Vox Day, aka Brother Theodore, has weighed in on PZ's threat of sacrilege. It's precisely the kind of inane blather you'd expect from him, including the inevitable "he's a coward because he won't come on my radio show." This git would be out of his depth in a mud puddle.
Dispatches from the Creation Wars
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Profile
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Search
Recent Comments
- Sesli Chat on America's Christian Colonies
- democommie@FuckAlanWestthatfuckingfucker.com on War Criminal Now a Republican Congressman
- democommie@FuckRonPaulthefuckingfucker.com on Ron Paul Rejects Evolution
- Stu on War Criminal Now a Republican Congressman
- democommie on Ron Paul Rejects Evolution
- Allison on Ron Paul Rejects Evolution
- DingoJack on America's Christian Colonies
- Robin on The Latest Attack on Planned Parenthood
- democommie on Closing Up Shop
- mote on Closing Up Shop
Recent Posts
- Closing Up Shop
- AIG and Wingnut on Wingnut Crime
- Behe and the Contingency of History
- Congratulations, Vic Hutchinson
- Big Bad Bob Enyart
- The Madness of Ron Wyatt
- Ellis Washington Projects About Projection
- Creationism on Dallas School Website
- Hovind Crony Blathers About Attenborough
- Not So Pyrrhic Victory in Texas
Blogroll
Science Blogs
- The Panda's Thumb
- Carl Zimmer
- The Austringer
- Evolution Blog
- De Rerum Natura
- Evolving Thoughts
- Preposterous Universe
- Butterflies and Wheels
- John Lynch
- Unscrewing the Inscrutable
- NCSE's Legal Blog
- Red State Rabble
- Thoughts From Kansas
- Appellate Blog
- Volokh Conspiracy
- Jack Balkin
- Legal Theory Blog
- ACS Blog
- Reason and Liberty
- Overlawyered
- Supreme Court Times
- Positive Liberty
- Reason's Hit and Run
- Andrew Sullivan
- Talking Points Memo
- Daily Kos
- Media Matters
- Patterico's Pontifications
- Classical Values
- Virginia Postrel
- Jim Anderson
- Strange Doctrines
- John Scalzi
- The Pryhills
- Temperantia
- Rev. Spork
- Electric Commentary
- Two Aarons
- Farkleberries
- Paul Phillips
- Henry Neufeld
- Talk.Origins
- Talk.Reason
- Antievolution.org
- National Center for Science Education
- Talk.Design
- Michigan Citizens for Science
Archives
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
Other Information
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.
Ed's Audio and Video
Declaring Independence podcast feed
YearlyKos 2007
Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement
Audio of Greg Raymer Interview
E-mail Policy
Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.
My Ecosystem Details
« Youtube Gems: Janeane Garafalo | Main | Jesse Helms for AIDS »
Vox Day Weighs In
Posted on: July 19, 2008 9:09 AM, by Ed Brayton
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Politics
Comments
As it happens, I am currently reading The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day. If he is weighing in, the scale must be pretty sensitive to detect such a lightweight.
Here's a gem:
Really? Imagine walking through a room full of people who don't believe you exist. Literally, I mean. You would be run into by quite a few people if you didn't realize that they are not going to take any steps to avoid collisions.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 19, 2008 9:40 AM
He has a radio show? Who the heck gave this Neo-confederate. dominionist hack a radio show?
And who the heck names themselves "Voice of that time when the sun is up"? I think he needs to crack a Latin thesaurus. (lame joke, I know, but I've always wanted to make it.)
Posted by: Julian | July 19, 2008 10:10 AM
Hmm. that should be a comma after neo-confederate. For some reason, I keep hitting the period key instead of the comma today.
Posted by: Julian | July 19, 2008 10:23 AM
Posted by: Taz | July 19, 2008 10:36 AM
What "materiel consequences" is he talking about?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 19, 2008 10:50 AM
Oh, Brother Theodore! That takes me back.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 19, 2008 11:22 AM
@gingerbaker
My guess is being thrown in jail for not paying taxes and threatening a judge. Oh wait - sorry - that's Vox Day's father. Never mind.
Posted by: yoshi | July 19, 2008 11:23 AM
"For some reason, I keep hitting the period key instead of the comma today."
That time of the month, Julian?
lol
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 19, 2008 1:41 PM
"If he does it he's an evil bastard and if he doesn't he's a coward."
I'd more argue that he's an idiot if he doesn't because it was obvious from the evidence he cited in the very post that he threatened cracker abuse that there would be material consequences. I do not agree that there should be consequences, but it should've been obvious that the mere mention of attacking special crackers would stir the waters.
""No rational man's actions are dictated by the beliefs held by others, however absurd those beliefs might be."
Really? Imagine walking through a room full of people who don't believe you exist. Literally, I mean. You would be run into by quite a few people if you didn't realize that they are not going to take any steps to avoid collisions."
So tell me which is what hurts the man in your hypothetical situation: the belief of the people or the actions they perform? Exactly, I thought so. In what PZ Myers has written it is a belief of the people, and not their actions towards him, that causes him to act irrationally.
You would've done better to argue that it is best to avoid a peson who believes they should kill you so the rational man would be affected by that belief. Though even then he would have to act in some way to show you he wanted to kill you, like by saying it. Then it's not so much a belief as a threat.
PZ also used the word "must", whereas your man doesn't have to move out of the way. His actions are not dictated by others beliefs or actions, its just advisable that he react to how they are acting.
PZ Myers actions are idiotic and irrational, that is the only logical conclusion. I'm not saying he's an idiot or he is irrational in general but he is in this case.
Posted by: Marc | July 19, 2008 7:45 PM
Marc:
That's lovely, but are you going to make an argument at some point? An assertion may well be both logical and reasonable, but the assertion alone is not nearly enough to ground it in reason.
So, let's hear an explanation for why PZ's threat, not action, is both idiotic and irrational?
I can think of several good reasons to threaten to desecrate the wafer, as well as to follow through with it -- preferably by conducting a "scientific" experiment.
If you agree that even one of those reasons have some merit, you have just contradicted your own argument.
Posted by: Damian | July 19, 2008 8:44 PM
Vox day is a hothead, and quite amusing...he has simply turned the New Atheists tactics back on themselves and they don't like how it looks.
But PZ is a coward, with little man's syndrome.
(What is it with all these homely guys with beards and blogging?)
Posted by: Tiny Tim | July 20, 2008 6:47 AM
"That's lovely, but are you going to make an argument at some point? An assertion may well be both logical and reasonable, but the assertion alone is not nearly enough to ground it in reason."
You'll note that I used a definition of irrational that VD stated in his column. I argued that point in the first post too. Forgive me, but I thought that the assertion was evident.
"So, let's hear an explanation for why PZ's threat, not action, is both idiotic and irrational?
I can think of several good reasons to threaten to desecrate the wafer, as well as to follow through with it -- preferably by conducting a "scientific" experiment."
Obviously nothing supernatural will happen to him if he desecrates, or threatens to desecrate, the cracker (and he could do that without mentioning it on his blog if it were for that reason), so I can only assume you mean an experiment to see how people will react. It is irrational and idiotic because, as I already mentioned in my first post, he already knows how people will react and has an example. Only an idiot could fail to predict it would cause controversy, offend people, and create hate mail. What then will he gain by this brave experiment? I suppose you think that it's okay to bully in the name of scientific experiments as well? Once again, it is irrational to be affected by peoples beliefs no matter how irrational one views those beliefs.
It is also irrational and idiotic because if he conducts the "experiment" then he is gaining little, if anything at all, but offending many people and risking consequences for his, to him at least, pointless actions. He didn't state it was a scientific experiment but that he "must" do it because he opposes the idea of deeply held religious beliefs. This is not an experiment but an attack upon the beliefs of others that in no way affects him. As both VD and I have argued, that is irrational. He is doing this to upset people, you think that's rational?
Please feel free to enlighten me on the benefits to scientific knowledge of desecrating crackers that are not obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. Please tell me why it is worth hurting peoples feelings and cherished beliefs in the pursual of these massive scientific gains. I happen to be a Deist, so the only way in which I care about those crackers are because I care about the people who believe they are holy. Yes, I think their belief is irrational and absurd but I don't feel the need to offend their irrational belief. I simply don't care about, thus I respect, the belief because it doesn't affect me.
So what has PZ accomplished with his threat? I bet I can argue the same thing through common sense and a five year olds understanding of human nature.
Posted by: Marc | July 20, 2008 8:15 AM
First, Marc, learn to use blockquotes. It's really hard to tell what is being quoted, and what is your comment.
In my example, it is the fact that people walking through a room are unaware of the effectively invisible man that is the problem. Otherwise, they are just walking through a room. When we walk through a crowd, we expect people to act a certain way (specifically, to avoid collisions).
Of course it is actions rather than beliefs that do actual harm, but belief drives actions.
To put it another way, I have sometimes seen people driving with "God is my co-pilot" bumper stickers where they had cut out the "co-". If I believed that these people really thought God was driving the car, I would have acted very differently.
Posted by: BaldApe | July 20, 2008 12:46 PM
Vox does not have a radio show and Yoshi, what does Vox Day's father's actions have to do with Vox.
Vox wants a public debate with PZ but PZ won't debate.
And don't use the PZ doesn't need to debate such an obvious fool as Vox. If Vox is that stupid, then PZ ought to be able to mop up the floor with him and make him look like a fool.
Posted by: Lamont | July 20, 2008 12:59 PM
Why should PZ bother with this pseudo-punk twit? Just because I could mop the floor with someone doesn't make debating him worth my time. Perhaps PZ feels the same way. Besides, why lend credibility to a WorldNutDaily hack by engaging him at length? Dismiss him with snide laughter; that is all he merits.
Posted by: Robski | July 20, 2008 1:10 PM
Marc - Don't wish that Pox Dei's dad had used a condom. Then he wouldn't have spread VD into the world. :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 20, 2008 1:33 PM
Marc: Exactly, I thought so. In what PZ Myers has written it is a belief of the people, and not their actions towards him, that causes him to act irrationally.
Well, actually no, it was the actions of radical Catholics who were harassing (and even sending death threats to) Webster Cook that motivated PZ to engage in this stunt.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 20, 2008 2:18 PM
Gingerbaker asked "What material consequences?". Getting fired from his job at the public university. Even though he is tenured, it would be an unwise move for PZ to follow through with his threat to desecrate the "crackers". Also Ed, in his article, Vox offers to debate PZ on Minnesota Atheist Radio.
Posted by: jcw | July 20, 2008 3:21 PM
From Marc's comment on July 20,2008 8:15am
I would guess that what PZ hopes to prove to the world is that the communion wafer that Roman Catholics refer to as the "host" is "just a frackin' cracker." In other words, it isn't the sacred flesh, of the alleged son, of the deity depicted in the Christian Bible. It is only a piece of bread of some sort and whatever PZ does to it, he will suffer no consequences that are meted out by the deity whose flesh it allegedly represents.
I think that it is meant to be done in the same vein as when conquering peoples built their religious edifices atop the religious edifices of the conquered. The conquerors seek to prove the impotence of the conquered people's deities, symbols and edifices.
Posted by: kevin colquitt | July 20, 2008 4:42 PM
In a more enlightened society, you would still have the same rights to be as ignorant as a Vox Day, or as hateful as an Ann Coulter, there just wouldn't be any market for it.
I suppose that's what drives me nuts about these idiots. It's not that they are idiots, although that's regrettable, but that they are idiots with a huge fan base, who make more money peddling ignorance, bigotry, and superstition than I likely ever will creating educational scientific media.
Also, please note, in any commentary about the cracker incident, that PZ blogged on the matter after it had already escalated to death threats. He didn't just pick this tradition out of a hat to make fun of poor Catholics who were keeping to themselves.
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 21, 2008 8:42 AM
Shorter Marc: I'm a Deist (...criminy), which means I'm sensitive to people's beliefs. Except PZ Myers, whose beliefs are wrong, and who is a prick.
On a side note, I believe that VD has been replaced in the current vernacular by STD.
Posted by: OneMadClown | July 21, 2008 11:58 AM
Nope the Random House Unabridged and Brittanica has both.
Besides it was Marc who splashed VD around, I prefer my version - ;)DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 21, 2008 12:13 PM
"And don't use the PZ doesn't need to debate such an obvious fool as Vox."
Why not? It's a perfectly sound reason.
"If Vox is that stupid, then PZ ought to be able to mop up the floor with him and make him look like a fool."
And I could beat a double amputee at tennis. So what? How would making a fool look like a fool enhance P.Z.'s stature? Really, he has no reason to accept V.D.'s challenge. I don't think the heavyweight boxing champion would grant me a title shot just because I think I'm a badass. That's not to say that P.Z. is a debate king or anything, it's just that he has nothing to gain. What would be the topic of the debate, anyway? If it is the wafer thing, that is too stupid to argue about. If it is science, Vox is WAY out of his league. If it is about religion, I'm not sure anyone would be interested in what these men have to say.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | July 21, 2008 1:05 PM
I don't know which makes me take this Vox Daily article more seriously:
- the assertion that stealing and burning a yarmulke (whilst filming) is equivalent to EITHER the removal of an uneaten Eucharist from a church OR the threat of performing some vague, unspecified act of disrespect on another Eucharist
- the claim that PZ Myers is unable to understand at all the issue at stake because he is "socially autistic"
- or the large ad mid-column offering me free solutions to my man-boobs and belly fat.
Posted by: Michaela | July 21, 2008 2:30 PM
Lamont:
Don't get into politics, Lamont. It's a given that a candidate never debates when he or she is ahead in the race. It's the losers who always issue such challenges.
Posted by: JakeR | July 21, 2008 4:49 PM
Walking through a crowded room in a way to avoid collisions is one thing, averring things with your speech and behavior, which you do not really believe, is another. In the latter case you become a liar and hypocrite, and your life lacks all personally integrety, being rendered basically meaningless.
Posted by: frank burns | November 6, 2008 9:36 AM