted? If so how would this be proven?
e) DESECRATION IS NOT ILLEGAL. What specifiv laws cover "desecration" (whatever that is) of a cracker? Is it illegal to "desecrate" other objects? If so what are they, how does one do it, and why is is considered so? Is there ANY proof that Mr Cook had ANY intention of "desecrating" this cracker (or and other cracker for that matter)?
f) SPECIFIC, TARGETED & IMMINENT. Mr Myers was being provocative (on his private blog, in his own time). Being provocative is also not illegal, unless one makes threats that are against a specific person(s), explictly call for violence and constitute and imminent danger to the named person(s). Calling for people to send you crackers so you can "desecrate" them, soes not fall into this category.
g) RESPECTING BELIEF. No legal obligation exists for a person to respect anyone's beliefs. Even if I go into your house, I am in no way legally bound to believe you are the reincarnation of Elvis. I am allowed to mock you if I wish to do so. You however are no legal obligation not to show me where the door is, and how to use it correctly. No belief system is protected by law as this would violate the first ammendment, by establishing a state protected belief system. Protecting ALL belief systems would, of course, be impossible since this would make the law contradictory and cumbersome at best. Besides the Catholic church (and all other churchs, I might add) are not in a strong position to complain about respecting other's beliefs, thier histories are easily accessable for public perusual and simply highlight the hypocritsy of this complaint.
Perhaps I missed some points but I think that just about sums it up. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 13, 2008 3:18 AM
Ed [qv DingoJack JULY 12, 10:40 AM] see I was nearly right.
Still pushes up your hits so it's not all bad. ☺ DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 13, 2008 3:28 AM
I seem to recall the use of a consecrated communion wafer in a Dracula movie. The antagonists found the empty coffin, broke the wafer into four pieces and embedded them in the soil in the coffin, in order to deny the vampire his place of rest.
Would this use of a wafer be considered desecration?
Posted by: bad Jim | July 13, 2008 3:32 AM
Ok- now I take my earlier critique of Scientology vs. Xtians back. This kerfluffle is clearly every bit as crazy as the xenu blowing up 747's nonsense.
Really, aren't these people aware that these crackers are mixed and baked from completely banal recipes, none of which call for anything resembling 'the skin and /or muscles of a long dead god-man?'
I get the symbolism. I can even see the objection to the obvious disrespect. But the idea that anyone views the relationship between baked goods and the creator of all as anything approaching a literal manifestation... frankly calling that insane seems kindly.
Posted by: uriel | July 13, 2008 4:43 AM
Raging Bee "It is, at worst, discourteous behavior on the part of a guest (PZ) toward his host (the church whose ritual he kinda-sorta-maybe "disrupted")."
Mr Cook, not PZ, was the guest (I think PZ bursts into flaming calamari if he sets foot inside a church ;-)
What's more, it would indeed be inappropriate for PZ to take communion, as he isn't a Catholic. UCF student Cook is a Catholic, and as it has been said, would probably have eaten the cracker (after showing it his friend) if he hadn't been assaulted.
Posted by: MH | July 13, 2008 5:46 AM
If I had that damn cracker I would grind it up under the heel of my boot in a pile of dog s---t
Posted by: Ex Partiate | July 13, 2008 5:50 AM
"If I had that damn cracker I would grind it up under the heel of my boot in a pile of dog s---t"
That's just nuts. You'd get shit all over your boot! Now, if you ate it, you'd actually turn it into shit.
Posted by: MH | July 13, 2008 6:14 AM
Raging Bee wrote- "It is, at worst, discourteous behavior on the part of a guest (PZ) toward his host (the church whose ritual he kinda-sorta-maybe "disrupted"). It's a bit like going to a dinner party only to box up your meal and walk out as everyone else sits down to share the meal."
Actually (as has been pointed out) it was Webster Cook, not PZ, who took the consecrated host and got such a nasty reaction from his fellow "It's all about love" xtians (and church officials).
And I'd amend the dinner party analogy as follows- he took his plate of food to the living room, thinking it was casual buffet instead of formal sit-down (to show his friend the meal the friend wasn't invited to partake of), and the others at the party dumped a garbage can over his head in "protest".
Posted by: Rick R | July 13, 2008 7:14 AM
Some have said that PZ was only throwing gas on the fire, that he needed to be "softer" on the idiots who so grossly overreacted to the Cook incident.
Here's a quote from PZ, from a blog post 2 years ago, commenting on an Esquire article called "Idiot America"-
"You would be surprised at how much email is sent to me telling me to stop being so derisive, that harsh language and ridicule turn people off and repel the very ones we're trying to persuade. My reply is like the one above; by refusing to ridicule the ridiculous, by watering down every criticism into a mannered circumlocution, we have created an environment where idiots thrive unchallenged. We have a twit for a president because so many people made apologies for his ludicrous lack of qualifications--we need more people unabashedly pointing out fools.
I'm doing my part to fight Idiot America. I hope more people join me."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/idiot_america.php
Posted by: Rick R | July 13, 2008 7:41 AM
Man I can't believe how many comments PZ is getting over at his blog.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | July 13, 2008 1:26 PM
This just goes to prove that the last acceptible form of prejudice in the US is Anti-Catholic.
sigh, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by: kmerian | July 13, 2008 1:36 PM
Absolutely. I mean, gosh, there are people getting tied to fences and beaten to death for being Catholic, states keep passing laws against Catholics getting married, and we would never, ever elect a Catholic president!
Posted by: Gretchen | July 13, 2008 1:46 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 13, 2008 1:53 PM
Jon Rowe wrote:
I know- it's crazy. I think a good part of was instigated by a sock-puppeting troll (or trolls), though. One weirdo had about 15 names and all of his posts were about the caliber of kmerian's here. And for whatever reason people just can't seem to ignore it. Then it just snowballs and, oh my.
Posted by: Leni | July 13, 2008 2:12 PM
kmerian wrote:
And the one thing that seems to stay the same is the absurd need to case oneself as a martyr. This is pure bullshit. this is criticism of your ideas, which is not bigotry. Every idea is open to criticism and criticism is not evidence of bigotry. This is nothing more than this country's cult of victimization - everyone's a victim because being a victim insulates you from criticism. Sorry, that isn't going to fly here. If you want to believe stupid things, you have every right to do so. But others also have the right to call those beliefs stupid. And calling them stupid is not bigotry, it's criticism.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 13, 2008 2:30 PM
Rick R, please explain to me how this works. I assume the end goal of this movement is to lessen the grip religion has on society, and eventually convert people to atheism.
PZ Myers' logic appears to be:
Step 1: Desecrate the Eucharist
Step 2 to n-1: ?
Step n: More people will become atheists
I'm being sincere here. Please explain that middle part to me.
Posted by: Brandon | July 13, 2008 2:42 PM
Brandon - First of all, atheism isn't a religion. People don't "convert" to atheism any more than people take up not collecting stamps. Secondly, there's no movement. All you're seeing is more people speaking out, willing to call superstitious nonsense exactly what it is.
Posted by: Taz | July 13, 2008 3:25 PM
Brandon,
My understanding is that Meyers wants people to take religion less seriously in general, and is attempting to lead by example. Taking religion less seriously make not make people into atheists, but it may well make them people who are less likely to think that non-believers should abide by their doctrinal rules.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 13, 2008 3:25 PM
Oops; that first "make" was supposed to be a "may."
Also, contrary to Taz, I would say there certainly is a secular movement...but it's hardly unified, and not everyone has the same goals. Some want to make everyone atheists, whereas others would be happy to simply prevent religion from having so much power over the country. Also, technically I would say that people de-convert to atheism. But in doing so I risk being a pedant. ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen | July 13, 2008 3:30 PM
Gretchen - I guess you could call it a movement, but I assume Brandon meant something more organized since he talked about the "end goal". As for de-converting, I stand by the stamp collecting metaphor. Most people don't become atheists because of any interest in atheism, they simple lose their faith.
Posted by: Taz | July 13, 2008 3:37 PM
I was not talking about the entirety of Atheism. I was talking about PZ Myers and his circle of friends. Just because his movement is poorly organized doesn't make it not a movement. And we can argue about the definition of the word "convert," but it's pretty clear that his dream is to see a world without religion. I just don't see how these rants and displays of immaturity work towards that, or anything constructive. Maybe I'm just one example, but reading his blog actually makes me more proud of my faith, and that I haven't sunk into that depth of anger and disgust at everybody who doesn't think like me.
Posted by: Brandon | July 13, 2008 8:03 PM
Brandon,
The notion that people get angry and disgusted at "anybody who doesn't think like them" is misguided and misleading. I think you know quite well that Meyers is likely not disgusted by people who think that strawberry is the best kind of ice cream, or the Rolling Stones are the best band ever, and so on. Nor is he likely angry and disgusted at people who think that group-level evolution is not given due consideration among biologists today. Meyers is angry (and perhaps disgusted, but I don't know) at people who think differently from him in a very specific way-- people who think that the notion of the Eucharist's sacredness should apply to non-Catholics. More broadly, he is angry at people who try to push their superstitions on others generally. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate your disagreement with someone being characterized as "anger and disgusted with anyone who thinks differently," and you should extend the same consideration to others. It's essentially a straw man fallacy.
I think it's fair to characterize some of Meyers' rants as "immature," but I don't think this one qualifies. He is (justifiably) angry and disgusted that people should think that absconding with the Eucharists is justification for assault, and further angered (and not a little amused) that people should react to his reaction by calling for his termination (in both senses of the word). Further, he's making a stand for free speech and the right to live by rules which are different from what other peoples' religious doctrine may dictate. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think Meyer's behavior is absolutely moral, not to even to mention legal. When people behave that their symbols take precedence over our rights, it is imperative that we make it clear that this is not the case. That's what is constructive. If every Christian who hears about this thinks "What a cad" and no more, then they are missing the point entirely. The point, as with the Danish cartoons, is not to piss off every member of a religion. It is to say "We will say what we want, and we have a right to do so. You do not have a right to demand that we respect your symbols, no matter how much it may piss you off when we don't."
If people can't even grasp that concept, then they cannot grasp the concept of freedom of expression and the free market of ideas generally, let alone that they have no more claim on Absolute Truth than any other religion, let alone that maybe this means they have no good reason for believing in their religion at all.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 13, 2008 8:29 PM
Brandon, that "anger and disgust" wasn't directed at everyone, it was directed at the people who said that desecrating a wafer amounted to a hate crime. It was directed at people who attempted to physically remove the wafer from the kid, called for his expulsion from college, sent him death threats, and the others who ultimately called for the firing of PZ and the harassing of his employer.
You know perfectly well that isn't "everyone who doesn't think like" PZ. These are some specific people who think that they are above criticism. They aren't, and the point is to demonstrate that publicly by doing the very thing that makes their heads explode.
Posted by: Leni | July 13, 2008 8:41 PM
God, I'm the slowest typer ever. Sorry for the repeat.
Posted by: Leni | July 13, 2008 8:43 PM
PZ has stated (on film, in fact) that he'd like religion reduced to a hobby, like knitting. I agree with him on that. I don't want everyone to think alike, and it's good that people speculate about the ultimate origin and purpose of the universe. And it doesn't bother me that they come up with supernatural explanations for it. It's when they decide that those supernatural explanations are communicating with them, and dictating how everyone should behave, that I have problems. Let's remember that it was the "anger and disgust" of your fellow theists to what Webster did that prompted PZ's original post.
Posted by: Taz | July 13, 2008 8:43 PM
Gretchen - minor point, it's Myers, not Meyers.
Posted by: Taz | July 13, 2008 8:47 PM
Oops, thanks for the correction Taz. And I agree with you on your last post.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 13, 2008 9:02 PM
Brandon- it's a BLOG, not a movement.
Kinda like Ed's.
Posted by: Rick R | July 13, 2008 9:17 PM
Actually, isn't PZ rather sympathetic towards group selection theory? I seem to recall him praising David Sloan Wilson's group selection theory of the evolution of religion.
But that still illustrates the point well, just from a different direction. Richard Dawkins has (very wrongfully, in my opinion) dismissed group selection without even really much consideration. If I recall, PZ is actually in pretty strong disagreement with him in that regard (and also with Dawkins' heavily gene-centric view of evolution in general). But that doesn't engender hatred between the two of them. They agree where they agree, and disagree where they disagree.
Also, just let me take a moment to reiterate something here: Everyone who's claiming that "belief makes reality" or that "they believe it so strongly it makes it more important than a person" are missing the point entirely. Symbols and objects should not be made more important than human beings. If the Catholics believe so strongly in their dogmas that they value a wafer over a human (which they apparently do), then we need to find (positive) ways to change their minds. (That's not to say that PZ chose the best way to go about this, obviously.) But the fact that Catholics believe in transubstantiation so deeply does not, in any way, shape, or form, justify their response to this. It merely shows why they went so horribly wrong.
Posted by: Wes | July 14, 2008 12:02 AM
I think the observed violent overreaction on the part of some Catholics to both Mr. Webster's initial use of his cracker and Prof. Myers' threat of cracker disrespect is evidence that the provocation was NOT needless. Anytime people are willing to assault and make death threats and attempt to damage peoples' careers and education over perceived cracker abuse, there is a need to bring such inanity to light. I think Myers does a civic service by exposing the continued prevelance of these medieval superstitions, and the equally medieval reactions when a silly taboo is even threatened. If you asked a Catholic if s/he would ever assault or threaten to kill someone for taking a cracker out of Mass, probably they would all say "no". But when you actually do it, you see people for who they truly are, and I think self-reporting surveys are no substitute for a true test such as this. These people are violently defending a damn cracker, and this needs to be pointed out again and again.
And Myers has consistently said that part of his goal is to ridicule religion as part of an effort to remove the "sacred cow" aspect of religious belief. His action here is consistent with this goal. I was unsurprised, and frankly not disappointed. I wouldn't do it (not my style), but I think it's important that someone did.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 14, 2008 9:08 AM
I stand by what I said.
The fact is, that if Prof. Meyer had written a post that vitriolic about any other group (with the possible exception of Muslims) 99% of the people here defending him, would be calling for his head on a platter. There would be protests outside his office and he would be stripped of tenure.
In academia, criticism and mocking of Christians (especially Catholics) is perfectly ok. Criticism of any other groups, is verbotten, and will earn you a very swift visit from the PC police.
If you want to criticize what I believe, fine, go right ahead. But keep in mind, I am no victim, I will fight back.
Also, how is calling me a "deluded lunatic" who believes "hokum" criticizing only my beliefs?
Posted by: kmerian | July 14, 2008 10:36 AM
The fact is, that if Prof. Meyer had written a post that vitriolic about any other group (with the possible exception of Muslims) 99% of the people here defending him, would be calling for his head on a platter. There would be protests outside his office and he would be stripped of tenure.
What evidence do you have to back this "fact" up? Given what I've heard about PZ, if what you say is true he would have lost his tenure a LONG time ago.
Also, how is calling me a "deluded lunatic" who believes "hokum" criticizing only my beliefs?
Um...we're calling your beliefs "hokum" and saying we think they look delusional and loony to us. Right or wrong, that is indeed valid criticism of your beliefs.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 10:43 AM
@kmerian:
Really? Name a religious group criticism of which would lead to 99% of the people here calling for his head on a platter.
(By the way - his name is "Myers", not "Meyer" - the only permitted misspellings of his name are deliberate ones).
Posted by: Robin Levett | July 14, 2008 10:55 AM
Kmerian: We are used to the accusation that we only ridicule particular delusions, usually the last one that was ridiculed. But if you actually go through PZ's archives you will see that he has spared no delusion as he is an equal opportunity ridiculer of delusions.
BTW, just in case you didn't get the link: religion (any religion)=delusion.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 14, 2008 11:37 AM
Kmerican - re-read my post @ 13 July 3:18 AM. How is this Catholic Bashing? What parts are non factual? I await an answer with (non)baited breathe. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 14, 2008 11:45 AM
kmerian said:
Yes, people who make inane comments often follow them by "standing by" them, as if doing so makes them any less inane. Stubbornness regarding one's own poorly chosen words is not a virtue.
If PZ Myers wrote a vitriolic post about members of any religion, fortune tellers, new agers, psychics, or any other kind of believers in wacky (even harmful) things, then it would be entirely expected and I would applaud him for it. If Myers wrote a vitriolic post about how biology is a sham, black people are inferior, cat lovers are going to hell, or other such things, I would wonder if he'd accidentally taken some bizarre medication and hope for his swift recovery.
Feel free, but you could start by actually making some kind of argument with substance behind it, as opposed to patently false observations.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 12:53 PM
kmerian is right - The Eucharist wafer must be respected!!
Do you not realize what a stack of two or three wafers will impel a hungry Altar Boy to do?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 14, 2008 12:56 PM
Ginger - no idea, but I bet the late Cardinal Sin did! ☺ DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 14, 2008 1:02 PM
What's in these wafers anyway, psychoactive drugs that make you behave in a totally looney manner?
If you eat one do you enter an altared state? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 14, 2008 1:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_adoration
Posted by: khan | July 14, 2008 3:27 PM
Being a equal opportunity offender does not make your arguments any more valid, it just makes you obnoxious.
And, yes, you have the LEGAL right to say whatever you want about my beliefs. But morally, no person should outwardly mock the beliefs of others. Disagree? Fine. But to go out of your way to attack a belief system? What is the motive there?
Legally, if Prof. Myers goes ahead with his plan to "desecrate" something millions of Americans hold as sacred that is his right. But where is his moral obligation to his fellow man? To his Catholic students and friends? Even Atheists believe in morality. His sole purpose with his little diatribe appears to just be to offend and shock as many people as possible, interesting, however, that he lacks the balls to enter a church himself but must ask people on the internet to do it for him. What is he afraid of?
And, I could care less how my beliefs look to others. I, for one, cannot possibly understand how someone can be an atheist.
Posted by: kmerian | July 14, 2008 3:36 PM
kmerian-
For someone who doesn't care how his beliefs look to others, you sure seem to spend a lot of energy working yourself up over someone mocking them.
Also; congratulations! You've completely missed the point of what PZ Myers is doing, which, based on your earlier posts, doesn't surprise me in the least. If you'd actually bothered to read the other posts on this very page, you'd find it explained in a very simple and straight-forward manner, but I guess you'd rather spend that time bitching and moaning about how the evil atheists are mocking your crackers.
If you want a suggestion, mine would be to spend a little more time worrying about the moral obligations of the catholics who assault people and send them death threats, rather than people who provoke others into (hopefully) using their brains a little more often.
Posted by: Kaerion | July 14, 2008 4:22 PM
But PZ been dissin' the biscuit.
Posted by: khan | July 14, 2008 4:30 PM
kmerian said:
So you have nothing bad to say about fascism, then? Not a word against people who think slavery, racism, or rape are A-OK? Wouldn't dare risk offending someone who advocates slaughtering toddlers as a televised sport? I'd like to know why you wouldn't attack these belief systems, if you give a damn about morality.
You're right that atheists (at least, all of the ones I know) believe in morality. Some of them, I will wager, even agree with you that what PZ Myers is doing is immoral. I'm not one of those, however, because it's clear to me that what Myers is not doing is simply "trying to offend and shock as many people as possible." He's trying to offend and shock specific people, for a specific reason: to make it clear that they do not have the right to force him not to. You may have noticed, from the death threats to both Mr. Cook and Dr. Myers, that there are people who do not believe such a right exists. They think blasphemy is an offense worthy of death, or at least legal sanction. They are gravely mistaken, and that is exactly what Myers is attempting to point out.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 4:36 PM
So you have nothing bad to say about fascism, then? Not a word against people who think slavery, racism, or rape are A-OK? Wouldn't dare risk offending someone who advocates slaughtering toddlers as a televised sport? I'd like to know why you wouldn't attack these belief systems, if you give a damn about morality.
Please tell me what any of these things have in common with belief in the Eucharist? All of these beliefs infringe on the rights of others (that is why they should be decryed, and why they are immoral) Please tell me whose rights are infringed by my belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist or why you consider such a belief immoral.
You're right that atheists (at least, all of the ones I know) believe in morality. Some of them, I will wager, even agree with you that what PZ Myers is doing is immoral. I'm not one of those, however, because it's clear to me that what Myers is not doing is simply "trying to offend and shock as many people as possible." He's trying to offend and shock specific people, for a specific reason: to make it clear that they do not have the right to force him not to. You may have noticed, from the death threats to both Mr. Cook and Dr. Myers, that there are people who do not believe such a right exists. They think blasphemy is an offense worthy of death, or at least legal sanction. They are gravely mistaken, and that is exactly what Myers is attempting to point out.
So what do the threats from the people who agree with Dr. Myers to those who threatened him mean? I'll tell you, nothing. It is a perfect example of human nature, that there are extremists in every group. If Dr Myers chooses to go ahead and desicrate something I hold sacred. That is his choice and his right. But, I still believe that his motives are juvenile. Doing just because someone said he shouldn't? He is supposed to be a College educated man and he is acting like a jr. high kid.
Posted by: kmerian | July 14, 2008 10:40 PM
kmerian said:
They're belief systems. You said that no one has the moral right to attack someone else's belief system. Care to amend that view now? If you'd like to say instead that no one has the right to attack a belief system which endorses things which are against the law, How about the view that it's okay to cheat on your spouse? How about the view that it's okay to tell someone they're a dirty ugly bastard for no reason at all? (Hell, how about the violent overthrow of the government, which Jefferson himself endorsed quite graphically?) I would classify these as immoral, but they're certainly not illegal (at least, not in most states). Nevertheless, they are objectionable belief systems and people should certainly object to them.
Oh really? I'd love to see you explain that to them. Why on earth should you be a better person to interpret such messages than the people who actually made them?
Not because "someone said he shouldn't"-- because someone, multiple people, threatened his life for doing so. Are you not capable of understanding this, or do you just not give a damn about the right of people to say what they want? Pick one: ignorance or malevolence. It's your choice, but neither is complimentary.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 11:26 PM
"I, for one, cannot possibly understand how someone can be an atheist."
I, for one, cannot possibly understand how someone can believe in such a thing as transubstantiation.
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 15, 2008 12:58 AM
Listen kmerican, I'll type slowly so you can keep up:
BELIEFS DO NOT SHAPE REALITY.
No matter how hard I try and believe I am the Emperor of California, it DOES NOT make me the Emperor of California.
No matter how deeply and sincerely you believe; it is, in reality, still just a cracker.
Members of that specific church, assaulted Mr Cook for taking the cracker back to his pew (to show to, and to explain the signifcence of said cracker, to his non-Cathlolic friend, I believe) a practice that is allowed in some Catholic churches. There were no signs saying that this was not permitted.. The assault on Mr Cook propmted him to remove the cracker, that he had been given gratis and for free, outside the church. Mr Cook was then threatened with violence and with harrassment, so he returned the cracker back to the church. Harrasment & assualt are not only immoral, but illegal.
Dr Myers, in a private blog, in his own time, wrote a provocative article calling on people to send him crackers so he can "desecrate" them. He did not go into churchs and get them for two reasons. One, preists would not let him in, and two HE HAD NO INTENTION of "DESCRATING" ANYTHING. Calling for someone to send you crackers is not illegal, "desecratation" is not a crime. Neither is hurting the feelings of another person (unless it invovles specific, targeted, imminant threats), in this case it is not even immoral.
No persons retains the right not to be offended. If we protect the feeling of Catholics (or Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Pastafarians etc.) then we are creating a zone of protection around that relgion. This state protection implies that this religion is state sanctioned and thus enjoined to the state, clearly breaking the state/religion seperation. If we protect the Catholic church's beliefs & rituals, will we have to protect the beliefs & rituals of other relgions equally? If so, as you would imagine, this would create a legal system that is too unweildy and complex to be a practical method of governence.
Rather than do this, the American Government was created with the view that religion was a private matter between a person a his/her own god/s. No religion, indeed no belief, is legally protected from ridicule (except in narrow circumstances) because to do so would be worse for citizens than the occasional barbs of satirists hurting someone's feelings.
No amount of wishing that Catholic rituals, rules, dogma and personell are protected from mockery will make it so -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 15, 2008 2:27 AM
When did PZ change the title of his post from "Goddamned" to "Frackin"? Did he ever admit the reason for this change?
To me, this is a quasi-admission of guilt here... he recognizes that he went too far in his assholery, and so he felt obligated to change the wording a bit.
Either that, or Donahue forced him (either directly or indirectly through the university) to change the wording.
I'm curious which of these is closer to his reason. But either way, it makes PZ look bad... either he's admitting that he went too far (without having the guts to actually apologize), or he's not man enough to stand behind his own words and is letting others dictate what titles he writes for his own blog.
Posted by: doctorgoo | July 15, 2008 7:54 AM
doctorgoo,
Myers still refers to the "goddamned cracker" in the text of his post, so whatever the reason for the change, I wouldn't interpret it as recognizing that he "went too far."
Posted by: Gretchen | July 15, 2008 8:03 AM
Exactly... so why did he go to the bother of changing the title of the post? Either he made the decision to change the title on his own, or he was pressured into doing it.
If the former, then he's made a random change for no apparent reason, and inconsistent with his own feelings on the matter. If the latter, then he is letting other people dictate what he writes... on his own blog.
So if it is latter (which I think is more likely), then why not formally explain why he caved into pressure from the religious right? Is he so proud that he cannot admit that he lost a bit on this one, and that while Donahue is covered in mud, that he comes out of this looking very dirty as well?
Posted by: doctorgoo | July 15, 2008 8:25 AM
Perhaps he likes the word "frackin'" more than "goddamned." I sure don't see why the former would be any less offensive than the latter. Why don't you try asking him?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 15, 2008 8:34 AM
IIRC, PZ said he changed the title because (an)other ScienceBlogger(s) complained about the title of his post showing up in the sidebar with GODDAMNED in all caps. He yielded to the local sense of decorum to that extent.
Posted by: Paul W. | July 15, 2008 8:41 AM
@doctorgoo:
...or maybe he decided that as an atheist who doesn't believe in the existence of a god, use of the term "Goddamned" was inappropriate - that it expressed his views insufficiently strongly?
Why don't you do the obvious thing, and ask him?
Posted by: Robin Levett | July 15, 2008 8:43 AM
dingojack, I understand completely that beliefs do not shape reality. Just as your beliefs don't shape my reality. To YOU it is just a cracker, to me it is something far more. No Catholic Church allows you take the Eucharist back to your pew, it is to be consumed immediately. That there are no signs saying this is irrelevant, any Catholic knows this, just as there are no signs on the proper wearing of the yamika in a synagogue.
The Doctors stating that "Priests would not let him in" is an absolute cop-out. What do you think? Ushers and Priests have a "most wanted" list with pictures of people they are not supposed to let in? Please, he just lacks the guts to do it himself.
Also, in some instances desecration is a crime, you cannot paint a swastika on the outside of a synagogue, nor can you burn down a mosque and call it "free speech". Before you point it out, I realize that desecrating a Eucharist is not the same thing.
Gretchen,
Those belief systems involve infringing on the rights of others. Ever hear the saying, "my rights end when my fist hits your nose"? If you wish to object to my belief, fine, go right ahead. But to go out of your way to offensively mock it just because someone said "Don't do it or else!" is adolescent.
Posted by: kmerian | July 15, 2008 9:10 AM
Kmerian. And in this instance the beliefs infringed on the rights of Cook by church officials initially assaulting him in the church and then going further with other catholics sending him death threats and trying to get him expelled from college because their beliefs, as they saw it, had been impugned, wrongly as it happened. The whole point of PZ's post, which didn't even happen until he had heard what happened to Cook, was that the behaviour of the catholics involved toward Cook were very wrong, whatever their belief in the sanctity of the eucharist and one way to highlight that was to heap ridicule on it.
As for me, or PZ, being obnoxious with our equal opportunity ridicule, unfortunately, it is rare that making a point quietly has any effect. After all, the major significant social changes have come about after one or more have made themselves obnoxious, often by using ridicule, to highlight how ridiculous, amongst other things, was the existing order/belief. After all, to a non believer, how more ridiculous than the catholic belief in transubstantiation can you get. Similarly, atheists have been expected to sit quietly in the corner saying nothing about the delusional belief systems of others while those with those dleusional belief systems influenced law makers in ways that affected us all. Sorry, no more, PZ, Dawkins et al have brought the subject out into the public arena and surprisingly, we find that many agree with us over how religion has too much power in our society in areas it should keep out of.
Even then, none of us atheists have actually threatened violence to anyone over this. The worst that has happened is that a few idiots may have been unpleasant and childish by signing up for SPAM or similar one of those that they thought, probably wrongly, had sent a death threat to PZ. Still no death threats from us, unlike from your side of the fence.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 15, 2008 9:47 AM
Kmerian said:
And apparently you won't understand it until the fact that the "or else" bit involves infringing on the rights of others (death threats, legal sanctions, etc.) sinks into your brain. Considering that this has been explained to you already over and over, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 15, 2008 12:36 PM
MR Cook was given a wafer, gratis et libre (ie without condition or cost), he owned the euchrist and so was free to do with it as he pleased, additionally, there were no signs directing that he had to eat it immeafiately. If you went to a synagoge as a stranger without a yarmulke, I'm sure that someone would quietly inform you of the rules and provide one. In this case nobody informed Mr Cook of the rules at this particular church, which seem to differ from other Catholic churches, in that in other churches the worshippers are permitted to take the euchrist to thier pews. There is, therefore, no reasonable expection that you must eat the euchrist immeadiately, even within the Catholic church itself. At this stage there is no evidence that Mr Cook intended to do anything other than show the euchrist to his (non-Catholic) friend, and explain it's importance before consuming it. Despite Mr Cooks's (and others) deep and sinecere belief that this wafer was the body of Christ, there is no evidence that can be produced to substantiate this claim.
It was then Mr Cook was assaulted by over zealous officals, twice. Dexpite being on private property (although open to the public) the law applies, regardless of the assailant's beliefs. If I believe that I have a god-given right to beat the tar out of my wife in my own home, it is still domestic abuse. If I believe I should have sex with 8 year old boys, it is still statutory rape. In this case the only reasonable defense would be temporary insanity or mental defect, as admitting rationality would imply moral descernment. This over reaction prompted Mr Cook to take the wafer he had been given out of the church. As I mentioned earlier the wafer was given to Mr Cook gratis et libre. If I gave you a train ticket (say), the moment you take pocession of it is yours. If subsquently drop on the street as litter and are ticketed for littering, you cannot claim that I still own it.
As to "kidnapping" one would have to logically prove several things. First you would have to prove that the wafer IS the living body of a semi-mythical person who died aoound 1970 years ago. How could this be obejectly achieved? Then you would have to prove that the "person" was taken illegally and against thier will. If the wafer was given freely, how could you prove this? How does one determine the will of a wafer magically transformed into a person who may (or maynot) have died over 19 centuries earlier?
As for "desecration", painting a swastika (or "Allah akbah" or "Fred was here" for that matter) on a synagoge is not "desecration" merely vandalism*, burning down a mosque (or a church, temple, synagoge, or mall) is not "dscreation" either, just arson. And certainly being given something and taking to an other location can not be described as "descration" either, if it were then libraries, take-away food joints and car rental yards would be out of business. The belief in the "holiness" of the object in not relavant (unless a plea of insanity is being considered). If I believe the Datsun 120Y in Bob's Kut-Price Kar Yard is the reincarnation of Dwight D Einsenhower makes no difference, anyone can hire the car and drive to another location, despite my beliefs. -DJ
*Note "vandalism" is a term I dislike, since it clearly references Vandals a Germanic 4th century tribe. If I can't "jew you down" or "welsh on a bet" why can I commit "vandalism"? Just a pet peeve of mine, feel free to ignore it. :)
Posted by: DingoJack | July 15, 2008 1:32 PM
Catholics (or any other religious or non-religious group) are competely free to believe any old nonsense they want. If you want to think a mouldy cheese sandwich is the messiah go right ahead. But that belief gives you no right to threaten, harrass or assault another person, even on private property, even if they insult your beliefs. Neither does these beliefs give you the right from protection from some other person from shouting "your beliefs are idiotic". If such a restrictions existed (as I explained earlier in the thread) it would be a complete disaster for all citizens, not matter thier own personal beliefs (or disbeliefs) as it would make governence so clumsy as to be unworkable. -DJ
Apologies for the huge posts (and the poor spelling and grammar).
Posted by: DingoJack | July 15, 2008 1:44 PM
Paul W:
Actually, this sounds to be quite reasonable. I fully retract my earlier criticisms. I looked through all the main posts and a good number of the comments without finding any reference to anyone asking about it already or PZ preemptively offering that explanation... just merely people noticing that it was different.
Robin:
Yes, there's not a chance of an email to PZ getting lost in the shuffle this week, is there? And I'm sure that he reads all 100 comments per second as well on these threads... lol
(I'm not trying to be harsh or anything, I'm just having a little laugh at the thought that PZ would actually have the time or inclination to respond to my rather impertinent questioning.)
Posted by: doctorgoo | July 16, 2008 1:27 PM
I've said it before, I guess I have to say it again. What was done to Mr. Cook was wrong. It was unchristian and a violation of basic decorum.
Gretchen, apparently you missed my point. Dr. Myers wish to desecrate the Eucharist solely for the point of ticking people off and because people told him not to is juvenile. Yes, the death threats and threats of violence are wrong and uncalled for. And I would gladly defend Dr. Myers right to say whatever stupid thing he wants.
Mr. Myers demonstration of chilishness will not change anyones opinions for or against. So, he is really just tilting at windmills.
Posted by: kmerian | July 16, 2008 9:22 PM
kmerian said:
We have been telling you over and over that that is not why he wants to desecrate the Eucharist. He wants to desecrate it because people think that those who do so deserve to be murdered, and those people are insane fuckheads who should be shown exactly how wrong they are. I am not going to bother to spend any more time explaining this to you, as you appear to be impervious to understanding.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 16, 2008 9:36 PM
I'm just passing through as I'm reading up on the story. It's to me very simple.
Catholics believe that the communion wafer after being blessed by a priest as being the "body of Christ". It's symbolism, if nothing else. But Catholics believe that, and hold it sacred. Webster Cook either didn't know, didn't care, or was out to prove a point. But the fact is that the Church has rules about that sort of thing, and since they hold the Eucharist to be so sacred, when someone disrespects the rules and the believers through his actions, yeah, they're going to be mighty pissed about it.
I am not a practicing Catholic at present. But I grew up in the faith, have upstanding members of the Church in my family, and even if my beliefs are sharply different from the Church, it boils down to a case of respect. Just as religious practitioners have no right to dump on other faiths or push their views on anyone else, an atheist is the first person from which I would expect the same kind of respect and tolerance. It's about respect, no matter how virulent or adamant your views.
Bill Donahue is a joke, a McCarthy of the worst order. Death threats are wrong, no matter from where or when they come from. But respect for other faiths is sorely lacking. I mean, I haven't attended a mass of any religion in over 10 years, and I do take a dim view at some of the beliefs in Catholicism and other faiths too. But the beliefs should always be respected, even when the believers don't act in a way that justifies respect. There are good people who have been insulted by the actions of people who have no respect for others' views except their own, who can't see past their own shit to understand that not everyone thinks like they do.
So, I may disagree with the Church's stand on most everything. But I stand with them here, because even if one doesn't respect the Chruch, one HAS TO respect the believers and the beliefs. They do their thing, you do yours, but at the end of the day, it's about respect.
Posted by: Tom | July 18, 2008 7:43 PM
"But I stand with them here, because even if one doesn't respect the Chruch, one HAS TO respect the believers and the beliefs..."
BZZZZZT. Wrong, thank you for playing. Someone received death threats over a fucking cracker, that is nothing to respect. I'm under no obligation to be deferential to lunacy.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 18, 2008 7:55 PM