Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I don't know who wrote it, but it was an email sent to Andrew Sullivan or one of his guest bloggers. I think it's pretty much dead on. I've been a critic of PZ for his anti-religious fervor in some cases, but not in this one. I think he went a tad bit too far, but the phenomenally idiotic reaction dwarfs that sin by orders of magnitude. I would have felt pretty silly putting a rusty nail through a cracker, for precisely the reason PZ says - it's a freaking cracker. I wouldn't have taken it that far. But let us not lose the entirely valid point he was trying to make. As the link above says:
That bears repeating: this is not the middle east; this is not the middle ages. This is a free society. And in a free society, there exists no right to not be offended. If the Catholic church can get away with desecrating what others consider sacred (or, for those of us who have no concept of sacredness, at least special) - if they can call a loving union between two gay men or women an "abomination", if they can call the union into which I hope to enter someday a "perversion", then damn it, I reserve the right to desecrate what they consider sacred also. Respect is a two-way street - if they want my respect, they must give me theirs. If they want Myers to respect them, they must also respect him (and Mr. Cook for that matter). But this is something of which religion in general seems incapable - they always want respect, but reserve the right to give none in return.
In reality, though, this has nothing to do with respect. I don't owe "respect" (whatever the hell that means) to anyone's beliefs. If your beliefs are stupid, they should be called stupid; wrapping them in a veil of religion does not make them immune from criticism. But if we're going to really make a case for outrage, I'm afraid the case against the Catholic Church is a whole lot stronger than the case against PZ Myers.
PZ "desecrated" a piece of bread. He called an idiotic belief exactly what it is, an idiotic belief. He didn't burn anyone at the stake; the Catholic Church has. He didn't torture anyone for being of the wrong faith; the Catholic Church has. He didn't cover up sexual abuse by priests and shuffle predators from one diocese to another to victimize again; the Catholic Church has. This is not an argument the church really wants to have, folks. That's why it prefers to focus its outrage on symbols rather than substance; on the substance, they lose and lose badly.
Politics
Comments
My guess is that little good has come out of PZ's cracker stunt. However, one good thing it did was expose the dark underside of superstition. It became painfully obvious from the very beginning of this whole fiasco that a large number of people hold symbols and ideas higher than concrete human life. And I'm not just talking about the people who made violent threats. It's also the people who compared desecrating a wafer to hate crimes, kidnapping, the holocaust...i.e. to crimes done against people. And also it's the people who tried to draw false equivalences, claiming "both sides" were equally in the wrong, or trying to equate PZ's actions to those of the Catholics who attacked him. But PZ attacked a symbol, whereas the Catholics attacked people.
One thing that Nietzsche said that I actually agree with was that religion tends to invert moral values, making the abstract more important than the concrete, the imaginary more important than the real, belief more important than experience, and the symbol more important than the thing it symbolizes. PZ exposed exactly this problem with his anti-cracker campaign.
Posted by: Wes | July 31, 2008 9:38 AM
He makes a good point, even if that wasn't directly what PZ was trying to say.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 31, 2008 9:40 AM
And the most on point comment I've run across about the issue of PZ taking even wading into the issue in the first place is one by RBH (in a comment over at Highly Allochthonous)
Quoting him: "the most salutary effect of Myers' post as it was written was to at least partially redress the power asymmetry of the original UCF situation, where it was the Catholic League, with its ready access to the media and its tribe of rabid followers, vs. a kid in college. What Myers said, in effect, was "If you want to bully someone over the fate of sacred crackers, Donohue, pick on someone your own size, someone like me!""
http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2008/07/crackers_and_me.php#comment-1020434
Posted by: Divalent | July 31, 2008 9:40 AM
Thats a very good essay. As to the meaning of respect, in this sense I think the writer means the acknowledgment of one's humanity through the showing of courtesy (not calling him/her an abomination), and the conceding that an individual likely knows better how to live their own life than you do.
Why the hostility to the concept of respect anyway, or am I misreading the tone of your response?
Posted by: Julian | July 31, 2008 9:45 AM
Sullivan still hasn't really answered the seeming double standard he has when it comes to desecrations. He cheered on the Muslim cartoons, but of course these were just as much very physicalized desecrations of the sacred as not digesting a communion wafer is.
His only attempt to address the issue was basically a dodge (it's not the same since, he doesn't believe that images are profane, or something, even though what HE believes is not the point: Myers doesn't believe that wafers are Jesus) and then dishonestly pretend that Myers had a double standard by quote-mining him to make it sound like he had objected to the cartoons on the grounds of blasphemy (he didn't: he celebrated that part of them, instead condemning what he saw as their racist content).
I certainly think that both the cartoons and the wafer stunt were rude and pointless: they essentially targeted all Catholics and all Muslims, rather than just those who had gone overboard and deserved criticism. But the arguments of Myers' critics are, in this case, far more dishonest than his own position, which I think is simply sincerely wrong, not duplicitously so.
Posted by: Bad | July 31, 2008 9:46 AM
Confronting a bully is its own reward, and when they're trying to cow public institutions into carrying out persecution, all the better.
Posted by: Julian | July 31, 2008 9:50 AM
Before this, i honestly thought everyone saw it as a ritual. Now i know different. I think a lot of people didn't realise just how powerfully some people are taking their religious symbols. So I learnt something. Thanks PZ.
To stupidity and beyond !!
Posted by: Richard eis | July 31, 2008 9:54 AM
Of course, the Catholics' answer to this charge is their (bizarre) belief that the communion wafer is not, in fact, a symbol but is genuinely and literally the flesh of their deity.
Posted by: Philbert | July 31, 2008 10:07 AM
I think PZ went too far as well, as I've said on his and other blogs...and I think he did it in a mean-spirited way that hurts the already poor public image of atheists.
BUT, I see two really good things coming out of PZ's stunt:
1) PZ proved all of the "You'd lose your job if you insulted Muslims/desecrated a Koran" claims totally false. Not only that, but the only threats he got were from Catholics.
2) Bill Donohue ranted and raved about PZ's stunt, but accomplished NOTHING in the end except to make himself look even more pathetic. PZ desecrated a Host AND a Koran, and didn't lose his job.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 31, 2008 10:21 AM
I'm all for 'respecting' peoples right to believe stupid things. That doesn't mean I don't get to call it stupid.
Posted by: rmp | July 31, 2008 10:21 AM
But only the "essence" of the wafer becomes the body of Christ whilst the properties of the wafer remain unchanged. Or least that is what some Catholics have told me as way of getting around the fact that wafer does not physically change. It is a kind of physical change that is not physical it would seem.
And if you understand what they are on about you are better at theology than me.
Posted by: John Doe | July 31, 2008 10:24 AM
Bad-
To be fair, though, I think PZ has the same inconsistency problem in regard to the Muhammed cartoons. When that flap started his response was to say that those cartoons were bad because they were an attack on the powerless by the powerful (I doubt Theo Van Gogh thinks his murderers were powerless). That strikes me as a lot of postmodernist bullshit, caring more about alleged power relationships than about the truth. The fact is that those cartoons were, like the cracker incident, a satirical rebellion against an egregiously stupid idea. The validity of that statement does not change based on whether the target is rich or poor.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 31, 2008 10:26 AM
Don't forget that PZ "desecrated" The God Delusion as well. Those evil atheists are going to throw him in a gulag and perform satanic rituals on him.
Posted by: Shadowin | July 31, 2008 10:39 AM
Bad: your brief sweepoig generalizations about the cartoons that "targeted all Muslims" leaves me thinking you have no clue what the cartoons were really about.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 31, 2008 10:40 AM
I've heard that one before. They basically twisted Aristotle's form/substance dichotomy way beyond anything Aristotle actually said.
It would be as if I claimed to be a super-buff stud, but a very special kind of super-buff stud: I'm a super-buff stud who has none of the physical features of a super-buff stud, and all the physical features of a skinny bookworm. But in essence I'm a super-buff stud. I demand that you respect my belief and not call me delusional. Also, in essence I'm screwing Sarah Michelle Gellar on a daily basis, so any desecration of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is deeply offensive to me.
Posted by: Wes | July 31, 2008 10:46 AM
I'd want to see the Catholic League's balance sheet for the year before I concede that Donohue failed in his goals.
I'm with you...when I read PZ's initial response to the incident, I thought "What, has he lost his mind?"
Posted by: Shygetz | July 31, 2008 10:47 AM
Shygetz: Fair enough. Maybe I should have said that Donohue's ranting about PZ's stunt certainly did not cost PZ his job, which was Donohue's stated goal in his press releases about what PZ did. That's not to say Donohue didn't accomplish some of his other nefarious goals, including getting Webster Cook in hot water with UCF.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 31, 2008 11:00 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | July 31, 2008 11:05 AM
"Respect is a two-way street - if they want my respect, they must give me theirs. If they want Myers to respect them, they must also respect him.... they always want respect, but reserve the right to give none in return."
Has there been a significant problem with Catholics being grossly disrespectful toward PZ or toward scientists? As far as I know, Catholics still routinely teach evolution and they aren't anti-science. Science at Catholic universities is indistinguishable from science at public universities. Until this incident occurred, I would have expected the vast majority of Catholics to be as respectful of PZ as they would be toward anyone else they deal with. I should mention, too, that I didn't believe in God for thirty years, was very open about it, and I can't recall even one time that I experienced disrespect for my beliefs from a Catholic -- and I knew quite a few priests and lay people during that time. The priests, especially, were very at ease talking openly with me. Hell, I've had many priests share their own religious doubts with me.
The overwhelming majority of Catholics who had nothing to do with the Cook incident or its aftermath would, I suspect, agree that respect is a two-way street. PZ's actions will not help them to respect PZ.
I'd hate to see Catholics start to think that they are at odds with science and scientists because that has not been the case in recent decades. I'd also hate to see them think they share common anti-science cause with fundamentalists simply because PZ has positioned it that way.
I certainly object to the behavior of some Catholics in reaction to the Cook incident, which was really an unusual situation and does not reflect a pattern of routine Catholic disrespect for scientists or even atheists.
A peculiar aspect of all this is that the people who are more openly disrespectful of PZ's beliefs -- Evangelicals and fundamentalists -- share PZ's disdain for the notion of transubstantiation, even though they might not agree with his methods for showing that disrespect.
As for Cook goes, I'm all for ripping and prosecuting the people who assaulted him (assuming he's describing the incident accurately), and I'm all for criticizing and prosecuting anyone who harassed or threatened this guy. I'm also in full support of any efforts to safeguard Cook's rights and standing as a student at his university.
Posted by: Dr X | July 31, 2008 11:11 AM
My question is whether PZ's cracker-action was actually useful in advancing his goal (which I presume is the diminishment of adherence to religious beliefs) or whether it had the opposite effect.
I understand those who say being nice isn't a successful tactic, and that only being very confrontational will succeed. But I also remember that Timothy McVeigh thought that by blowing up a federal building he would instigate a rebellion--instead he just made the patriot movement a subject of scorn and hatred (perhaps he should have picked a building w/o a daycare in it).
Obviously PZ's cracker-action isn't comparable--to just about anyone who reads this blog--to McVeigh's, but perhapst to Catholics it is. To them, Jesus, even in cracker form, is far more sacred than children (remember, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son).
Before anyone misses my point and screams at me, I unwaveringly support Myers' right to do this, and unwaveringly oppose those who want to destroy him. I'm only asking whether, in the context of what PZ wants to achieve, whether it's a good or bad tactic. In a cost-benefit approach I might ask, as a result of this, has PZ caused more people to question religion, or caused more people to reflexivly embrace religion more tightly?
Posted by: James Hanley | July 31, 2008 11:27 AM
Dr X,
The issue is not about science.
The Catholic Church has official positions that many find offensive.
Their position on gay rights is offensive to many. They do not think that gays should be allowed to marry, and nor should people have sex with others the same sex as themselves.
They oppose the use of contraception, even condoms, which contributes to the devastating levels of HIV infection in Africa.
They oppose the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of how that pregnancy came about or the development of the foetus.
If you think those positions are respectful ones to gays, Africans or women then I do not think you know what respect is.
Posted by: John Doe | July 31, 2008 11:28 AM
Dr. X:
If you direct your gaze toward this post, you will notice that out of 12000 emails PZ received, 2 were not threatening.
It doesn't say much for Catholicism.
The best thing we can hope for, really, is that the vast majority of these nice reanosable Catholics you speak of simply never heard Bill Donohue talk about Myers, and thus never got involved at all. Which is not unlikely, I suppose. You have to be pretty far off the deep end to pay any attention to Donohue's ramblings.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | July 31, 2008 11:30 AM
Ed, I don't get it. First you say you are quoting the best PZ defense you've seen, and then you show a hole in that defense by pointing out - correctly - that the issue has nothing to do with respect. That's right: even if the holders of an idiotic belief didn't treat others with disrespect, they still wouldn't have a right to be respected by everyone. But then you start listing the Church's crimes unrelated to this incident. I am very much on PZ's side, but burning heretics and abusing children have nothing to do with valid justifications in this case.
Posted by: bullfighter | July 31, 2008 11:37 AM
Exactly. It's respecting the right to the belief. Too many people think it involves respecting the belief itself.
More directly, PZ didn't send death threats to anybody, people on Bill Donohue's side did.
Posted by: Citizen Z | July 31, 2008 11:52 AM
I have never understood the pass that humanists and secularists tend to give the Catholic Church. Sure, it tepidly accepted evolution, though the current pope has made indications he might water even that down. However, on every other issue, it is still mired in the same mentality it held during the Dark Ages.
It treats women as second-class citizens. It condemns abortion and any form of birth control (except coitus interruptus, which is pretty much useless). It condemns homosexuality. The church continues to play a central role in violence and abuse in Africa and South America. It continues to maintain a list of banned books. And let's not forget its tolerance for priestly child rape, which the current pope had a hand in covering up.
The list of the Catholic Church's crimes against humanity go on and on. Bill Donohue's wackos can go nutjob crazy over a cracker all they want; they are hypocrites in the extreme. If they want respect, as the letter writer points out, then they need to change their ways on many, many issues.
Posted by: Open Threat | July 31, 2008 12:07 PM
Yes, not to mention disrespectful to humanists in general, homosexuals, the infertile, the fertile who wish to be temporarily infertile, people who obtain or wish to obtain abortions, people at risk of STD infection, women, child victims of clergy, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Have you been asleep for, oh say, the past 1600 years, because it's been same shit, different verse from the Catholic Church for about that long for pretty much all of the people on the above list.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 31, 2008 12:18 PM
I certainly understand that many are offended by the actions of PZ. To those that ask whether they are worth it, two words, "Overton window".
Posted by: rmp | July 31, 2008 12:21 PM
Yeah, I have the same question. And actually, I wonder how much his stunt succeeded (or backfired) in terms of how the general public perceives atheists and how seriously they take them.
If you're going to be "not nice" confrontational, at least do it for a reason, not just for the sake of being confrontational and offensive, IMHO. I volunteer to escort patients past protesters (almost all Catholics) at an abortion clinic, and I get a lot of "confrontation" from the protesters. But I'm not there just to piss the Catholic protesters off; I'm there to help the patients.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 31, 2008 12:41 PM
Actually, I came back to the thread to post something relevant to what your saying. PZ is heavily identified with the effort to stop religious encroachment into public science education. I think he's had an important role in that struggle.
To your point, what I was going to say before I even read your comment, I would have been much more comfortable with this if it was clearly about a protest of Catholic teaching and policy related to homosexuality, women and/or reproductive freedom. I think the church has been grossly disrespectful toward homosexuals and women and, as PZ says, respect is a two-way street. I'm not sure this form of protest is the wisest way to protest, but how the protest is framed in people's minds, what they think believe the protest is about, influences what they will take away from it.
All of that said, I haven't actually encountered any Catholics freaked out over this whole thing. Mostly it's been eyerolls, I think directed toward everyone involved. That's the case with my wife, who is Catholic. Since the dismissive eye-rolls have been the norm in my conversations, I suppose I shouldn't worry too much that this incident will generalize into a wider perception among Catholics that they are at war with science or scientists. Again, I think it would have been helpful if the issue of disrespect was framed more clearly.
Somebody mentioned 12,000 emails and only two weren't threatening. Wow! Did he really read and tabulate the content of 12,000 emails? That's an enormous number of people and very troubling, but there are 60 million Catholics in the US, hundreds of millions worldwide. And PZ chose an approach that represents the single most provocative thing he could have possibly done. If he wanted to shake out the nutjobs from a among hundreds of millions of people, he couldn't have chosen a better way to do it. The incidence of personality disorders and frank mental illness is certainly great enough that given a carefully chosen provocation that gets worldwide attention, one shouldn't be too surprised to get a lot of really crazy reactions. Does it excuse them? Of course not. But those 12,000 are .0002% of the Catholics in the US and a far smaller percentage worldwide. The number of Catholics out there is huge.
Posted by: Dr X | July 31, 2008 12:42 PM
I think that essay makes the awful fallacy of lumping the entirety of the Catholic population into "the Catholic Church," which is just shorthand for, "the bad things the Pope and the archbishops have done in recent history." First of all, the Catholic Church does good things that don't get as much attention as their more barbaric policies. Second of all, a whole ton of Catholics are devout in their faith but support gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and harsher punishments for child molesters. In fact, the local Catholic league chapter in my town (lead by *gasp* a woman) is working hard to reform the Church's structure from the bottom up. And many Catholics have gone several days now without inquisiting or burning people at the stake. And finally, "people who e-mailed PZ Myers" does not form a representative sample of the population. Who's more likely to send an e-mail: somebody's who mildly offended or somebody who's murderously pissed?
Now, I'm well aware that none of this has anything to do with the behavior of the Vatican, nor the meaning of symbols, nor Myers' right to do what he did. But for the love of God, can somebody please acknowledge that these decent Catholics exist? Seriously, it would just make me feel better to know that at least one person is not pretending that a massive group of people is a singular entity named BillDonahuePopeBenedict.
Posted by: Brandon | July 31, 2008 12:54 PM
The Catholic Church is probably responsible for impeding progress, and that lack of progress means people died.
Imagine if the rate of progress during Classical Greece, Rome, Egypt had continued without the fall of the Roman Empire. The Catholic Church took the position that Belief = Ultimate knowledge, Poverty = Paradise , Sexuality = Sin ,
Disease is caused sin. Ignorance = Innocence, Filth = sanitation. Nudity = shame, homosexuality = abomination
Not long before the fall people were starting to make inroads towards germ theory. Others were slowly putting together the laws of motion.
Would the various plagues have raged through europe? How many people would have NOT died?
Posted by: Amplexus | July 31, 2008 12:57 PM
PZ is more than a simple atheist, who merely doesn't believe in gods. He really is a militant atheist, who doesn't like religion(s) and tries to point out their inherent absurdities.
To that end, anything he does which can spotlight religious idiocy, and do it on a world stage, must be considered a success.
Most if not all religions are cults. There is a certain amount of brainwashing going on, and in the Catholic cult there is quite a bit of brainwashing going on.
The first reaction of a victim of inculcation to the intellectual provocation of an "outsider" such as Dr Myers is going to be anger, expressed as outrage. Eventually, given enough provocation, the inculcated may move along a continuum that starts with outrage, but then moves to doubt, thoughtful consideration, epiphany, and finally, disavowal of the cult.
But without any outside provocateur, fewer acolytes will actually confront their own doubts. The more provocation they receive, the more likely will be their ultimate disavowal of religion.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 31, 2008 1:39 PM
Being rather antitheistic myself, I support the provocation and hope that it does open some eyes. However, I don't think PZ was attempting to provoke the religious as much as he was trying to make a point that the uproar over Cook was silly. It's just a cracker.
Sacredness is the weak-minded's excuse to prevent scrutiny.
Posted by: Shadowin | July 31, 2008 3:07 PM
PZ' job is safe, but the poor kid whose tale was the spur for PZ is going to be kicked out of his SECULAR, STATE-FUNDED college by vengeful Catholics:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/21/politics/uwire/main4280808.shtml
His chances of getting any career above that of broom-pusher (and thus any chance of making a living wage) are gone -- which might not matter anyway, as he's still getting death threats.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | July 31, 2008 3:09 PM
Phoenix Woman, nothing in that article says anything about Cook getting kicked out of school. He's been impeached as a member in the student government by the other members. It's a shame. But that just starts an investigation process, after which Cook will be allowed to present his case. They will then vote on whether or not to kick him out of student government. He's not been expelled nor even kicked out of the Senate yet. His prospects of rising above broom-pusher are yet intact.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 31, 2008 3:19 PM
Seriously, it would just make me feel better to know that at least one person is not pretending that a massive group of people is a singular entity named BillDonahuePopeBenedict.
That would be me: my dad used to drag me to Mass every Sunday, and I really don't think ANY of those Catholics would have had anything to do with this disgraceful orchestrated meltdown over a damn wafer. (Although they would have been a bit shocked if they heard me using a phrase like "damn wafer.") As the Monty Python crew might have said, "It's just a waffer-thin metaphor."
Oh, and none of those Catholics would have tried to convince me of a literal transsubstantiation story either. Any fool (or inquisitive Marxist kid) could see it was still a piece of bread. And it was still a hunk of bread in all those "Last Supper" paintings too, never a heart or a liver.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 31, 2008 3:26 PM
[re-posting from Pharyngula]:
Dutch absurdist comedian Hans Teeuwen has some hilarious sacrilegious lines in his singing tribute at an unveiling of a statue of his islamicided friend, filmmaker Theo van Gogh.
One of the references in the song made some local Muslim women talk-show hosts angry, so they had him on their show (the youtube clip sometimes being subtittled, "Bimbos in Burkas"). He makes some great comments - though he is barely allowed to do so by the insufferably pompous women. His genuine and rational response throughtout deftly shows the fools to be utterly ridiculous in their pious outrage. Some good quotes are:
Long Live Irreverence!
Posted by: marnk | July 31, 2008 3:59 PM
I'm not so worried about the Catholic Church "demanding respect" for its beliefs; while I don't agree with their positions on some things(e.g. gays getting married), in general, most Catholics seem to respect others beliefs or nonbeliefs. It's the official doctrine that often causes the problem. That said, I think the real problem of "respect" here, comes from some so-called "Christians"(who are generally not Catholic, but hold some of the same beliefs), who demand that you
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | July 31, 2008 5:36 PM
Ed: While I don't really buy the "powerless vs powerful" argument either, the point was that PZ didn't have a double standard on the blasphemy side of the issue: he fully supported it. He didn't like the cartoons for other reasons (alleged racism/powerless stuff), but that doesn't make him have a double standard like Sullivan when it comes to judging whether or not something violates some sort of special barrier of civility.
"The fact is that those cartoons were, like the cracker incident, a satirical rebellion against an egregiously stupid idea."
Maybe, but that doesn't make me a fan. Non-believers don't have anything in either case to rebel against: in both cases, people went out of their way to commit things that some people consider blasphemy. Maybe that's an effective PR tool, maybe not. But I know I'd feel pretty stupid and juvenile doing it.
Posted by: Bad | July 31, 2008 5:40 PM
Sorry about the unfinished post.
It should read: "demand that you respect and accept what they believe, including that you must be "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" or else you're going to hell. Oh yes, Catholics are going to hell because they don't believe this, either. Persnally, I think they are potentially more dangerous than the "official" Cahtolic Church, simply because they go around whining a lot about "persecuted" Christians, but try to stuff their beliefs down the throats of everyone else. While I don't find a number of areas of Catholic doctrin very acceptable, I've never met any Catholics who try to shove thier doctrine down my throat. It just isn't done. I have met other "Christians" who've tried the above, and they don't stop.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | July 31, 2008 5:44 PM
Brandon:
No adult is forced to be Catholic. By remaining members of their Church, those decent Catholics are complicit in promoting its official doctrines.Posted by: bullfighter | July 31, 2008 5:47 PM
If Catholics truly believe that transubstantiation takes place, can't we charge them with cannibalism?
Posted by: Winnie The Poo | July 31, 2008 6:16 PM
What you say is true, but one of the things about humans is that they change, whereas their writings on the intertoobs may not. I suspect PZ would have a different take on the cartoon episode now...
However, what he said at the time was in a climate of anti-Muslim fervor, where every dark-skinned person wearing a head covering was a terrorist (at least according to popular portrayal anyway)
Posted by: Andrew | July 31, 2008 6:19 PM
bullfighter:
Now this is entirely unfair to Catholics. It would be like saying that if you remain a member of the United States, you are complicit in promoting its official policy on [insert bad thing the government does here]. It's of course not true that members of a group are always morally responsible for the things the whole group does, and surely it's not unthinkable to imagine Catholics who remain adherents because of a deep conviction that Catholicism is the true faith, despite some objectionable policies. This baby-with-the-bathwater mentality just doesn't cut it if you care at all about being charitable to others.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 31, 2008 7:21 PM
Thank you bullfighter. The lie that the majority of catholics (or religious people in general) are decent gets trotted out too often by people who themselves are complicit in crimes against humanity.
In reality, every time they practice faith, they reaffirm their membership of a criminal conspiracy to rape children. They celebrate holocaust after holocaust after holocaust; whether directly by gas or by burning, or indirectly by suppressing medicine and other science.
We need to be very clear about what we are being told to 'respect'.
Also, Adrienne's innuendo about atheists and majorities is a lie. Pure and simple.
Posted by: eddie | July 31, 2008 7:21 PM
What "innuendo", eddie? I said that atheists have a poor public image. In the US, we do. And how. I don't think PZ's stunt helped us any in that regard.
Now THAT is a lie, pure and simple. You cannot hold Catholics accountable for the crimes of some of its clergy. What these clergy did was against all Catholic rules and regulations. There is nothing in the Catholic Church proper that condones it.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 31, 2008 8:48 PM
You know, I take small comfort in knowing that bullfighter and eddie's statements very likely express a fringe - nay, fanatical - view. It amazes me that, given how many fundamentalists want to suggest that atheists cannot be moral, some atheists would want to claim the same about the religious (or some subset thereof). Hello, sweeping generalizations! I figured that we'd have gotten past those by now.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 31, 2008 9:04 PM
I'm a little out of my league here (writing a coherent sentence is quite a struggle, one I don't always win). But it seems to me like we/you are dealing with the 'One True Scotsman' fallacy. We are unable to criticize your religious belief because we don't know what they are. You're a Catholic BUT, ...., don't judge my religion by the official doctrine.
It would be helpful if 'liberal/nice/WWJD Catholic's would create their own religion'. Then we could have a conversation were we all understood what we are talking about.
Maybe you and the Unitarians could share a building (ok, that was a bit of snark).
Posted by: rmp | July 31, 2008 9:24 PM
duh, I forgot to address the previous comment to The Christian Cynic.
Posted by: rmp | July 31, 2008 9:28 PM
Actually, while I think eddie's comment was off the deep end, I do agree with what bullfighter said here:
When I was growing up, most of my fellow upper middle class American Catholics lived their lives the way they wanted to, went to church, but politely ignored the Church's stand on birth control, et al. They lived lives mostly in opposition to what the Church promoted, but still considered themselves Catholics in good standing because they went to church on Sundays (or at least at Christmas and Easter, like we did growing up).
But as much as Catholics like that (derided by the more orthodox brethren as "cafeteria Catholics") would like to deny it, the fact is that the Catholic Church has never been and is not a democracy. My half-sister, who converted to Catholicism as an adult, likes to tell me that the Church needs "many voices, many opinions". Well, that's a load of bull. The Church certainly doesn't see it that way. And no matter how liberal American Catholics and even some American bishops are, the Roman Catholic Church isn't.
That's why I encourage people who are attached to the Catholic Church for sentimental reasons, all the while favoring keeping abortion and contraception legal, who favor legalizing gay marriage, etc., not to send their kids to Catholic school just so their kids will have a "Catholic identity". Because bullfighter is right, no matter how you slice it, the Catholic Church has always and probably will always do a lot of harm in the world.
Better for those who disagree with most of its fundamental doctrines to make a clean break, IMHO, as I did (and boy am I glad I did).
Posted by: Adrienne | July 31, 2008 9:34 PM
Just thought of something whilst I was in the shower: Yes, absolutely there are decent Catholics out there. There are decent social conservatives. Decent people who think the government should promote Christianity. Decent people who oppose gay marirage. Decent people, even, who probably think desegregation and allowing interracial marriage was a mistake. Decent though these people may be, that doesn't mean I want them making laws or public policies. Nor does it mean I won't debate them, present an opposing view, and even try to change their minds if given a chance.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 31, 2008 10:04 PM
rmp:
First, I'm not Catholic (and frankly, the few experiences I've had in Catholic churches in my life have creeped me out). And this clearly isn't a matter of criticizing religious belief - I have no problem with that. You (generally speaking, not you specifically, rmp) can't simply write off a whole group of people (whether Catholics or the religious more generally) as not being decent and then move the goalposts to criticism of religion. So the whole "no true Scotsman" nonsense is quite misplaced.
And while I've never been Catholic, I'm really surprised that no one is considering how tradition-driven Catholicism is and how connected to that tradition a Catholic (especially someone Catholic from childhood) will feel. If you believe that the Church (big C) is the true church, then a difference of opinion on, say, gay marriage probably won't be enough to make you consider breaking ties, and even if it is (or was) for you personally, it may not be the same for the Catholic next to you. (This all beside the fact that it certainly isn't obviously true that adherents to a group are complicit in the doings of that group's organization. Why can't members criticize from within and not simply abandon the group? I reiterate: baby with the bathwater.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 31, 2008 10:10 PM
Christian Cynic wrote:
Because the Catholic Church doesn't work that way. Lots of Catholics expected and wanted Pope Paul VI to approve contraception. Guess what? He didn't. The Roman Catholic Church is not a democracy; never was, never will be. Neither are other major denominations that come to mind, such as the LDS Church and the Orthodox Church. Their dogmas are tightly controlled by a few old men.
This is not the case with some other Christian denominations -- the Episcopal Church and the Quakers/Society of Friends, for instance. And there are other denominations out there that are more liberal and socially progressive. I encourage socially progressive people who nonetheless want to belong to a religious community to abandon the harmful and regressive religions like Catholicism in favor of the Unitarians, the Ethical Culture Society, or at least the more progressive Christian denominations, such as the United Church of Christ. That's my version of encouraging people not to throw "the baby out with the bathwater".
Posted by: Adrienne | July 31, 2008 10:15 PM
TCC, as with many things, I think it is a matter of degree. I grew up in the Wisconsin Synod Church (Lutheran). Criticizing from within wasn't really an option. If you didn't believe in xyz, then you weren't a true Christian and you were going to spend eternity in a sea of fire. It screwed me up pretty good. Since I'm no longer a member of that church, it is a reach for me to be too 'holier than though' (sorry, I couldn't help myself) but I don't understand how a church member can be a part of a church when they don't believe it's central tenets.
Posted by: rmp | July 31, 2008 10:19 PM
I can't speak for the others, but I'm aware of how tradition-driven Catholicism is (along with certain other religions), and for me this tradition-drivenness is one of the problems I have with organized religion. The epistemology seems to be "We claim it's an ancient tradition, therefore it's absolute truth."
I understand that many people have a deep emotional attachment to the traditions, but I don't sympathize with those who let that emotional attachment trump basic logic and reason. Unfortunately, there are a lot of religious people who commit the fallacy of thinking that truth is determined by how emotionally meaningful something is to you. The cracker incident is a symptom of this type of irrational thinking.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If you actually believed it was the True Church, could you have a difference of opinion with it? If you think the Church is wrong on certain issues, doesn't that imply it's not really the True Church and doesn't necessarily speak for the almighty, all-knowing, can't-be-wrong God?
Also, I would say that believing any human institution could be the "True Church" is a problem in and of itself. Although I vote for Democrats more often than Republicans, I haven't joined the Democratic party. Why? Because I don't agree with them on every issue, and that's a big part of why I don't think they're the "True Party".
True. It's very dangerous to generalize one's own experiences to everyone else. But I would argue that basic logic and reason are not mere personal matters.
I won't go as far as eddie and say that individual Catholics should be blamed for molester priests. That's ridiculous.
However, it's important to remember that since Catholicism has lost its ability to slaughter those who don't comply, and since church and state are separate in America, membership in and contribution to the church are no longer compulsory. Contributions to the Catholic Church are entirely voluntary. I do think we can hold someone morally responsible for contributing money to an institution that does palpable evil all over the world. What I don't understand are people who say, "Well, I support stem cell research, and I'm pro-choice, and I'm appalled by the idea of denying condoms to people in AIDS-infested Africa, and I support women's equality, and I think gays should have the same rights as everyone else, and I'm disgusted by the fact that the Catholic Church tried to cover up and relocate child-molesting priests, but the traditions are really emotionally important to me, so I continue to tithe money to the church and pay tuition to put my kids in Catholic School in order to fund the Catholic church."
That just seems sadomasochistic to me. If individual Catholics oppose what the church is doing, how about "criticizing from within" by refusing to give the church any money until it renounces its destructive dogmas? Why don't we see all these liberal and moderate Catholics hitting the church in its purse, where it really will cause them to take notice?
Posted by: Wes | July 31, 2008 11:05 PM
Wes, your last two paragraphs hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: rmp | August 1, 2008 12:06 AM
Christian Cynic wrote:
This analogy is deeply flawed. Ceasing to be a Catholic is, materially, rather simple, whereas ceasing to be a "member" of the US is much harder.
If Catholics lived and worked all their lives in a single Church several thousand miles long and wide, populated by 300 million other Catholics, and all or most of their friends and family lived there too, and had done so for generations, and that Chruch was sorrounded on all sides by enormous oceans or territories populated by people with different languages and customs who were unwilling to let them in without making them jump through hoops, then you could argue that leaving the church is not quite as easy as leaving the country.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | August 1, 2008 5:06 AM
If I should come to possess a consecrated host, I will treat it in the most disrespectful, sacrilegious manner possible. We all desecrated dozens of them when I was an altar boy, but we thought it was just a symbol. Crackergate has made me think though, what if the Catholics are right?
If there really is a Jesus Christ, and he really does transform himself at the priest's bidding, then he is there as an active participant in satisfying the priest's desires during mass. He is also there as an active participant in satisfying the priest's desires during what went on downstairs, with that same priest. He was right there as an active participant in taking away my childhood and leaving me with nightmares for forty years. Instead of transforming those nightmares or preserving that child his only interest was in transforming a host for the child's tormentor.
And he demands my respect. No! What he gets is the contempt his own actions have earned him. I won't lower myself to his level by seeking out new victims to abuse, so his accomplices and enablers in the church have nothing to fear, but however if Jesus Christ is in some sense actually present in the host, if I should ever obtain one the only appropriate thing to do is to utterly desecrate and destroy it-- as a cathartic healing experience and symbolic act of justice.
Posted by: watercat | August 1, 2008 5:44 AM
You might as well argue that since most of us continue to live in the US, we are complicit in every crime or wrongdoing our government performs, even if we are vehemently opposed to it.
After all, we're here voluntarily, right?
Posted by: Bad | August 1, 2008 8:20 AM
Bad wrote- "Non-believers don't have anything in either case to rebel against"
This only makes sense if you think a) that PZ did this solely to make fun of Catholic's beliefs, and b) we haven't been fighting christian inroads in government, science etc. for the past 30 years.
Cook (and PZ) weren't only facing outrage over the kerfluffle, Cook was threatened with expulsion and PZ had his job threatened. These rabid catholics (and a lot of other religions) believe that criticism of their silliness should be against the law i.e. have secular consequences.
PZ may be an atheist but his performance art with the cracker wasn't a blow for atheism, it was a shout out to anyone listening that "blasphemy" does NOT (and should not) be anything of concern to the LAW.
It's a really really good thing to remind people of this. Culture war and all....
Posted by: Rick R | August 1, 2008 9:07 AM
As a reminder to anyone who thinks the Catholic Church (and claiming allegiance to it) are harmless, see Afarensis's latest post on the HHS.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 1, 2008 9:44 AM
Adrienne, in your first comment you used the phrase "the already poor public image of atheists." and in your third you used "how the general public perceives atheists". I got news for you. We ARE the public. That, as well as other more direct (non innuendo) phrases from others such as 'ordinary decent catholics' contributed to an unsuccessful attempt at a 'one true scotsman' argument as pointed out above. Tens of millions of imaginary supporters you and Dr X and others just made up doesn't constitute a majority of anything.
It has been made clear again and again that the church is not a democracy. What der fuhrer say's goes; he's infallible That membership and contributions are voluntary. So yes, they do reaffirm their support for crimes against humanity every time they practice. No, Wes, it's not ridiculous. There's no such thing as just a little but pregnant.
Posted by: eddie | August 1, 2008 10:46 AM
Adrienne, apart from that criticism, I largely agree with you and have no animosity.
Posted by: eddie | August 1, 2008 10:52 AM
Whassamatter, Anne, short span of atten
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 1, 2008 11:12 AM
http://montaraventures.com/pix/atheistcartoon.jpg
Posted by: noah | August 1, 2008 11:23 AM
Because the Catholic Church doesn't work that way.
No, but millions of individual Catholics CAN and DO "work that way," every time they work and vote to influence the secular laws to prohibit all of the evil and tyrannical practices you rightly condemn. (For example, I don't see significant numbers of Catholics voting, as a bloc, to legalize child-rape; nor does every individual Catholic automatically voice agreement with every chapter and verse of official RCC doctrine.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 1, 2008 11:24 AM
Raging Bee wrote:
Perhaps not, but those little donations they give every Sunday help to keep the Catholic Church afloat as a political entity that does influence secular law and public policy. Catholics may not be voting in large numbers to legalize child rape, but they sure have been helping to chip away at abortion rights. They also helped put our latest president into office.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 1, 2008 3:46 PM
eddie wrote:
No, we are a single-digit minority group within the larger public.
I'm sorry, maybe I haz the dumb today (or every day), but I don't get your point here. How does what I said about atheists being a small minority viewpoint have anything to do with the "One True Scotsman" fallacy?
Posted by: Adrienne | August 1, 2008 3:49 PM
Oh cripes, I do haz dumb today. When I said "single-digit minority group" I meant that in overall percentage terms, we represent a single-digit percentage minority group within the larger public. I.e., our viewpoints aren't terribly popular in mainstream America. We aren't a significant enough minority group such that we have politicians pandering to us or trying to garner our support the way they are with Evangelicals, for instance.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 1, 2008 3:52 PM
I won't respond to everything, since a few people have stepped in and given largely the same responses I would (e.g. Raging Bee on Catholics individually acting differently than the hierarchy).
Wes:
This isn't the sense in which I talk about tradition: Catholicism is a tradition just as the Enlightenment is a tradition. (If you want to dispute this, there are a number of shared traits: key concepts and ideas, key players in the movement, vital texts, etc.) A disagreement with Kant's moral writings wouldn't necessitate breaking with Enlightenment ideals any more than a disagreement with Pope John Paul II's encyclical Humanae Vitae, even though the latter obviously carries more force.
Being situated within a tradition - construing that idea not to intrinsically limit inquiry but rather to provide boundaries to it - is not generally as easy as one would think. (Caveat: I just recently finished reading Whose Justice? Which Rationality? by Alasdair MacIntyre, and so my view on tradition may not line up with the average commenter. Suffice it to say, however, that I think MacIntyre is right in saying that everyone is situated within some tradition - even liberalism would qualify here - despite attempts to stake out a neutral position.)
To the first question: yes, I think it would still be possible to have a difference of opinion with an organization which you held to be the legitimate church. I think Catholicism in particular lends itself to the kind of fidelity that I've been arguing for, given the importance attributed to the sacraments (which the "cracker" incident does reflect, for better or worse). If you hold that communion with the Church is the only method to communing with God, then that very well might outweigh a difference of opinion on abortion, stem cells, IVF, ad infinitum. If the number of disagreements are so great that you end up disagreeing with church policy more than agreeing, then there's obviously a much greater chance of breaking ties.
Secondly, it's not like the Church hasn't changed opinions on some issues; you can't assume that all Catholics are so naive (or maybe ignorant) as to overlook that trend. Having faith (that is, trust) in the Church, I would argue, is more than an epistemic stance.
As for finances - that's a double-edged sword. For surely if parishioners' offerings go toward the evil things the Church does (I don't think I need to enumerate the issues in question any further here), they also go toward the good work. (I hope no one will jump in here and deny that the Catholic Church does anything worthwhile at all. That is beyond credulity, in my opinion.) I think it fairly obvious that a Catholic could easily find that the good outweighs the bad in such a case, and if they couldn't - well, there's likely another candidate for abandoning Catholicism.
Valhar2000:
Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that material difficulty is a relevant consideration (as opposed to some other kind of difficulty, such as epistemic). The criteria ought to be "material ability to retract one's membership," not simply relative difficulty. Therefore, if you are an individual with an income high enough to sustain a permanent move to another country, you are culpable for the crimes of the government of your current place of residence (since you could simply move and stop supporting that government with your tax money).
Sound okay to you? It seems like a parallel case to me. Every American who thinks that the Bush adminstration has committed atrocities and can afford to move somewhere else (perhaps Canada?) is responsible for those atrocities - every Gitmo, every Abu Ghraib, every violation of privacy - regardless of whether they think it a better place to live or just don't want to move.
Adrienne:
Focusing on the second sentence, I have to laugh at least a little bit. If voting for a politician who does bad things makes you responsible for those bad things, then maybe I've been right all this time not to vote: no worries about the blood on my hands from something I couldn't have foreseen anyway. (In other words, a vote for Bush isn't a mortal sin, just an unfortunate bad choice - or maybe just a venial sin.)
[Dear Lord, this is a long comment. My apologies; I promise I won't be this verbose again for quite some time.]
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 1, 2008 6:38 PM
Christian Cynic wrote:
Yes, I do believe that voting for a politician who "does bad things" makes you a teensy bit responsible for those bad things. As does the Catholic Church, I might add; they have stepped up pressure on people not to vote for anyone who opposes making abortion illegal *upon pain of mortal sin*. A mortal sin makes you worthy of hell in Catholic doctrine, btw.
What individual Catholics in the US or elsewhere believe really doesn't matter when you consider all of the damage that the Catholic hierarchy does in the United States and elsewhere. The Roman Catholic Church is a harmful, inflexible, and regressive denomination, period, notwithstanding the decency or beliefs of individual Catholics. Supporting it in any way shape or form does not help to advance human reason or human rights. Not to mention that individual Catholics in the US are indeed growing more conservative, thanks to hijinks like the pressure to vote "the right way" I cited previously.
Better to get people away from supporting the Catholic Church in any way, shape, or form, IMHO. I'm not proposing this be done by force, of course, but by reasoning and argument. Encouraging thinking people to abandon Catholicism doesn't preclude those from belonging to other less politically motivated and more progressive Christian denominations, either, so I'm not proposing an attack on all forms of Christianity. I'm not a "Sam Harris" type atheist, believing that religion can be done away with or that any form of religious belief is necessarily a bad thing. I'm all for taking the "live and let live" and "let's all get along and respect each other" approach with religion, as long as that religion returns the favor! Catholicism certainly does not.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 1, 2008 7:25 PM
Adrienne, I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree with much of what you've written, but one thing does bother me:
Source? I know there's a strong Catholic tradition going back to Augustine (c.f. The City of God) to link morality and political action, but a mortal sin? Even that seems too far gone for them.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 1, 2008 8:40 PM
Christian Cynic, here are some sources: direct hits from a google search. I'm disabling the direct links so that this post doesn't get suspended pending Ed's approval. To make them work as URLs, just put "http://" in front of them:
www.catholic-truth.info/misc/vote.htm
www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
www.michaeljournal.org/proabort.htm
www.coloradocollege.edu/dept/en/cos/1/coloradobishop.asp
At least one archbishop said that voting for Kerry was a mortal sin:
And, of course, it's starting to come up during this presidential election cycle:
abajournal.com/news/law_prof_denied_communion_for_supporting_obama/
Posted by: Adrienne | August 1, 2008 9:08 PM
And Christian Cynic, I'm really not saying this in a nasty way, but I don't believe you really understand Roman Catholicism. The fact that you were unaware of the RCC hierarchy's increasing pressure on American Catholics to vote solely according to the abortion issue on pain of mortal sin is a dead giveaway of your lack of knowledge in this area. I get the feeling you are a Christian of some stripe but not a Catholic. Am I right on that?
Personally, I'm an ex-Catholic, have been around Catholics my whole life, and I was educated at an Opus-Dei run high school. I used to be a very staunchly faithful and practicing Catholic. I still interact with Catholics regularly and frequently, as I volunteer to escort womens' clinic patients past screaming Catholic abortion protesters every few weeks.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 1, 2008 9:18 PM
Sorry, OT, but anybody know whats up with Pharyngula?
It shows as unavailable???
Have the seed overlords taken control?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | August 1, 2008 9:24 PM
First of all, an apology. I'm sorry Adrienne. When I compared your assertion;
atheists are a tiny minority of the general public
with e.g. Dr X's (paraphrasing)
evil nutcases are a tiny minority of the catholic population
I should have been more clear. I mistakenly implied that your opinions were somewhat similar to theirs. I was wrong.
I do think the methods of argument are similar and both equally wrong. It was not your lie I objected to, but one you seem to have been deceived by.
As I understand it, the 'no true scotsman' fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) arises when statistical evidence does not support a conclusion, so the sample size or overall population is adjusted to try and make it fit. Let's look at some evidence;
www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm
www.hollywoodjesus.com/comments/david/2004/11/major-decline-in-church-attendance.html
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/novemberweb-only/145-42.0.html
atheism.about.com/od/aboutchristianity/a/demographics.htm
theologica.blogspot.com/2005/06/how-many-americans-really-attend.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Church_attendance
Some of the links above (a by-no-means exhaustive list) are more reliable than others but they show some things quite clearly. Such as that christian organisations claim about 75% of the population (of USA) as members or supporters (with atheists about 15% and the rest as non-christian religions); that people exaggerate their church attendance in polls that show about 40% as regular church goers; and that measures of church attendance by head-count show that only about 25% from all denominations actually practice their faith (to repeat the phrase I used in earlier posts).
Given that a basic tenet of religion is to attend church every week (and on holy days), the figure for those that (again as I said earlier) reaffirm their support for child rape is basicly that ~25% and I condemn each and every one of them.
The good news is in the difference between that 25% actual support and the ~75% claimed as support by religious organisations. It looks like half the population are not supporters of religion and a massive three quarters are not in favour of child molestation.
Given that, it seems that you as an atheist can out yourself to a random passer-by and you have a 2 in 3 chance that they will respond "hey, so am I" and you make a new friend. The question is why so many atheists are scared to speak out and what can we do to help them?
If you are skeptical of the statistical claims linked to earlier, do your own survey. Hang out near your local church of a sunday and count them, but be discrete as they are dangerous when provoked. Better still, get together with some friends and openly stand outside the church with placards detailing their atrocities, but don't forget to record your data in the fracas that ensues.
Posted by: eddie | August 2, 2008 2:04 PM