Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Andrew Sullivan replies to PZ's threat to do something horrible to a communion wafer:
It is one thing to engage in free, if disrespectful, debate. It is another to repeatedly assault and ridicule and abuse something that is deeply sacred to a great many people. Calling the Holy Eucharist a "goddamned cracker" isn't about free speech; it's really about some baseline civility. Myers' rant is the rant of an anti-Catholic bigot. And atheists and agnostics can be bigots too.
Andrew Sullivan is someone I really have a lot of respect for, but I think he's mostly wrong here. Yes, there are things PZ could do to a communion wafer that I would likely consider just plain stupid and juvenile (not that he has done any of those things, or plans to), but Sullivan seems to be bothered merely by PZ's strident and loud mockery of those who are losing their minds over a kid taking a wafer with him from mass rather than eating it. And if that's the case, I think he's wrong.
He's certainly right that atheists and agnostics can be bigots just like religious people, but I don't think mocking this absurd situation makes one a bigot at all. The mockery is perfectly justified by the absurd behavior of Bill Donohue and his cohorts, who are claiming that the student who did this engaged in kidnapping (!) and that he should be expelled from school. For taking a cracker. I'm sorry, if that isn't deserving of mockery, what is?
To his credit, Sullivan also posts a couple of long replies from readers on the subject and I think the second one really hits the nail on the head:
For an Atheist like Mr. Myers, the idea of transubstantiation is just as absurd as Xenu stacking nuclear weapons around volcanoes, reincarnation, taking up snakes and baptizing the dead (or living). Why shouldn't Mr. Myers "ridicule" something he knows to be a cracker? It's a cracker, for goodness sake. Which religious tenets is he allowed to ridicule? Xenu's bombs? Christians that take up snakes? None of the above? What about young Earth creationism? One of Mr. Myers' more frequent attacks is on the idea of young (6,000 year old) Earth creationism that's espoused by many Christians and other believers. He's equally crude with his attacks on those beliefs. Where is your outrage with respect to those lines of attack? Is your lack of outrage due to the fact that you actually agree with him that the Earth is much older than that? Who decides which silly beliefs are worthy of ridicule, sarcasm, etc.?
Sullivan does not reply to this, but he does print it in its entirety. I suspect, though, that his emotional reaction to PZ's ridicule has more to do with his own sometimes difficult relationship with the Catholic Church than it does with any general ideas about civility. He did, after all, cheer on the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. In another quick post on the subject, he attempts to defend what looks like a double standard:
My objection to PZ Myers - even as I defended his right to say whatever he wants and wouldn't want him punished in any way - is not, in my view, a double standard. Printing a cartoon for legitimate purposes is a different thing than deliberately backing the physical desecration of sacred objects. I'd happily publish a Mohammed cartoon if it advanced a genuine argument, but I would never knowingly desecrate a Koran purely to mock religion.
But I don't think this argument really flies. Not only do I think PZ is advancing an argument - in a crude way, admittedly - I think he's advancing essentially the same argument that the cartoonists and newspaper in Denmark were advancing. That argument is about the danger posed by the absurd and hyper-emotional reactions of, respectively, (some) Catholics and (some) Muslims to anything that criticizes their religion. And in both cases, the subsequent reaction only proved the accuracy of that argument. I think Jason Rosenhouse summed it up perfectly:
The reality is this: In both cases religious attitudes in desperate need of goring were criticized in provocative ways. Also in both cases the bounds of good taste were crossed, and both the Danish newspaper editors and P. Z. Myers would probably have done better to find a more tactful way of making their points. But, again in both cases, the insane reaction from many religious people and institutions was so out of proportion to the offense that it made the point far more powerfully than any blogger or newspaper editor could hope to do on his own.
And while I don't think Sullivan's argument is a valid one, I do think that he recognizes that the overreactions in both case were utterly insane. As I said in my previous post, I've got no problem with someone arguing that PZ's actions are in bad taste, that he should have found a better way to say what he said, that he could have stopped at just mocking the overreaction and pointing out its absurdity (that's where I would have stopped).
But I've got a serious problem with the Bill Donohues of the world demanding all but the lynching of both the student who started this and PZ. Sullivan, though, is in the former group and certainly not the latter, so this is a minor dispute between two possible reactions, both of which are reasonable under the circumstances. But I do think that his argument distinguishing between the Danish cartoons and PZ's behavior here falls flat.
Politics
Comments
The real issue here is that Americans have become (or are becoming) a nation of sissified, hypersensitive heart-sleeve Christians, this generation that grew up in the hedonistic discos of the 1970s only to wring their hands today over stuff they used to sneer at; and therefore they have become easily manipulated, parodies of themselves, allowing PZ and others (and by implication, the government) to have total control over them. Don't they see that? Can't they see that they teach people how to get their goat? I hope they make a spectacle of this at the Republican National Convention!
It's tiresome, and it's also hypocritical, because we're letting the Bush Administration allow global warming to play itself out. Is the earth a communion wafer that George W. Bush has "kidnapped"?
BTW, have people seen the new New Yorker cover? As a supporter of Obama, I think it's hilarious! I have a sense of humor.
Posted by: Kristine | July 14, 2008 10:01 AM
Criticism of beliefs = bigotry
Sacred objects = human beings (or maybe sacred objects > human beings)
Personal beliefs and feelings = justification for irrational behavior
Those three equations seem to me to sum up, exhaustively, all the objections to PZ which go beyond "He went to far". This "controversy" is becoming very tedious, because as far as I can tell the debate is between people who think that the mere act of believing an object is sacred gives you special privileges, and those who don't.
I'd like to see someone condemn PZ's claims (beyond merely pointing out the obvious bad manners, which is nothing new with PZ) in terms that don't presuppose those three false equations. So far, I haven't. And that applies to Sullivan as well.
I'm getting especially sick of the "You have to understand what this means to Catholics" tripe. That's like saying, "Because this is ridiculous, you must not ridicule it." The fact that Catholics put so much meaning and importance in a wafer is exactly what's being criticized. That's the whole point of blasphemy.
Posted by: Wes | July 14, 2008 10:11 AM
What's so interesting about this entire kerfuffle is that the Catholic Church could have excommunicated poor Webster Cook, the guy who took the cracker, and no one would have said a word. Instead, they tried to get the secular authorities to enforce a religious taboo - that's where PZ got involved - and I think PZ is right. Then everyone piles on PZ to draw attention away from the ridiculousness of the church trying to get the university to expel a student because he flouted some religious taboo. Sorry, folks, we don't have laws on sacrilege or blasphemy here.
Posted by: BC | July 14, 2008 10:27 AM
Much ado about nothing. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Mr. Sullivan - Leave PZ Alone! (sobs)
Posted by: J-Dog | July 14, 2008 10:31 AM
Sullivan's distinction is nonsense in any case. Pictures of Mohammed are, according to the beliefs of Muslims, just as debased sacred objects as a debased consecrated wafer.
Posted by: Bad | July 14, 2008 10:33 AM
As a Pagan who values the ability to meet with other Pagans and have rituals undisturbed by unsympathetic outsiders, I can kinda see Sullivan's point here, although he may have made it a bit clumsily. However idiotic the RCC's beliefs about that cracker may be, they do at least have a right to have their own rituals on their own turf, undisturbed by people who don't share their beliefs.
(BTW, a lot of this misdirected outrage is a result of a perfectly good allegorical/symbolic representation being taken too literally by the most idiotic parishoners. Hello? It's SYMBOLISM, ferfucksake!)
If a bunch of born-again Christians made a practice of infiltrating Pagan rituals and disrupting them with a lot of Jesus blather (as, in fact, I've heard does happen), I'd consider that a violation of our right to assemble peacefully and practice our religion as we choose; not to mention a bad-fatih breach of trust, and extremely rude behavior as guests. Faced with this breach of ritual protocol, the Catholic worshippers would have been perfectly within their rights, and within reason, politely bur firmly to ask the violator to leave their turf and not come back. Any reaction beyond that is, as I said before, beyond ridiculous.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 10:36 AM
"...Sullivan, though, is in the former group and certainly not the latter, so this is a minor dispute... "
A minor dispute? Hardly.
Sullivan knew very well what he was doing when he dared to criticize the Living Body of Meyers - deliberate and unforgivable blasphemy, an almost unspeakable hate crime against the most Holy and Sacred Object in all of Atheism.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 14, 2008 10:38 AM
Faithful Catholics line up reverently to receive the "host" during communion. When they do this they have crossed the line from rational to irrational willingly. It is hardly surprising that they would react irrationally to someone "kidnapping" or "desecrating" the "host".
So long as he obtains it legally PZ Meyers has every right to do whatever he likes to a cracker. Religious folks have every right to be offended and to express that offense in a legal manner. End of story.
People have the right to their "sacred" beliefs; they have no right to force anyone else to observe them.
Posted by: Lance | July 14, 2008 10:43 AM
Check out Andrew Sullivan's commentary on the confrontations between South Park and Scientology and the Catholic League:
So I suppose if PZ had, instead of posting his blasphemy under his own name, drawn a cartoon character and had the cartoon character shit blood on a wafer while having gay sex with the Pope, that would be okay?
Posted by: Wes | July 14, 2008 10:49 AM
Faithful Catholics line up reverently to receive the "host" during communion. When they do this they have crossed the line from rational to irrational willingly. It is hardly surprising that they would react irrationally to someone "kidnapping" or "desecrating" the "host".
Sorry, but one "irrational" act does not deterministically lead to another. Not all Catholics would react this way to this offense, and there are plenty of Pagans who, despite doing a lot of "irrational" things themselves, know when to stop with the woo. Your statement is no different from a Christian bigot saying "Those Pagans have weird beliefs, therefore we should expect them to eat babies!"
You could just as easily say: "Springsteen fans line up reverently to buy tickets to his concerts. When they do this they have crossed the line from rational to irrational willingly. It is hardly surprising that they would react irrationally and start a riot for no reason."
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 10:51 AM
The problem is that there is a wide spread belief that religions, particularly those of the Judeo-Christian forms deserve respect simply because they claim to represent a deity.
I say that no such thing is true. They have no respect for me, they get no respect from me.
This whole blow-up over a wafer is ridiculous and the persecution of Cook and Meyers is ludicrous.
Posted by: Tony P | July 14, 2008 10:53 AM
Sullivan has a difficult relationship with most everything he "believes" in. So I can't understand why you have any respect for him. This is just another case. Its sometimes painful to watch him on shows like Bill Mahers as he gets his hat handed to him time and time again (unlike say Coulter in which is gleeful to watch).
Posted by: yoshi | July 14, 2008 11:12 AM
I think one of the acid tests for something like this is to substitute any other group for the martyrs in question and try to imagine the reaction.
What if PZ had threatened to wipe his arse with a Black Panther flag or something like that? Would that have been perceived as racist or worthy of sacking?
How about something potentially seen as anti-gay, although I can't think of a suitable example off the top of my head.
I am not trying to defend the erupting crazies, but I can imagine that if, say, black people had been the recipients of the (yet-to-occur) slight then we might be thinking a little differently. Although I suppose skin colour is less of a choice than a religious belief, as has been pointed out here many times.
How about anything political? Nothing really springs to mind, so maybe this line of thought isn't really going anywhere, but it seems fair to ask what the reaction would have been if this kind of attack had been aimed at any other group.
For the record I am entirely on PZ's side, just checking up on myself, I suppose.
Posted by: Matthew | July 14, 2008 11:16 AM
Raging Bee,
That would be a valid point, if in fact either PZ or the student in question had been disruptive in church. In point of fact, neither of them has done so - PZ is planning on "desecrating" a communion wafer on his own property, and the student smuggled the wafer out of church, rather than eating it.
He didn't cause a scene in the church itself. They gave him the cracker, and he just walked out with it instead of eating the thing.
Posted by: MRL | July 14, 2008 11:18 AM
(BTW, a lot of this misdirected outrage is a result of a perfectly good allegorical/symbolic representation being taken too literally by the most idiotic parishoners. Hello? It's SYMBOLISM, ferfucksake!)
It's not symbolism being taken too literally by idiotic parishoners. It is the teachings of the RCC that the wafer literally becomes Jesus during the sacrament.
I was raised a catholic, and my mother is still involved in the church. I consider myself a cultural catholic (I show up on christmas and easter for my mother, and I will be married in the church) even though I am an atheist. Most of the priests I've met and almost all the parishoners know it's just a cracker, but don't put the blame on church members taking things too literally. According to the church, that cracker really is Jesus.
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | July 14, 2008 11:22 AM
How about anything political? Nothing really springs to mind
How about...
The Bush administration made clear on Friday that it will do virtually nothing to regulate the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. With no shame and no apology, it stuck a thumb in the eye of the Supreme Court, repudiated its own scientists and exposed the hollowness of Mr. Bush's claims to have seen the light on climate change.
The Bush Administration just desecrated the one thing that everyone needs, namely, our planet. Who's upset? Gingerbaker, do you copy?
Posted by: Kristine | July 14, 2008 11:23 AM
Is that the same thing? I am not convinced - I think the earlier example of flag-burning might be the closest and best comparison, but flag-hysterics are such idiots that all this just tends to reinforce my instinct to entirely agree with PZ about all of this.
Posted by: Matthew | July 14, 2008 11:28 AM
Bee,
Sorry, but one "irrational" act does not deterministically lead to another.
When the second irrational act is directly dependent on the first it certainly is "deterministic".
If you believe that a cracker has been supernaturally transformed into the flesh of Christ you are likely to get worked up when someone "desecrates" it.
Posted by: Lance | July 14, 2008 11:32 AM
I think it's important to note that, as far as I can tell, Andrew Sullivan was criticizing PZ Meyers and calling him uncivil. He is not calling for him to be fired and he's not even saying his free speech should be restricted. If anything, his statements on the Mohammed cartoon match in supporting free speech even if it's uncivil and bigoted free speech.
I should note you don't need to believe a cracker is anything more than a cracker to respect other's possessions. Would it be appropriate to go into any building and steal a book? How about stealing a bible from a church? About about taking or damaging a hand-written Torah scroll from a synagogue? For that matter, how about taking a comic book from a collector? Sure they are just books, but they are objects of special values to individuals and it's uncivil to reject that people place these additional values on objects.
Posted by: bsci | July 14, 2008 11:36 AM
MRL:
There's more to it. According to the news report, a woman described as "a church leader", physically attacked him and tried to stop him from walking away with the cracker.
So, Raging Bee is incorrect in implying that Webster Cook (who, BTW, is Catholic) disturbed the ritual. Only the actions of the said "church leader" disturbed the ritual (as well as broke the law).
Posted by: bullfighter | July 14, 2008 11:50 AM
bsci:
The cracker was very clearly Webster Cook's possession when he "disrespected" it. Your comparisons with stealing make no sense.
Posted by: bullfighter | July 14, 2008 11:54 AM
bsci: "Would it be appropriate to go into any building and steal a book? How about stealing a bible from a church?..."
I don't think this comparison is accurate. In everything I have heard about this no one is stealing anything. The crackers are given to people, nobody is sneaking in and snatching them. Most of the suggestions for acquiring them I saw involved ordering them online.
I also haven't seen PZ suggest disrupting services. Some of his commentors may have, but that can't be held against him unless he is advocating it. Of course, I haven't read everything over at his blog about this, there is too much to read and too much of the same old same old.
Posted by: jba | July 14, 2008 11:58 AM
Ack! Lance! No!
Deterministic
de·ter·min·is·tic [ di tùrmi nístik ]
-adj-
...
2. of knowable outcome: having an outcome that can be predicted because all of its causes are either known or the same as those of a previous event
Don't fall into this fallacy! You're saying that all people who undertake the first irrational act WILL undertake the second irrational act. There are true-believing Catholics who are not worked up about this. It is not deterministic that all people who believe in Catholic transubstantiation will be angry and produce the irrational threats of violence and attempts to have PZ lose his job.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | July 14, 2008 11:58 AM
I was more referring to PZ's desire to get the crackers from a church "Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers" (i.e. what made Sullivan call his behavior uncivil/bigoted) not what Webster did. I agree the Webster situation is a fuzzier, but that's orthogonal to the question of whether or not PZ was behaving in an uncivil/bigoted manner.
Posted by: bsci | July 14, 2008 12:04 PM
"I was more referring to PZ's desire to get the crackers from a church "Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers" "
But you are making an assumption that they have to be stolen from a church. You can get them in other ways. You can even get them in the same manner that Cook got them, by being given them and then walking out with it instead of eating it.
Posted by: jba | July 14, 2008 12:10 PM
"the question of whether or not PZ was behaving in an uncivil/bigoted manner."
The Rite of Eucharist Desecration is one of the most sacred of all Atheistical ceremonies.
Just because you don't adhere to the Canons of P.Z., please have the common human decency to Respect Our Beliefs(TM).
It's not like we are doing something that bad, like ritualized cannibalism or pederasty or something.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 14, 2008 12:25 PM
This whole thing just seems like a tempest in a teapot. My only question is, is the teapot in orbit?
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 14, 2008 12:29 PM
Abby the question is: is the teapot orbiting prograde or retrograde? and is it rotating prograde or retrograde relative to it's orbit. Answer me that you defenders of the faith! -☺ DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 14, 2008 12:36 PM
Sorry bsci, I seem to have missed your point in my last post. Is PZ being uncivil? Yes, I think that's even the point. As for bigoted, I really don't see that. As far as I can tell he isn't judging every catholic from this, just the ones acting in a ridiculous manner.
Gingerbaker, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you supporting PZ by being deliberately over the top or pulling out that "fundamentalist atheist" foolishness?
For the record I think that PZs initial post about how absurd the reaction to the Cook situation was great and his offer to desecrate things a bit immature. But, frankly, it's his way and the only thing he is hurting is feelings, so I say "whatever".
Posted by: jba | July 14, 2008 12:38 PM
"The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians -- and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe -- that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent." --H.L. Mencken
Posted by: H.H. | July 14, 2008 12:52 PM
AtheistAcolyte, while ceding your rigid definition of deterministic and without getting into a discussion of free will I post the second meaning of deterministic as listed by dictionary.com.
2. of knowable outcome: having an outcome that can be predicted because all of its causes are either known or the same as those of a previous event.
It certainly is "predictable" and related to the outcome of "previous events" that one would expect some large subset of Catholics to get upset and take action if someone nabs a host and publically threatens to "desecrate" it.
They may view their actions as rational having already accepted the idea that the host is literally the flesh of Jesus, that doesn't make their actions any less irrational since it is based on an irrational premise.
I'm not saying that all irrational beliefs lead inexorably to violent actions, just that once you let go of rationality you have crossed a dangerous threshold.
Posted by: Lance | July 14, 2008 12:55 PM
"...Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means?"
"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased, "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."
Alice Through the Looking Glass - Lewis Carroll
Posted by: DingoJack | July 14, 2008 12:56 PM
Ed sez: The mockery is perfectly justified by the absurd behavior of Bill Donohue and his cohorts, who are claiming that the student who did this engaged in kidnapping (!) and that he should be expelled from school. For taking a cracker. I'm sorry, if that isn't deserving of mockery, what is?
The most disgusting thing about this reaction is the accusation of "kidnapping" - of a cracker???
In Canada, at least, the RC church (as well as others) are guilty of kidnapping thousands of First Nations children and consigning them to residential schools for years, away from their families, homes and communities. Many were physically and sexually abused, all suffered significant loss of their heritage and culture. The effects are being passed from generation to generation still.
To describe the taking of a cracker as kidnapping in this context is obscene.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 14, 2008 1:01 PM
Sullivan's phrase "deeply sacred to a great many people" raises a red flag for me. The number of people offended is immaterial, but numbers are always trotted out when the author knows the position being held by that multitude is ridiculous.
And Raging Bee, I have to agree with Foster Disbelief about your statement:
The official position of the RCC is that a transformation has actually taken place. It is not symbolic to them.Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 1:02 PM
I think it is a matter of respect for others that PZ is lacking here, any larger point he is trying to make about the hypocrisy of the armed guards is overshadowed. He is advocating something that is a strong taboo, images of Mohammed or removing the wafer from mass, for those groups. It would be akin to saying I am going to demonstrate the ridiculousness of our repressive society by having sex at the playground later. He is not entering into any civil discourse, but only widening the chasm further for any reasonable discussion.
Posted by: Chris | July 14, 2008 1:08 PM
"He is not entering into any civil discourse, but only widening the chasm further for any reasonable discussion."
Difficult it is for me to entertain the RCC as having any moral standing at all, considering their record on their pederastic Priests alone.
The only widening chasm that I perceive is between the RCC and any semblance to cultural relevance.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 14, 2008 1:30 PM
This I have learned: Anything worth saying is gonna offend somebody. The best we can do is to try and offend the right people.
So far, we've exposed the double standard of one (1) public intellectual, we've imperiled the blood pressure of a few professional bigots, and we've enriched the language. Calladus said, at 20:02 ScienceBlogs time on 11 July 2008,
This led to much merriment and the adoption of a new euphemism:
And, of course, as 1 Timothy 2:8 advises,
In addition, we've seen fatwa envy applied to describe the attitude found in so much hate mail ("Why don't you desecrate a Koran instead"), and platosphere to denote the place where the properties of a wafer changed by incantation actually reside.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 1:35 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 1:41 PM
Whenever proponents of an "offended" religion respond with death threats (like in this case), howls of expulsion (for the student) or demands that one be fired (PZ); they have crossed a line and become worthy of caustic, open ridicule. Hell, one should have an ethical imperative to ridicule and condemn such behavior.
Posted by: Caliban | July 14, 2008 1:47 PM
For those who support PZ Myers yet think he went overboard or wasn't sufficiently tactful, I would like to ask-- how is he supposed to make his point and be tactful at the same time? How does one commit blasphemy politely, without disappearing in a puff of logic?
The only answer I can think of to that is by not becoming personal-- by being clear that you're mocking the beliefs rather than the people. And I think he has done that. Penn Jillette tells an anecdote about a friend of his who wears a Mason ring. Every now and then somebody will inform him that he's not allowed to wear it, because he's not a Mason. He replies, "Yes, but it's okay, because I'm not a Mason." I think that's a beautiful kind of blasphemy, and that Myers' version is sympathetic with it. "Yes, I can desecrate this cracker, and it's okay because I'm not a Catholic." Your rules are not mine. Don't get confused about that. That's polite (but pointed) blasphemy, and it's healthy.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 1:57 PM
Bwahahahaha! That was awesome, dude. Though you might be a little guilty of blasphemy yourself there, what with the misspelled name.
jba:
Um, perhaps you'd like to take a look at this.
Posted by: Stagyar zil Doggo | July 14, 2008 2:00 PM
The cow is sacred to Hindus.
Beef, it's what for dinner!
To American Indians, every damn thing is sacred.
To me, nothing is. Anything goes!
Posted by: Bill the Cat | July 14, 2008 2:01 PM
Nice summary, Blake!
Posted by: MH | July 14, 2008 2:07 PM
"How does one commit blasphemy politely, without disappearing in a puff of logic? "
I don't know if that was directed at me, but that is a very good point. I'll be giving some thought to my opinion of his actions.
Stagyar zil Doggo, yeah I did want to take a look at that, thanks. I feel much better now. :)
Posted by: jba | July 14, 2008 2:28 PM
AS: Calling the Holy Eucharist a "goddamned cracker" isn't about free speech; it's really about some baseline civility.
False dichotomy. It's both.
***
Time to get down on your knees
And fiddle with your rosaries
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect
...
Two, four, six, eight
Time to transsubstantiate
T Lehrer "Doin' The Vatican Rag"
Posted by: natural cynic | July 14, 2008 2:51 PM
I admit that my reaction comes from being so frustrated at watching PZ becoming more and more of a gas bag over the last couple of years. (Is there any special talent in being the Limbaugh of atheism?) He's such a fine science writer and such a crappy representative of secularism -- and he hardly ever writes about science anymore. Just rants mindlessly.
Posted by: Trinifar | July 14, 2008 3:26 PM
Wes:
"I'm getting especially sick of the "You have to understand what this means to Catholics" tripe. That's like saying, "Because this is ridiculous, you must not ridicule it." The fact that Catholics put so much meaning and importance in a wafer is exactly what's being criticized. That's the whole point of blasphemy."
Good point! I wish more people were making it.
Posted by: Susannah | July 14, 2008 3:39 PM
Nice try, but whether the communion wafer and sacramental wine were symbols or the embodiment of the living Christ was one of the key conflicts during the Reformation. Thousands of people gave their lives in war or were murdered through burnings and drownings because they were on the "wrong" side of that argument. I highly doubt you are going to settle the matter with that comment. On the other hand, perhaps we should consider the current reaction reasonable - certainly no one is calling for burnings here.
Whether Myers or the kid who started all this are/were motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry (I personally think not), there is certainly a good bit of it being expressed in the comments to this post by Ed. Just because Bill Dohonue is a Roman Catholic, and calls his group the Catholic League does not mean he speaks for all Catholics. Just because Donohue is an idiot does not mean all Catholics are idiots. In fact, I know there are plenty of Catholics with real doubt about the entire miracle of transubstantiation; I know that was one of the main reasons I began breaking with the church - I just couldn't buy it.
Because I could not buy it, I opted not to continue with the church (being gay was also a big factor), because I knew that participation in the church meant acquiescing to its belief system, even if I was not a complete believer. When one goes to Mass and participates, as Mr. Cook did, one enters into communion, in the more general sense, with the entire body of the church - receiving the sacrament is the ultimate sign of this. It means you agree with and want to be part of the church. By deliberately, and clearly obviously, breaking that larger sense of communion, Mr. Cook generated outrage, as he should have expected (and likely did, if not to this level). Myers, on the other hand, is just being a dork about the entire thing.
As you can probably tell, I'm conflicted about this whole incident. I know that the vast majority of Catholics could not care less, and probably don't know about Cook, and I believe the reaction of Donohue and the more doctrinaire of his compatriots to be way beyond the pale. I also believe that the church deserves much harsher criticism than it has received, particularly regarding the child rape scandal, the teaching against all birth control when there's an HIV epidemic and overpopulation, not to mention its anti-gay attacks.
But when one chooses, certainly as Myers is currently doing, to be provocative not for a larger aim, but only to humiliate and attack, then you have to expect a backlash. Freedom of speech does not come free of responsibility or repurcussions. I agree we have to ensure the reactions are appropriate (e.g., NOT what happened when the Mohammed cartoons were printed), but we cannot silence them entirely. People have just as much right to express their outrage, even to Myers employer. Being offended when confronted with an action that is meant only to offend is not irrational at all.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | July 14, 2008 3:53 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 3:58 PM
Nice post, CPT_Doom.
Here's what I recently wrote on the denialism blog post on the matter: " I am an atheist and an ex-Catholic, and initially supported PZ's "Desecrate the Wafers" campaign, and even planned on scoring a transubstantiated wafer or to in order to send him. That's mostly because I can't stand Bill Donohue of the Catholic League and I like the idea of doing something that ticks Mr. Donohue off.
But I think I have changed my mind now and will take more of a "live and let live" approach. I still support PZ's freedom to criticize religion, but I won't support or aid his campaign to desecrate consecrated wafers. I do support the idea of people of differing religious beliefs (or none) being as civil to each other as possible for the greater good of society.
Nevertheless, I think more Catholics would do well to condemn the idea of violence and death threats against those whom they deem to commit sacrilege against the Eucharist. And I'd love to see more Catholics speak out against Donohue and his constant bitchin'."
Posted by: Adrienne | July 14, 2008 3:59 PM
Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch.
Posted by: Lance | July 14, 2008 3:59 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 4:00 PM
I think we're all (including Ed) more than aware of this, CPT_Doom.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 4:06 PM
Adrienne - I would be surprised if Myers actually does anything. I certainly don't think he should. He makes his point better by issuing the threat and letting others go ballistic over it.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 14, 2008 4:06 PM
It's not symbolism being taken too literally by idiotic parishoners. It is the teachings of the RCC that the wafer literally becomes Jesus during the sacrament
Yep that blessed little cracker is the most sacred and important thing in the whole universe, bar none. The last Pope was utterly obsessed with it and wrote about it all the time. He was always fawning over his precious little cracker. I think he even declared a "year of the eucharist" once. Don't mess with the damn cracker, people!
Posted by: 386sx | July 14, 2008 4:09 PM
The last post by "Adrienne" was actually by me. I'm not sure how that happened.
Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 4:19 PM
Taz,
I know exactly how it happened. You meant to type "Adrienne" into the "comments" box, but put it in the "Name" box by accident.
I have done that many times but have always caught it before posting.
Posted by: Lance | July 14, 2008 4:23 PM
Is there Cardinal somewhere speaking out against the abuse of Mr Cook? Condemning or disowning Donahue?
Posted by: khan | July 14, 2008 4:25 PM
Ha, Taz, you had me scratchin' my head a little over that one.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 14, 2008 4:29 PM
Jesus and Mo did two cartoons about it...
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 5:23 PM
CPT_Doom-
Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. Several practicing catholics have commented on Pharyngula, saying that they've also brought their cracker back to the pews, to show a non-catholic friend who was curious, and got no negative reaction at all. Others have mentioned that it's been a tradition (though I don't know if it still happens, or even how widespread the practice was) for catholics to bring it home, to somehow bless their house.
So my question to you, is: WHY should he have expected outrage, by delaying his consumption of the cracker by a few minutes, at most? What basis do you have to claim that Cook deliberately and obviously wanted to provoke anybody?
I'd also appreciate you backing up this claim with some facts, instead of simply asserting it. I had, and have, no problem seeing Prof. Myers' larger aims, and neither do hundreds, if not thousands, of others, so some kind of evidence on your part would be greatly appreciated.Posted by: Kaerion | July 14, 2008 5:29 PM
A thing a lot of people seem to forget or perhaps never learned is that the Catholic Church used to kill people (jews mostly) over this sort of issue. Desecrating the holy body was a crime punishable by death, expulsion, or any other sort of horror they managed to come up with.
This story is bringing out the same sort of mentality that gave rise to this foul behavior once before. And while it is arguable that in our post modern sensibilities we should give others a certain amount of leeway to practice their beliefs how they wish to when it comes to threats, safety, and issues of freedom we have to learn to draw the line.
If PZ wants to mess with a cracker then it is his right to mess with a cracker. If other people want to worship a cracker it is their right to worship that cracker. But they cannot tell another what to do or not to do with that cracker. No matter what they decide to call that cracker.
Posted by: Robert | July 14, 2008 5:38 PM
So, we've been hearing a lot about these famous crackers/wafers/cheese thins...
I have just one small question - are they kosher?
:-)
Posted by: Andy Gilmour | July 14, 2008 5:52 PM
Khan: Is there Cardinal somewhere speaking out against the abuse of Mr Cook? Condemning or disowning Donahue?
Bingo. (As we used to say in church.) I'm awaiting the public spanking of Donahue by at least all the people who are tut-tutting about PZ Myers' lack of "taste." A back-up chorus of American Catholics who are outraged by Donahue's pretense at representing them or speaking for their church or protecting anyone's civil rights would make it just a bit more convincing when someone posts "Donahue doesn't speak for Catholics" pretty much anywhere besides a site/blog/group/billboard that supports Donahue.
Show me; don't tell me.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | July 14, 2008 5:53 PM
PZ needs to be sent to the Principals office. He needs to be told to treat the other grade nine students in a more respectful manner. PZ...been a rather precocious kid..would lay out his arguements. His main points would be that he was "just kidding" and that Billy Donahue is a little jerk who had it coming. But of course none of this would wash with the Principal. So PZ would be on garbage duty for the rest of the week.
Posted by: Cheddar | July 14, 2008 6:48 PM
As for PZ Myers, I think he is disturbingly similar to the religious fundamenalists. he is equally convinced he knows the Truth (TM), and is equally disdainful of all those fools who can't see the Truth (TM). I think we're lucky he's not religious, or he'd probably be bombing abortion clinics.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 14, 2008 7:27 PM
James Hanley,
Your comment would be a lot more useful if you would explain exactly what PZ Myers does not have the Truth(TM) on in this situation. Is it A) that some Catholics are insanely overreacting about the communion wafer thing? Or B) that when people come to view themselves as having the right to prevent others from desecrating their symbols, they are treading in dangerous waters? Or C) that sometimes a little blasphemy is necessary to make this distinction clear?
Personally, if I'd had people sending me death threats and trying to get me fired for criticizing a religious custom, I'd be pretty darn disdainful myself. I think most people would.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 7:35 PM
"Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. Several practicing catholics have commented on Pharyngula, saying that they've also brought their cracker back to the pews, to show a non-catholic friend who was curious, and got no negative reaction at all. Others have mentioned that it's been a tradition (though I don't know if it still happens, or even how widespread the practice was) for catholics to bring it home, to somehow bless their house."
I was a practicing Catholic for many years, I had a very unpleasant, formal Catholic education and I call bullshit. I have never known a practicing Catholic who was under the illusion that you can walk off with a communion wafer for show-and-tell. You consume the host immediately. They put it directly on your tongue (still the only permitted method in many places outside the US) or, if you prefer, place it in your hand so that you can put it straight into your own mouth on the spot. That's as far as the options extend. The Eucharistic Ministers, the lay people who do, in fact, go through an orientation and training before they are approved to help the priest distribute communion, will try to stop someone from walking off with a host if they spot someone doing so. You don't believe me? Try it some time. Take it in your hand, turn and walk off without any subterfuge. If they notice, they will try to stop you.
And anyone who "mentioned" a tradition of taking home a host to bless their house is either lying or suffering from a bizarre false memory. It's is an absolutely absurd claim. There is no such tradition, formal or informal. Such a thing has never been permissible and anyone saying such thing is completely dismissible as a source.
The Catholic Church has long fetishized consecrated hosts. That's why only priests were permitted to touch them with their hands up until the mid 1960s. Prior to that, priests put the host straight into your mouth. I wrote a post about this and mentioned a priest who, without hesitation, immediately gobbled a host puked up by a sick woman he had just given it to in hospital.
The church goes to great lengths impressing on Catholics the very precise rules and regulations on the treatment of the host. You don't just go to first communion. There is a lengthy, formal education and preparation for children and adults receiving first communion. There are people out there who may have been baptized Catholics as infants and ended up having no contact or casual contact with the Catholic Church. I'd no more rely on them to tell you about what happens at communion than I would rely on them to tell you what actually happens in a confessional.
Posted by: Dr X | July 14, 2008 7:36 PM
Analysis of whether what PZ threatened to do was either legitimate protest of the appalling reaction to the Webster Cook incident, or as some have said, just trying to hurt good people (I won't mention that the Catholic church has a terrible record of oppression -- oh, I just did!) has been done to death.
All that I will say is that we are patronizing the religious by not holding them to the same standards that we expect of ourselves. I would argue that those who do not simply "live-and-let-live" are actually showing far more respect than those who essentially claim, "well, what do you expect, they are, you know, religious".
No, you should expect them to be just as rational, and there beliefs to be just as evidence based as we should all be striving for (but never quite fulfill). Not doing so is looking down on people, in my opinion, and that is why all arguments for a live-and-let-live attitude are hopelessly misguided.
Obviously we should be respectful about our disagreements, but there are certainly times when disrespect is both deserved, and the right thing to do. Too many people, in my opinion, confuse their own personality, their own values, and how comfortable they are with conflict, with the correct action to take in any given situation. I'm usually as respectful a person as you will find, but I appreciate and respect the fact that there are people who are prepared to get their hands dirty, take the death threats, and take the flack from people on all sides, to advance a cause.
The funny thing about religious institutions essentially begging -- and if they can, legislating -- for respect is that, in the end, it can only do them more harm than good. What could be more damaging to a religion, each of which prides itself on being the one true dogma, on having the God given Truth at their disposal, than forcing everybody to treat each of them with the same amount of respect? It has to be that way in any western liberal democracy, otherwise we are favoring one over the other.
Surely, given that our societies are geared towards apportioning respect based on merit, on efficiency, on accuracy, and on value, it will be easy, even for some small children, to spot the elephant in the room. The inevitable conclusion that many young people will reach is that if all religions are afforded the same amount of respect, and knowing that they can't all be true, then that indicates that none of them are actually true, and that they're being protected precisely for those reasons. Why on earth would you need to ask for respect when you are supposedly in possession of the Truth about the universe?
Posted by: Damian | July 14, 2008 7:42 PM
Yes, I too am offended at how offended these others are acting over being offended by how offensive it all is.
I hope that the outcome of the grudge match of:
The Offended PZ
v.s.
The Catholics Who Bother to Notice and Choose to be Offended
is similar to the punch-line of "The Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat."
Has PZ become the Jesse Jackson of ScienceBlogs?
Posted by: Spike | July 14, 2008 7:52 PM
James Hanley said:
What a disgustingly ignorant and disingenuous thing to say. And what a fine example of "Blake's Law", might I add.
Tell me, if that were the case, why is he not bombing churches as we speak?
And please, do enlighten me about what it is that PZ is wrong about?
Posted by: Damian | July 14, 2008 7:53 PM
Why do those who do not "believe", absolutely insist on calling a Communion wafer a "cracker". It's not a "cracker", whatever PZ Myers wants to call it(and I'm not stopping him or anybody else from doing so). It's a wafer! There is, at least, a culinary distinction between the two. Hint: it has to do with thinness or "fatness", so to speak. Obviously, it's just a "cracker" to those who have no belief in such things, however irrational these beliefs may be. But symbolism is important, and, while I don't agree with much that comes out of Andrew Sullivan's corner, I happen to agree with him on this.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | July 14, 2008 7:58 PM
Agreed.
Both PZ and Sullivan are two of my daily blog reads. Sullivan is very good at expressing uncomfortable truths and not treating many things as sacred - which is why I like reading his writing. Here, however, he crossed the line into religious apologetics land. I wish he would address WHY transubstantiation isn't ridiculous to believe, but I doubt such commentary is forthcoming.
Also, I would point out that Sullivan wrote a few months back that he couldn't date anyone who believed in astrology. While I share those sentiments, he looks very hypocritical dissing astrology on one hand and then saying that PZ has no cause to poke fun at transubstantiation on the other.
Posted by: bre | July 14, 2008 8:14 PM
Anne, the whole point is it's not symbolic -- this ex-Catholic will add to the chorus of others who've pointed out time and again that Catholics (are supposed to) believe the consecrated host is literally the body of Jesus. If it were just symbolic, terms like "kidnapping" wouldn't have been bandied about. PZ's point, at least in part, is how silly this belief is.
Posted by: Tulse | July 14, 2008 8:20 PM
James Hanley -
So are you claiming that writing a blog post is equivalent to bombing clinics, or are you implying that theists are inherently more violent than atheists?Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 8:37 PM
This is like a bunch of eager schoolchildren watching a dog fight. A dogfight in which both dogs are very happy to get at each other.
While one expects an idiot like Donohue to overreact, based on his past actions, I expected a tad better from Myers. I suspect a part of his actions are being done for the joy in mocking a religion, and past the point of helping the lad involved. How unfortunate. Donohue had no respect to be taken away, but in my estimation Myers has gone down a point. He should have taken the high road and been a bit less confrontational.
This should have never gotten the amount of press it deserved. Webster should have been kicked out of the particular church (if they decided it so), which should have been allowed to go about it's procedures for a wayward member of the flock, Webster could have if he chose challenged their actions, and that should have been it. Instead Donohue the idiot overreacted, and Myers to his delight overreacted himself (at least in his language and assault on the religion, not to the truly ludicrous attempts of Donohue to persecute the kid), and now whatever legitimate points both sides have are mixed up in a vicious circle and the black and white have become shades of grey where everybody is pointing fingers at everybody.
That having been said the schoolchildren here are mostly irate atheists who are letting their emotions run instead of using their head. How about less insults and more substance? Confine your opinions against Donohue and ultracatholic reactionaries, not Catholicism. And Myers shouldn't voice his support of Webster by threatening to engage in derogatory actions against the religion to prove some stubborn point. It risks alienating some of his supporters, both catholic or not.
And this is coming from an atheist.
Oh, and I've also noticed Myers' science blog has a bit more to do with the tensions between science and religion than actual science.
Posted by: Tlaloc | July 14, 2008 8:54 PM
One thing I might add to all this is that religion can be part of culture. Culture should not be mocked. If someone thinks something is holy and it is within reason then I think to respect them we respect the object and do to desecrate it.
Now taking a wafer away from Mass is not the end of the world if you believe it is a cracker. If you literally believe it is the body of God then obviously that is different. If someone intentionally desecrates it then I think it is disrespectful. I think it is a cracker though. But I need to respect others. At least that is how I was trained to deal with other religions when I was overseas.
I always tried to respect the object even if I did not agree that it was holy or special
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 14, 2008 8:56 PM
Religion is, by its very nature, irrational. A belief in unproven and unprovable supernatural beings, energies, existences or forces is by its very nature beyond the realm of rational thought. I can no more prove there is a heaven than you can prove there is not, the same with the existence of God (not that I specifically believe in these, just being rhetorical). That's why it is religion and not science. One must have faith in that which is beyond our comprehension or understanding. Personally, that's why I have a problem with it, I've always been a very grounded person.
What we can and must insist is that believers understand and accept the possibility that they're wrong, that their belief system is not the full and ultimate truth and therefore they must allow others, with different belief systems, to live and thrive with the same rights as themselves. That is where we have been falling down in this country.
What we can also insist on is a little respect among those who differ in their beliefs, and the lack of respect goes both ways between believers and non-believers. Part of the problem with some of the leading atheist thought leaders right now is the plain fact they have a lot of the holier-than-thou attitude of too many of the religious leaders. I think Myers actions are an example of that (can't say as much about Cook's motivations, as he doesn't blog).
Look, I get it. I had a really rude awakening when I went to college and entered an environment that was not predominantly Catholic. We're weird, idiotic, insane, loopy, whatever, because we believe the wafer is really the body of Christ (and thank you, Anne Gilbert, for noting the difference between a cracker and a wafer - as anyone who's ever taken Communion will tell you, you'd rather be eating a cracker. Unleavened, unflavored wafers are not exactly mouth-watering - sort of like eating cardboard).
I also get that Cook and Myers have every right to do, or propose, what they're doing. There are no laws being broken, nor should there be. I also agree that the reaction of the Donohues of the world is entirely inappropriate, and I have no doubt that the leadership of the Church tolerates him and his kind because they are useful as blind defenders of the faith - a short-sighted policy that is an example of how poorly the Church is being run right now.
But I have to wonder - would people still think it was appropriate if Cook or Myers secretly fed pork to Orthodox Jews? Because that's the real equivalent here. Yes, Catholics fetishize the Communion wafer and you certainly have the right to make fun of us for that (despite my own religious separation from the Church, I'll always be a Catholic - it's a cultural and ethnic as well as a religious identity). But I don't see how it is helpful to our society in the long run to deliberately demean Catholic beliefs and humiliate the Church, as Myers seems to want to do.
What is the point that he is trying to make? That the wafer really isn't the body of Christ? Fine - maybe he can ruin Santa Claus for a few kids while he's at it. But it doesn't do anything to even begin repairing our society from the negative effects of religion. Attacking at the very core of the belief system, the part that makes Catholics different and unique from the vast Protestant majority, the part that, yes, Catholics killed for - and were killed for in return - only serves to antagonize and repulse many of the faithful. Even Catholics who aren't freaking out about Cook and Myers are more apt to dismiss the latter because of his actions. He's simply anti-religious is the message that he is giving out - whether knowingly or not.
Now Myers has the right to do and say what he wants, but neither he nor anyone else can be surprised when an act meant only to be provocative - in this case to disprove one of the central tenets of Catholicism - actually provokes a reaction. I think we would be better off trying to harness the good that religion can do for our society while simultaneously minimizing its negative effects, and I don't think that can be achieved by treating religious beliefs as inferior.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | July 14, 2008 8:57 PM
CPT_Doom wrote:
*sigh*
No one is forcing Catholics to eat or do anything different than what they're doing now.
Posted by: Leni | July 14, 2008 9:07 PM
Leni,
You're asking them to sit by and watch as one of their basic religious tenents are desecrated.
Seriously, surely we can attack them for something a bit more substantial than crackers. Maybe molestation, eh?
Posted by: Tlaloc | July 14, 2008 9:12 PM
Oh, and behead those who misname the wafer!
Posted by: magetoo | July 14, 2008 9:16 PM
K of I -
Are kidding? You just put every stand up comic out of business! Culture should definitely by mocked, especially sacred cows.CPT_Doom and Tlaloc -
It would be a closer example if he ate pork himself. But let me remind you that Myers hasn't actually done anything but write a blog post. And how the hell do you desecrate a tenet? You can desecrate the host, but you can't desecrate the belief that the host is the body of Christ. You can belittle it, but you can't desecrate it.Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 9:40 PM
Err, no.....I would ask them to refrain from sending death threats, but nobody is asking them to "sit by."
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 9:43 PM
I wonder if Mr. Sulivan or Mr. Donahue (or anyone here) would have been offended if PZ threatened to use an e-meter (think Scientology) to show that pigs are smarter than Tom Cruise.
Posted by: rmp | July 14, 2008 9:55 PM
Sure, less death threats would be a nice all around solution no matter which way you look at it. Still don't see what it has to do with attacking the idea behind the cracker itself.
As for the 'desecrating the tenant', the definition of desecrate is to profane, which is just another word for contempt. Hence, by mocking a certain belief, you're desecrating it. But let's not get into word games.
Posted by: Tlaloc | July 14, 2008 10:00 PM
Tlaloc I don't think anyone is saying they should be forced to just sit by and let it happen. But there is plenty they can do without diving off the deep end into death threats and attempts to get people fired and expelled. They are perfectly free to say that they disagree with PZ and I haven't seen anyone say otherwise. The problem is with the violent reactions.
Posted by: jba | July 14, 2008 10:10 PM
In the same vein as jba's question, I assume you would never make fun of belief in the 72 virgins waiting in heaven? You wrote "Confine your opinions against Donohue and ultracatholic reactionaries, not Catholicism." I'm sorry, are you saying I have no right to an opinion on the beliefs of Catholicism? Or no right to express that opinion? Because I beg to differ.
Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 10:23 PM
CPT_Doom-
If you really want a food-related event that would be fairly analogous to what PZ Myers has threatened to do, I'll give you the best one I can think of, and I won't even include any illegal actions (like you and other offended people keep doing in the comparative examples you make up):
Eating a hamburger or a steak.
Not forcing someone else to eat it, or eating it in a particular location, like a church or temple, or in front of a particular (kind of) person; just eating a steak or hamburger. Because, don't forget, cows are sacred animals to Hindus, so eating part of a dead (or should that be 'murdered', to make it wholly compatible with the cries of 'Kidnapping!'?) cow, is clearly disrespecting their beliefs, and desecrating one of their holy symbols.
But I'm sure a respectful and polite man like yourself would never do something like that, when it would offend millions of Hindus all over the world...
And why do you keep talking about Mr. Cook's "motivation" as if it was some great mystery? He wanted to show the damn thing to his (curious and non-catholic) friend, before eating it! He didn't even consider leaving the church with it, until a church leader assaulted him, twice!
And since you just don't seem (or want?) to get it, I'll repeat Prof. Myers' motivation for you, in the hope that you will: He's trying to point out that physical assault and threats of burglary, expulsion, and death (DEATH!!) over something like this, is CRAZY! While people have a right to believe that the cracker *literally* (but not really) turns into the flesh of Jesus, being upset that someone doesn't share or ridicules that belief gives them no extra rights or privileges, especially not to remove or disregard someone else's rights, so anyone who thinks it does (or should) is crazy as well. And the more people complain, bitch, moan, and REPEAT THE THREATS (while saying that Myers only picked on them because they're the peaceful ones, and why can't he respect their religious beliefs and go desecrate a Koran instead?), the better they prove his point: Caring more about a cracker than a person, is insane. It also puts a spotlight on their thoughts and behaviors (as well as their hypocrisy) for the rest of the world to see, which helps point out the dangers of dogmatic and fundamentalist belief. And if that's not enough, you can read his own words here.
I'll finish off with a quote from a post Prof. Myers wrote in 2006 (entire post here):
Posted by: Kaerion | July 14, 2008 10:51 PM
Kaerion, FSM, why didn't I think of the Hindu burger analogy? Duh!!
Excellent post. I realize that PZ is a bull in a china shop but we can't all be namby pamby. I applaud PZ for rubbing our faces in the stupidity. That being said, there's plenty of opportunity for the 'nice atheists' to make a difference.
Posted by: rmp | July 14, 2008 11:08 PM
So you're cool with riots over cartoons of Mohammed?
Posted by: Tulse | July 14, 2008 11:49 PM
PZ fits the classic definition of bigot.
His "science" blog is not about SCIENCE at all and is a disgrace.
He is hurting science, thinking he is promoting himself.
Posted by: Clarissa | July 14, 2008 11:58 PM
Have you actually read his blog? He quite often posts about science.
Posted by: Tulse | July 15, 2008 12:02 AM
If 'bigot' is to mean anything at all, it simply cannot refer to criticism of a belief, in my opinion. Obviously, it's a fantastic word for people who are unable to make a serious argument, but that is not really my problem.
And PZ's blog, in an average month, contains as many science posts as the blogs that only produce posts about science. It has been investigated.
I'd be interested to see the evidence that shows that PZ "is hurting science", as well?
That's three baseless accusations in a row. Good job.
Posted by: Damian | July 15, 2008 12:52 AM
Clarrisa certainly exagerates but by any standard PZ is a little prick. His so called science blog is as much "hate religion" as it is about science, and in that sense she is quite correct.
Posted by: The Steinmaster | July 15, 2008 2:01 AM
Clarissa, dearest - There is no 'classic' definintion of a bigot, since Romans and Greeks never used the word. However the orginal meaning was something like "religious hypocrite" (Normans, apparently, had a habit of saying "by god" whilst doing profane things.) By the time the word got to England (c early 12th century) it had come to mean "a relgious person who is intolerant of other's beliefs". Later, by extention, it came to mean simply "a person who is intolerant".
PZ Meyers is anti-superstition, (thus not believer in religion,) and therfore would not fit into the orginal, or orginal English, meanings of "bigot". If he fits in the most modern definition I can't say (or you either for that matter) since I can't read his mind. Mocking something you think is foolish is not intolerance, it's simply called having an opinion. -DJ
PS Is a person who is allergic to milk a lactose bigot?
Posted by: DingoJack | July 15, 2008 3:10 AM
The Steinmaster-
Gonna have to disagree with both of your sentences, actually. PZ might very well be a "little prick" by your standards, but he's not one by mine, so your blanket statement about the standards of everyone on the planet is obviously exaggerated as well.
As for your second statement, it's fairly obvious to me, and a lot of (or even most; I hope) other people, that criticizing or ridiculing something does not equate to hating it. I've yet to see PZ make an unreasonable or unsupported criticism of religion, but if you want to back up your assertion with some actual evidence (a simple link will do), I'll be happy to look it over.
Oh, and he doesn't have a "science blog" any more than Ed does. He writes a lot about science (as Damian supported above), and he's hosted by Science Blogs, but it's no more or less than his personal blog, where he writes about whatever he feels like, just like everyone else.
Posted by: Kaerion | July 15, 2008 3:34 AM
A lot of people simply are not getting that Catholics (and any other group) are only right to ask for tolerance of their views, rituals and beliefs as long as they are hurting nobody. If their religion fits into the category of "something odd that some people", then criticism of the religion should indeed be kept civil and measured. In fact, I used to think that all religion was like that some years ago, and therefore adhered to the idea that religious beliefs should be left alone (though I still thought they were very silly).
However, when the rituals or beliefs of some people begin to affect other people (such as the idea that drawing pictures of Mohammed is punishable, or that taking a Eucharist is punishable) they no longer have the right to demand tolerance, as they are infringing on the rights of others.
Thus, civility on the part of critics of people who di this is entirely irrelevant: they are squarely in the wrong, and must cease to violate other people's rights immediately.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 15, 2008 5:58 AM
I got cut off.
For this reason, attempts (within limits) to point out the bad behaviour of people who di this are essential and laudable, even if we might object to their nature in a different situation. "Civility" and "respectful disocurse" are applicable limits when the opposing camps reaches such rabid extremes.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 15, 2008 6:02 AM
I decided to stop reading Andrew Sullivan after I read his "bigot" post. Hes a tool. He has mocked or at least chided many other religions under the free speech defense and then turn around and then calls someone a bigot and claim that its not a free speech issue when its his superstition that is being mocked. I've gotten tired of his apologetics in the past, but this was the line. The fact that he never comes forward and says "hey maybe I overreacted in this post" and just throws up dissenting emails usually without comment or clarification, is another one of my problems with his style.
I guess this is why he doesn't allow comments, so when he says something mindless like that he wont get thrashed on his own website.
Posted by: random guy | July 15, 2008 6:17 AM
This contretemps didn't come out of the blue. Catholics attacked the student who failed to eat a consecrated host, threatening him with legal and academic sanction and even death threats. That was the inciting incident that caused PZ to post. If the reaction hadn't been insane and disproportionate to the original incident, there would have been no kerfluffle.
Posted by: Tulse | July 15, 2008 7:28 AM
Personally, I think Robert Heinlien said it best when it comes to matters of theology:
"One man's Theology is another man's belly laugh."
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 15, 2008 9:19 AM
My understanding was the wafers don't turn into Jesus's flesh until you swallow them -- unswallowed ones are not yet Transubstantiated (sp?). Besides, you can buy all the wafers you want at www.Autom.com, the liturgical supply store.
Posted by: TikiHead | July 15, 2008 11:34 AM
I think that this post from Sullivan this morning is very disingenuous and a blatant case of quote mining. He does include the link to the full post but the part he quoted is very misleading.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/my-double-stand.html
Posted by: sdg | July 15, 2008 12:34 PM
Until Sullivan starts allowing comments he's basically a hit-and-run coward.
Posted by: Taz | July 15, 2008 3:11 PM
To all whom I offended. I simply think PZ Myers is an intolerant ass. The fact that I am in agreement with him on most things isn't enough for me to give him a pass. And for the person who said the death threats he's received is a good excuse for his response, I think you've put the cart before the horse.
And, for the dimwitted, no I am not defending the religious fanatics. I think fanatics of every kind are abominable and dangerous, and PZ strikes me as a fanatic, or at least leaning that direction.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 15, 2008 4:18 PM
Posted by: H.H. | July 15, 2008 9:34 PM
PC World (IDG News) reports that Melenie Kroll, whose corporate e-mail account was the source of one of the most outrageous death threats to PZ, has been fired.
Posted by: Joe Max | July 16, 2008 3:11 AM
KoI,
Well yes. If you literally believe it is the body of God, you are insane. It's a wafer.
I think that part of the reason that so many people are getting so upset about this is that they know that it is just a wafer, but they also know that they are supposed to buy into the whole "it's the body of Christ" lunacy. Being reminded of the stupidity of their beliefs angers them.
Posted by: Malcolm | July 16, 2008 9:43 PM