Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy is now claiming that PZ Myers has violated both the constitution and the law:
We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.
Pray tell, which provision of the constitution has he violated? Even if you believe - wrongly - that the first amendment does not protect what he has said or done, that still wouldn't mean he's violated the constitution, you clueless dolts.
The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation's constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few. Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper.
Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. The first amendment absolutely protects freedom from religion, meaning freedom from the imposition of your religious rules on those who do not share your religion. You want to excommunicate someone who "desecrates" your holy cracker? Be my guest. But the constitution absolutely forbids the government from enforcing your religious laws on those who are not members of your church.
Lies and hate speech which incite contempt or violence are not protected under the law.
Lies are irrelevant, they have nothing to do with this case. But yes, hate speech is protected under the law in this country. The only ones who have incited violence here are your followers, who have threatened the life of Webster Cook and PZ Myers over and over again. PZ didn't incite violence against anyone. Perhaps we should arrest Bill Donohue for inciting violence instead?
Hence, inscribing Swastikas on Jewish synagogues or publicly burning copies of the Christian Bible or the Muslim Koran, especially by a faculty member of a public university, are just as heinous and just as unconstitutional.
Inscribing swastikas on a Jewish synagogue is illegal because it's trespassing and vandalism. Burning a copy of the Bible or the Quran are, in fact, legally protected in this country - provided the person burning the books actually own the books. These priests seem to have a difficult time recognizing that the U.S. constitution is not identical to their canonical law.
Individual freedoms are limited by the boundaries created by the inalienable rights of others. The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.
No it doesn't. Freedom of religion means you get to practice your religion and believe in the tenets of your faith; it does not mean that other people don't get to criticize those tenets and practices. If the first amendment does not protect criticism of religion, it protects nothing at all.
Isn't it curious how those who object to the desecration of a cracker seem to have no problem desecrating the constitution and subverting the most basic notions of human liberty?
Politics
Comments
Cannibal Cult
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 4, 2008 9:30 AM
Maybe these guys should read their Bible's:
Matthew 7:3
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Yes, your freedoms are circumscribed by the inalienable rights of others. Which means that your freedom to practice your religion as you choose is circumscribed by the freedom of others to practice religion as they choose. PZ Myers is an atheist blasphemer, and on his own time in his own home he blasphemed. He's free to do that.
What scares me is that the Confraternity of Priests aren't alone in believing that "My freedom of religion means that you don't have freedom of religion." They, like many people, see freedom as applying only to themselves and serving as a restriction on others. The fact that they see the mere private expression of a view hostile to their own as a threat to their "freedom" is indicative of an authoritarian mindset.
Posted by: Wes | August 4, 2008 9:37 AM
Ed, I just can't understand why some people think the first amendment doesn't protect people from religion. Even some religious sermons of the founding era, especially sermons 5 to 10 years before the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, supported freedom from religion.
Posted by: Goldbrick4 | August 4, 2008 9:56 AM
I've stayed well away from crackergate so far for the same reason I don't post on Pharyngula generally, I just don't want to scroll through hundreds of comments to see if anyone has replied to something I said.
Anyway now the whole thing is dying down I'll risk saying something. The catholic side seem to be preparing a case study of hypocrisy, consider.
PZ Myers is accused of inciting violence. The only ones on record as doing so are Catholics.
Myers is accused of attacking religious freedom, but it is Catholics who want to stop him expressing an opinion on religion.
Another point that I haven't seen bought up (though as I say I don't bother to read very long comments threads). A common Catholic criticism of atheism is that materialism, defined as the philosophical view that only matter and energy exist leads to (or is the same as) materialism in the colloquial sense of valuing posessions more than people. Who is valuing a posession (a cracker) more than the lives and livelihoods of real human beings?
Posted by: Matty | August 4, 2008 10:13 AM
Personally PZ annoys the living hell out of me. However in this case I am finding his antics right on the money. Its really about time we deal with the catholic mysticism and the politicians and other leaders who buy into it. As someone brought up in the Catholic church I am amused to no end by the overreaction of its supporters in this case.
Posted by: yoshi | August 4, 2008 10:19 AM
It's already been torn apart over at pharyngula. It is shocking how many christians appear not to know their basic rights or know their own constitution.
I would say put it in the front of the bible, however i have the feeling that not a lot of the bibles get read either considering some of the statements i've seen that are apparently made from it.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 4, 2008 10:26 AM
Don't be silly, Matty, the cracker isn't a possession. It is more even than a human being—it is a god. Or a third of a god. Or a little piece of a third of a god...
Ed, did you see the Volokh Conspiracy post/comments on this? I was surprised/disappointed at the number of lawyers/hangers on who thought that the wafer must be considered stolen property because according to Canon law it couldn't be given to PZ. This doesn't hold any water to me (for reasons also clearly expressed on the VC post) but a lot of people are willing to leave behind their usual sanity on this issue. I'd like to see some proof that the Church makes any effort to ensure only Catholics in a state of grace get the host before I would entertain any idea that it would have to be "stolen."
Anyway, this all ties back to the awful defamation of religion crap we've been hearing for so long now. "Congress shall make no law" now somehow means that regular people aren't allowed to say your beliefs make no sense? Sorry, guys.
Posted by: nicole | August 4, 2008 10:35 AM
I would also point out that the CCC is not breaking any new ground here. It's always been fashionable to blame a hated group for, among other things, inciting the hatred. Most anti-gay rhetoric boils down to the very same thing.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 4, 2008 10:37 AM
From the late great Robert G. Ingersoll, 1874;
It is claimed that God wrote a book called the Bible, and it is generally admitted that this book is somewhat difficult to understand. As long as the church had all the copies of this book, and the people were not allowed to read it, there was comparatively little heresy in the world; but when it was printed and read, people began honestly to differ as to its meaning. A few were independent and brave enough to give the world their real thoughts, and for the extermination of these men the church used all her power. Protestants and Catholics vied with each other in the work of enslaving the human mind. For ages they were rivals in the infamous effort to rid the earth of honest people. They infested every country, every city, town, hamlet and family. They appealed to the worst passions of the human heart. They sowed the seeds of discord and hatred in every land. Brother denounced brother, wives informed against their husbands, mothers accused their children, dungeons were crowded with the innocent; the flesh of the good and true rotted in the clasp of chains; the flames devoured the heroic, and in the name of the most merciful God, his children were exterminated with famine, sword, and fire. Over the wild waves of battle rose and fell the banner of Jesus Christ. for sixteen hundred years the robes of the church were red with innocent blood. The ingenuity of Christians was exhausted in devising punishment severe enough to be inflicted upon other Christians who honestly and sincerely differed with them upon any point whatever.
Give any orthodox church the power, and to-day they would punish heresy with whip, and chain, and fire. As long as a church deems a certain belief essential to salvation, just so long it will kill and burn if it has the power. Why should the church pity a man whom her God hates? Why should she show mercy to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will burn in eternal fire? Why should a Christian be better than his God? It is impossible for the imagination to conceive of a greater atrocity than has been perpetrated by the church. Every nerve in the human body capable of pain has been sought out and touched.
Posted by: RAM | August 4, 2008 10:37 AM
I never understood it either. It's not even possible to have freedom of religion without freedom from it. A guy can't be free to practice his religion without being protected from having other religions forced on him for crying out loud.
Posted by: SeanH | August 4, 2008 10:38 AM
RAM - Nice quote. Here's another:
Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven.
~Mark Twain
Posted by: Taz | August 4, 2008 10:49 AM
TAZ, I love Twain's quotes, real genius, thank you.
Posted by: RAM | August 4, 2008 10:55 AM
OK, clearly this group of priests and deacons (and let us note the group claims only 600 of such as members) is going way out of bounds. Neither Mr. Myers and the student who began this whole affair has violated any law or secular Constitution. Certainly the church has every right, and quite frankly an obligation to its congregants, to bar either man from all Catholic churches (they cannot be excommunicated, as Ed suggests, unless they are already Roman Catholic) and religious institutions, but they cannot go farther than that - any more than they can demand Cindy McCain be denied the rights of a married woman just because her husband is still considered married to his first wife under Catholic traditions.
There is no problem with anyone believing in mysticism as long as they do not demand the laws of this country be adapted to reflect those beliefs - that is where I am always concerned about religious politicians of all stripes. How fervently they practice their religions is irrelevant as long as that passion does not lead them to dictate their religion for others - it's the difference between the Barack Obama and Pat Robertson versions of integrating religious and political lives.
However, as much as anyone might believe in freedom of speech and religion, to commend either of these men for their actions is, to me, offensive. I, too was raised Roman Catholic, and believe that such a tradition is as much ethnic as it is religious. I may no longer attend Mass or belive in the transubstantiation, but that does not mean I don't still honor my ancestors who practiced their religion and kept it alive, in secret and at great risk to their lives and property, during the long years of British oppression. I can still admire the dedication to education shown by so many communities of religious women within the church over the centuries while simultaneously decrying the abuses perpetuated by some of those same communities against native peoples or unwed mothers.
That is why I would have to disagree with Ed's other post today on the myth of Obama's being "born Muslim." In the cases of religions like Judaism and Roman Catholicism, where the act of joining a religious community is so entangled with ethnic identity, one is indeed "born ..." I may never again take Communion myself (the ultimate act of separation from the Church), and may even practice another form of religion or spirituality, but I will always be Catholic at some level.
It is that sort of nuance that I find lacking in Mr. Myers' actions. His decision to desecrate the Host serves no purpose but offense. Does he really believe Roman Catholics will abandon their beliefs if he "proves" that the Host is not really blessed or special? Does he think the act of desecration is going to magically transform the Church and force it to actually account for the crimes it, as an institution, has committed in the last few decades? I highly doubt either.
Rather, his actions are simply a big F-You! to the church and it adherents, and by extension all of us in the Catholic family. He has every right to his expression, of course, but he has no right to expect acceptance of his actions. When you deliberately slap someone in the face, they are unlikely to thank you for doing so. He does not deserve threats of either death or arrest, or even loss of job, but I have to agree with this segment from the Confraternity's statement (except the term "unconstitutional")
All Myers has done is create more distrust between communities of faith and of reason, and created more roadblocks to any resolution between those groups. In his high-and-mighty determinination to discredit religious belief entirely, Myers has only reinforced the negative stereotypes those of faith use to discredit athiests and agnostics.
Maybe I'm speaking to a deaf audience on this point, though, as there has certainly been a tendency to ridicule all Catholics and their beliefs on this board as well. In my own life I have probably been guilty of the same forms of intellectual snobbery, even those pointed at my own religion, but as I get older I do believe we have lost a vital part of our culture - the belief that one way we thrive as a society is with a basic level of respect. I haven't seen that from either side in this instance.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 4, 2008 10:59 AM
The government in the US also can't enforce religious laws on those who are members of a church unless there is an associated legal contract (for instance a contract to tithe).
Things can get a bit fuzzy when it comes to church property (as various lawsuits dealing with dissident parishes and dioceses in The Episcopal Church on who owns what will show in the next few months/years). Virginia apparently has a law dealing with dissident churches which raises constitutional issues of government interference with internal church policy.
Posted by: Erp | August 4, 2008 11:08 AM
CPT_Doom -
At what point in our history do you feel we had that "basic level of respect"? The quotes by Twain and Ingersoll given above would seem to indicate it wasn't present in their time. And what about beliefs that were not so mainstream? What about race? The respect you talk about was mainly due to only one point of view being heard.I can respect you, and I can respect your right to believe what you want. I can't respect the belief in transubstantiation itself, because I think it's absurd. Is it disrespectful for me to say that? Maybe, but does that mean I should just keep my mouth shut? I'm not sure that's the way to go.
Posted by: Taz | August 4, 2008 11:15 AM
Is it even theoretically possible for a private individual, invested with no particular office or power by the state, to violate the constitution?
Posted by: DaveL | August 4, 2008 11:33 AM
I don't see how, especially how you could violate the Bill of Rights! If the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy want to say that Myer's speech is not protected by the first amendment, that's one thing-- they'd be wrong, but the claim would at least be coherent. But to say it's unconstitutional is just blatantly idiotic. I find it funny that they chastise Myers for speaking about religion as a biology professor, and yet here they are, a bunch of clergymen, presuming to speak knowledgeably about the constitution when clearly they know less about it than a 5th grade civics student.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 4, 2008 11:40 AM
His decision to desecrate the Host serves no purpose but offense. Does he really believe Roman Catholics will abandon their beliefs if he "proves" that the Host is not really blessed or special? Does he think the act of desecration is going to magically transform the Church and force it to actually account for the crimes it, as an institution, has committed in the last few decades? I highly doubt either.
I disagree with your premise that desecrating a "host" aka cracker serves no purpose. Of course he doesn't believe it will cause Catholics to abandon their beliefs or magically transform the Church. I mean if child molestation doesn't do it, why should cracker crucifixion do it? However, Myers does point out quite well the absurdity of this particular ritual and the depths that many people are inebriated in it. When death threats start rolling in and individuals are being persecuted in their college environment, someone should stand up and point it out in a dramatic fashion. Pissing off Donahue et al, that was just bonus.
Oh and blaming Myers for distrust between reason and insanity faith is akin to blaming evolution for the Nazi's.
Posted by: Lorax | August 4, 2008 11:49 AM
Gretchen sez: I find it funny that they chastise Myers for speaking about religion as a biology professor, and yet here they are, a bunch of clergymen, presuming to speak knowledgeably about the constitution when clearly they know less about it than a 5th grade civics student."
And I find it funny in they same way when they chastise evolution when they know less of nothing of basic biology.
Thank you Taz, you beat me to it. My poorly made point with Ingersoll, (and Twain is great also) is that this discussion/debate is nothing new, and the answer from the religious power has always been sit down and shut up for disbelievers. While PZ was contraversial, and may have been disrepectful of a silly belief system, he has every right to do so, and in that act, question the foundations and rational of religion. Irrationality needs to be questioned more often, not less.
Posted by: RAM | August 4, 2008 11:59 AM
CPT Doom wrote:
No, you're forgetting the context. His act wasn't meant to de-convert Catholics. It was to demonstrate that sacred symbols do not belong in a free society, and "desecration" is not a criminal act.
His action here is roughly analogous to burning an American flag solely to protest a "Flag Protection Amendment." You would not be trying to persuade anyone for or against the war, or for or against America. You would not just be doing it to offend people. There's a larger issue. It's a symbolic act to demonstrate that symbols should not be held sacred in a secular society, and "offense" should not be a crime. Violence to a flag -- or a cracker -- should not be considered equal to physical violence against people just because their feelings are really, really hurt.
Posted by: Sastra | August 4, 2008 12:00 PM
All Myers has done is create more distrust between communities of faith and of reason, and created more roadblocks to any resolution between those groups. In his high-and-mighty determinination to discredit religious belief entirely, Myers has only reinforced the negative stereotypes those of faith use to discredit athiests and agnostics.
Yeah, the negative stereotpye where Myers boo-boo's a cracker, and those of faith go utterly insane with stupidness.
Dude, read the letter from
the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, and look how stupid they are. They're
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy for crying out loud!
If Jesus doesn't like being desecrated while he's inside the cracker, then why doeasn't he just fly out of it in time to spare himself from being desecrated? Don't blame Myers, blame Jesus for acting like a completely irrational idiot all the time.
Posted by: 386sx | August 4, 2008 12:19 PM
I'm pretty sure that the RCC hierarchy knows full well what the US Constitution says and implies. But, truth is what same hierarchy says it is.
If you want to understand the RCC's behavior, you need assume no more than that its prime motive is self-preservation. It's a vicious bureaucracy that will impose itself on people's lives to the extent that it is allowed to grab power. Anybody who stands in the way will be maligned and persecuted to the extent such power is granted.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | August 4, 2008 12:37 PM
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy: A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach.
Gotta love that line! The Confraternity of Catholic Fuddy Duddy!
Posted by: 386sx | August 4, 2008 12:40 PM
What do you think the odds are that these Catholic fanatics will let this issue drop some time in the next five years?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 4, 2008 12:48 PM
@ CPT_Doom
To "desecrate the host" is a meaningless phrase which assumes that the wafer was sacred in the first place. If some people voluntarily enter the state of partial insanity of believing that the wafer was god, we have no business preventing them from doing so, as long as they don't harm others, which in this case, some of these loonies have done and are still proposing.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | August 4, 2008 12:57 PM
These wingnuts aren't trying to win a ConLaw argument; they're trying to out-shout everyone else and bowl everyone over with pure raw emotion, to the point where no one can imagine disagreeing with them again without dealing with a world of unnecessary drama. It's the classic teen-tantrum tactic: "Look how upset I am, there's no way you'll ever get me to reason with you, the only way you'll have any peace is to give me everything I want and never disagree with me again!!" The political right have been doing this by means of the Elian meltdown, the Schiavo meltdown, "nipplegate," the Monica meltdown, etc. etc.; and the religious fruit-bats are doing the same thing, following the lead of $cientology's well-orchestrated bullying tactics -- not to mention those of the radical Muslims.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 4, 2008 1:56 PM
I wrote a polite response containing most of the same substantive criticisms as Ed noted to the blog of the author of this piece (Fr. John Trigilio, Jr.). Wouldn't you know it, the good Fr. didn't post my polite but critical piece, although he did post a few fawning comments.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 4, 2008 2:09 PM
The prpose of desacrating the cracker was not to convert anyone. It was a show of strength. It's prpose is to sow that our opponents are so weak and silly that we can offend them and suffer few cosequences.
Posted by: Bacopa | August 4, 2008 2:09 PM
Uh, I'd rather go with Sastra's explanation of why do it Bacopa. Frankly I think PZ probably didn't think things were going to get this out of hand. Probably he just wanted to express some support for the student being bullied in Florida and to express his disgust over people sending deaths over a cracker. Or maybe not, maybe he did have a better handle on how insane these people are then I do.
CPT_doom, the only offense given to catholics by PZ's actions are those they choose to take from it. Throwing a cracker in a trashcan causes no actual harm to anyone. It's an action with purely symbolic meaning - and the willingness of catholics to respond with real threats only proves PZ's point.
Posted by: Coriolis | August 4, 2008 2:42 PM
I think PZ's intention was also to demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion, American Christians can get every bit as bent out of shape over something trivial as can Muslims abroad. I would say that he succeeded in his demonstration quite well.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 4, 2008 2:47 PM
CPT_Doom,
Your lengthy comment has more than one compelling statement and deserves consideration. You write:
"How fervently they practice their religions is irrelevant as long as that passion does not lead them to dictate their religion for others"
In this you are agreeing with Myer's actions as P.Z. explained them. Certainly he was trying to demonstrate that he had no belief in the holiness of a cracker. However, he was also commenting on the university and catholic communities' reaction to the students actions, which boil down to dictation of their religion for others. You speak of general respect. I submit that Catholics respect the sacrament as their beliefs dictate, while not respecting Myers' right to ignore those beliefs. The concept of being offended does not rise from the actions of others, it is inherent in the reaction of those offended. Don't blame Myers for your belief.
You chastise those who commend Myers, and I'll admit I saw nothing in his proclamation to applaud or denounce, it was merely a public action of dissent that had no real meaning for me. Now, however, I commend Myers completely because he has exposed, through the chosen reaction of some, the hypocrisy and hyper sensitivity rampant in the U.S. Further, he has created a dialog long overdue, and crystallized aspects of religious debate. As an atheist I have no symbols to desecrate so the religious spend their time desecrating my humanity, slandering the science I revere and creating strawmen to support their supernatural vision of life. Rationally, I find that deplorable, but it is offensive of me to say so. I have come to see Myers as a hero for his overt actions, and I'm sorry if you can not respect that.
Posted by: B8ovin | August 4, 2008 2:59 PM
For anyone to claim that my mockery of your religion, no matter how vicious, is a violation of their constitutional rights under the free exercise clause, is for them to demonstrate an astonishing degree of gross ignorance about the American political and legal system.
I may use this in my American gov't class this fall--ought to get the students excited.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 4, 2008 2:59 PM
Raging Bee hit it on the nail head, this is a temper tantrum, pure and simple. People are questioning religous sillyness, and if that gets out of hand, they lose both their powerbase and income. They know it.
Open discussions on the rationality of religion are way past due in our times. Intellegent persons, including our founding fathers and others, as have already been noted above, have come to the same conclusions that Christianity is not the great influence on society their followers wish us to believe. Christianity is a leech on society.
I love Ingersoll, so.....
The highest type of the orthodox Christian does not forget; neither does he learn. He neither advances nor recedes. He is a living fossil embedded in that rock called faith. He makes no effort to better his condition, because all his strength is exhausted in keeping other people from improving theirs. The supreme desire of his heart is to force all others to adopt his creed, and in order to accomplish this object he denounces free thinking as a crime, and this crime he calls heresy. When he had power, heresy was the most terrible and formidable of words. It meant confiscation, exile, imprisonment, torture, and death.
Posted by: RAM | August 4, 2008 3:26 PM
CPT_doom: "I'll always be Catholic at some level."
So, this incident hasn't made you question that at all? As a lapsed Catholic, it sure made me sit up and ponder yet again how many wacked elements my former belief system contains. (I got better...)
(I guess not, if you're still typing "desecration of the Host.")
"one way we thrive as a society is with a basic level of respect"
If you would like to add ... "for the rights of individuals," I'll agree with you.
Posted by: ildi | August 4, 2008 3:28 PM
I posted this on PZ's blog, but it bears repeating. Thomas Jefferson - you know, that godless communist from Virginia - believed Reason was the best medicine for Religion:
Posted by: R Hampton | August 4, 2008 4:14 PM
R Hampton,
He is not arguing for the use of reason against religion, but for the use of reason as opposed to religious coercion. Big difference.
And he was right.
Posted by: heddle | August 4, 2008 4:37 PM
Jefferson himself used reason against religion. Let's not forget this is the guy who snipped all the supernatural portions out of the gospels, and claimed that the virgin birth would one day be thought of along the same lines as Athena being born from Zeus's head. He wasn't motivated only by opposition to religious coercion (although that was certainly an important part of his views on reason). Jefferson also had no problem with using reason to discredit religious dogmas. He did it frequently.
Posted by: Wes | August 4, 2008 4:46 PM
Wes,
That's may all true. I am only pointing out that in R Hampton's TJ quote's TJ is discussing religious coercion.
Now, I don't cat a whit what TJ's beliefs were--personally I think the old fashioned view that he was a deist are almost correct but probably a slight overstatement. If you look at his bible, he left many God references in, such as seek ye first the kingdom of God so I think it is suggestive that he may have been, at least, on the theistic side of the deistic spectrum, but I am by no means an expert on the topic. But I think you are stating it too strongly. He used reason to argue against the supernatural passages in the bible, specifically those suggestive of Christ's deity, but not against religion per se. What is left in TJ's bible could still be a fine basis for a theism--a monotheistic religion (no trinity) with Christ as a great practitioner and teacher. TJ's bible is not an atheistic manifesto.
Posted by: heddle | August 4, 2008 5:07 PM
I didn't claim Jefferson denied God or wrote an "atheistic manifesto". I merely claimed that Jefferson used reason to attack religion, which is clear in his writings.
He did believe in a god. But he was suspicious of religious dogma and organized religion, and he rejected miracles and the supernatural (he even denied that god was supernatural, claiming that [quoting from memory] "to speak of immaterial beings is to speak of nothings...to say that god or the soul is immaterial is to say there is no god, no soul").
As for the deism thing, I've heard Jefferson associated with deists, theists, unitarians, and other religious labels. I don't think it's a good idea to try to pigeonhole Jefferson. He believed God must be a material being, that miracles were fables, that religious institutions corrupt, that superstition enslaved the mind, and that reason should guide all thinking--call that whatever you want.
Posted by: Wes | August 4, 2008 5:39 PM
heddle,
It's true that some Catholics find sacrilegious PZ's use of reason in his sarcastic critique of "the cracker." But why should the transmutation of bread to flesh deserve any more or less respect the religious symbols Mormon's place on their underwear? Why should the Communion wafer escape the skepticism we find valid for those who find Jesus in the form of a potato chip or a piece of toast? Why should Catholic beliefs deserve Constitutional respect not afforded to Scientologist beliefs?
Thomas Jefferson himself used reason to ascertain that the Resurrection and the other miracles mentioned in the Bible were obviously false claims used by the clergy to support their profession. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson believed all the magic and ceremony entwined with the Christian religions weakened the very moral lessons that churches are tasked with teaching. Jefferson wanted to strip all the excesses from those lessons, and that made him a puritanical Calvinist to the logical - and theological - extreme.
While he tended to keep private his religious skepticism, I suspect Jefferson would have emphatically agreed with PZ that it's just a cracker.
Posted by: R Hampton | August 4, 2008 7:12 PM
It's no surprise that almost all of this blog is filed with anti-catholic people. Your comments have very little dept in content and in knowledge, but yet it's filled with hatred.
Your mode here is: Let's blame the Catholics for all that is wrong every where, including your own personal shortcomings which you people are unable to deal with. Jesus himself was killed for what he believed and defended God's truth and the sacredness of His Name to the grave. Your mockery and irreverence gains you nothing. The "freedom" you are so much defending here is nothing but the works of lost soul (PZ Myers) who hates himself. He expresses him self so poorly and so low, showing his lack of education and respect for others. Even when we disagree with others, we must have respect, but PZ doesn't.
All of you who so much defend "your freedom of speech" must respect "other's freedom of speech" without cynicism and hatred.
God bless you all.
Posted by: Ivanyo | August 4, 2008 7:46 PM
Baloney. Respect must be earned, you have no right to it. If a person is not allowed to criticise, be cynical, and indeed be hateful if that's what they want, then there is no freedom of speech. You may disagree with them and say so, that is your freedom of speech, but you may not stifle them by force or threats.
It's easy to defend speech we agree with. It takes real principle to defend it when you don't.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 4, 2008 7:58 PM
R Hampton,
Why are you asking me about Catholics and PZ? I commented only on the interpretation of your TJ quote. You should not, if you did, take it to infer that I disagree with Ed's post.
Posted by: heddle | August 4, 2008 8:11 PM
Ivanyo,
Catholics, like people in general, run the gamut from bad to good. I don't particularly care for Catholics who want the government to enforce respect for religion. Jesus didn't need the respect of Rome, nor did he want it -- a lesson that SOME Catholics ought to remember. Then again, there are Catholics like Fr. Robert Drinan (he passed last year), a Jesuit who became the first Roman Catholic priest to serve as a voting member of Congress.
Posted by: R Hampton | August 4, 2008 8:17 PM
heddle,
You seemed to appreciate only one part of Thomas Jefferson's argument referenced above. And the rhetorical questions regarding Catholicism were applicable to Christianity as well as all other organized religions. For any sect to demand legal protection against the sacrilegious (a form of coercion), it would be in direct violation of the Constitution and the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: R Hampton | August 4, 2008 8:33 PM
The only way I can think of PZ violating the Constitution is: teaching ID as science in the classroom. But that's in his capacity as a teacher in a public school, not as a private individual. It would also require PZ to suffer some severe brain trauma.
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 4, 2008 9:31 PM
The kid should not have disrespected the church service in my opinion. If you do not like what someone is doing do not go. I think it was unwise and disrespectful. I am not a Catholic and would say the same thing to someone who did it to a mosque or Jewish temple...
With my opinion on that stated, this is borderline insanity to call anyone's criticism of religion out of bounds of free speech. This is right up their with the post on blasphemy laws yesterday.
The sad thing is that hundreds will comment on this on Myers site an many here. But Ed rights about the nuts and bolts of what will be a nuse around all our necks yesterday on only a few people comment? THIS IS FUCKING INSANITY! This is not what the Constitution says at all. We need to wake up. Thought crimes are coming real soon. It will not matter if it criticizes homosexuals or church. The point will be no questioning of authority.
Posted by: King of Ireland | August 4, 2008 9:36 PM
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy also claims his wafer desecration on his personal blog somehow violates his role as a biology professor. I guess the priesthood thinks that all occupations and lifestyles are one and the same, that one is one's job, takes one's work home with them, and so on. Funny that they didn't raise nearly the holy-hell about priests buggering boys as they have about some biology professor mutilating a wafer. What a bunch of hysterical, candy-ass, boy-buggering, wafer-munching dipshits.
Posted by: c-serpent | August 4, 2008 9:36 PM
"writes" not "rights" in my last comment
Posted by: King of Ireland | August 4, 2008 9:43 PM
Is it wrong of me to suspect that a post which basically says "Fuck you all" and ends with "God bless you all" is just a tad bit disingenuous?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 4, 2008 9:45 PM
Ivanyo actually wrote:
The only response your post deserves is - you're an idiot.Posted by: Taz | August 4, 2008 10:08 PM
Ivanyo: your complete failure to address a single one of the numerous substantive points raised by this whole episode really doesn't help your case against us alleged "anti-Catholic bigots." What do you have to say about the over-the-top reaction of your fellow Catholics -- even to the point of at least threatened physical violence -- to a mere breach of manners? What is your response to our charge that your whole "transsubstantiation" doctrine is utter nonsense? If you have some reason to believe the reaction of certain Catholics to this whole affair was not as babyish or over-the-top as we say it is, you have yet to share it with us. All you have, in fact, are nothing but tired, groundless ad-hominem attacks.
Your mode here is: Let's blame the Catholics for all that is wrong every where, including your own personal shortcomings which you people are unable to deal with.
Who here has said that? Can you quote one of us saying such a thing? We blame the Catholic Church for the wrongs that are factually and logically traceable to the Catholic Church: you know, idiotic doctrines, opposition to women's equality, the Inquisition, that pedophile-priest thing, total nonsensical ignorance of gays, etc. Care to respond to any of that?
You demand respect for Catholics, but you're not commanding a lot of respect with your "case" here. Hell, I have more respect for Jesus' armpit-hairs than I do for your empty self-pitying tirade. And I'm not even Christian.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 4, 2008 10:30 PM
Gretchen:
During this whole cracker-debacle, I think most of PZ's readers agreed that, based on their actual usages, "God bless you" and "I'll pray for you" are simply another way of saying "Fuck you" in most every case (especially on the internet).
And thus we got such wonderful new sentiments as "Pray off!" and "I prayed for your mother last night".
Childish? Absolutely, but I still heartily agree with it! :D
Posted by: Kaerion | August 4, 2008 11:29 PM
Ivanyo, I try to be more gentle and understanding than many here. But your dumb as shit projection of hatred is getting old. I blame the Catholics, Jews, Christians and atheists that reacted to P.Z. Myers like he had actually killed the pope. I have no hatred for people, though there are some ideas and implementation of those ideas I have distaste for. The only hatred I've seen expressed in this ordeal has come from your side. The only irresponsible and childish behavior has come from your side. So guess what? Fuck you, fuck your god and fuck your cracker. If you don't like it here don't come here, but if you do come here, bring something more than idiotic rantings that blame every one else for being irrational and tjem try to sound magnanimous by saying, "God bless you", when what you really mean is, "You make me sick and I could care less what happens to you, but don't I look nice saying this?"
Posted by: B8ovin | August 5, 2008 12:23 AM
Ivanyo -
When Catholics as a complete whole and by doctrine show respect for all religions not their own, perhaps we can return to the bargaining table. Suppose, even in the case of communion, they accept that the "consecrated" wafer of another church is as much Jesus as at their own Eucharist. That would be a start.
Will the Catholics stop drinking alcohol so as not to offend Muslims? Will they stop working on the Sabbath so as not to offend Jews? Will they stop eating beef so as not to offend Jains? Will they go back to the Native American tribes and apologize for taking their children away to boarding schools and punished them for using their native tongues, in order to separate them from the religions of their ancestors?
What's that? All of the other religions are "false" religions so that they don't deserve the same respect as Catholicism?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 5, 2008 12:42 AM
It seems to me that some Catholics (and I do mean some, not all) haven't gotten used to the idea that the Catholic Church is not the overarching political power that it was in centuries past. Isn't it remarkable how much less polite people are when you can't burn the rude ones alive any more?
Face it people, the Holy Roman Empire is gone, the Inquisition has taken its rightful place in the dustbin of history and none of us non-catholics has to care what your church has to say any more. If PZ offended you then by all means be offended, that is your right. But if you think you can persecute him for his little piece of performance art then tough, those days are gone and may they never return.
Posted by: James K | August 5, 2008 1:07 AM
Show us where anyone here has done anything resembling this, and you might have a valid point.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 5, 2008 1:51 AM
King of Ireland wrote:
Unless there's been some misreporting or new info came out, Webster Cook is Catholic (or at least was at the time of the incident) and (according to Cook) his original intent was to take the not-yet-eaten eucharist to his non-Catholic friend (who was at the mass) for a quick look-see before eating it within the building.
That's when the whole trying-to-pry-Cook's-hand-open-to-get-cracker thing apparently went down. Whatever happened to a "Hey, kid. It's disrespectful to not eat that right away. ... You want to show your friend? Just eat it and go back to your seat, we'll show him later after mass. Now's not appropriate."?
Cook got mad at the lack of respect he received and so retaliated with his own lack of respect by demanding an apology or else his eucharist would remain inside a plastic Ziploc bag instead of being broken down by stomach acid.
The above may or may not be an accurate portrayal depending upon who you think is lying. Especially since news stuff like this:
http://www.wftv.com/news/16900432/detail.html
come up on Google searches. The link goes to a very short blurb about the church group claiming Cook lied about being Catholic.
*shakes head* Whatever.
Oh, by the way, does anyone know what happens if a tabernacle (where they store uneaten blessed eucharists) gets full? Is there any kind of health risk due to rot of the crackers? Thanks.
Posted by: Monimonika | August 5, 2008 2:30 AM
Churches don't fill the tabernacles to full capacity. Usually they only keep a few consecrated extras there. Besides, the risk of them rotting (molding, really) would only be present in a super hot, humid climate and if the church/chapel had no AC. The wafers are basically just baked flour disks. If anything, they'd get stale from sitting out too long in most cases.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 5, 2008 2:45 AM
I can understand their wishes to have their beliefs or practices respected, but, in my rather idealistic stance, you earn respect, you can't demand it.
Posted by: Heraclides | August 5, 2008 5:48 AM
Adrienne wrote:
So, they do empty the tabernacles at least occasionally. Does that mean that there's a point in time when the eucharists automatically stop being blessed and turn back into disposable crackers? Or are they unblessed before spring cleaning is done?
At first I asked just because I'm curious, but now I'm thinking that my questions may not be as OT as I thought. If there's a time limit to how long a eucharist can remain blessed, then the need for the tabernacle comes into question, not to mention the frenzied reactions by those who threatened Cook for (quite reverently) keeping the cracker in a plastic bag. Same goes for if the crackers can be unblessed by a priest.
Posted by: Monimonika | August 5, 2008 7:51 AM
I think they just put the hosts in the tabernacle into the eating/distribution rotation, actually, before they get old enough to get stale. But the custom is to keep at least one consecrated host in the tabernacle at all times, so that people can adore it/pray to it.
Yes and no-- consecrated wafers supposedly stay the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ" until such time as they no longer retain the physical characteristics of bread. So when a wafer eaten by a communicant is digested and broken down by stomach acids, that's when it stops being Jesus, but not before. If a wafer were de-breaded somehow before that time, it would also stop being Jesus; for instance, if it were pulverized into pure powder or dropped into water or some other liquid and it dissolved, then and only then would it no longer be Jesus (goes the dogma). But as long as it remains an intact wafer with all of the essential characteristics of waferness, it can't be un-Transubstantiated. PZ's wafer remained the Body of Christ even in the trash (per Catholic dogma, anyway), because he didn't do something that completely broke the wafer down into powder or dissolved it.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 5, 2008 7:58 AM
Mike,
Mutual respect amongst religions is to "let the other do what they believe is right"; not to mock them or ridicule them for their sacred practices.
Take two neighbors for instance; one likes lots of trees, plants and flowers, the other doesn't, it blocks his view, he likes all concrete, but they both must learn to live next to each other in peace, accepting and respecting their differences. If they don't, life for them and their families will be unhappy and very difficult.
How would PZ like if some one took a picture of his beloved mother, and made it into a grossed porn picture and post it into the internet for millions of people to see it? Do you think PZ would feel offended? do you think he would try to defend his and his mother's honor? If he doesn't, then he is not a worthy human being in my book. We Catholics are defending what is Sacred to us. Mr. PZ can do anything he likes with a "cracker", but to go to the extent of going to a church he doesn't believe in, disguising him self like a thief to take a Host with the only purpose of laughing about it and disrespect and mock the most sacred, the core believe of millions of people, shows that he is a very selfish and a very stupid individual, no different from those who burn churches, or from the KKK.
We Catholics are not perfect and we know our history has many obscure and scary chapters, but we embrace the good that comes from within, not the actions or many bad people, whom like PZ were confused and had no clue as what they were doing. We Catholics regret all of the sins and the scandals these "bad people" have done throughout the centuries.
Take any organization as in our government, the military or any other and you will see that all of them without an exception has had bad people doing bad things from within it's walls. A bad president or bad politicians that do terrible things do not make Our Constitution bad, do they? We do not get angry at people from other countries until they burn and mock our flag! IT'S ALL A MATTER OF PRINCIPAL.
Posted by: Ivanyo | August 5, 2008 1:42 PM
Ivanyo said:
I'm sure he wouldn't be very happy about it, but here's the thing-- I feel quite confident in saying that he would not send death threats to the person who did it, either. Neither would he accuse the person who did so of violating the constitution, or saying that the person in question did not have the right to behave as he/she did. I am quite sure that PZ would denounce such a person's behavior as stupid and hurtful, but he would not try to threaten the person with violence either personally or through government force, because that's what it means to support free speech. If you believe that such a method would make him "not a worthy human being," then I would have to say that you're the one with the problem-- not PZ.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 5, 2008 1:51 PM
Thus spake Ivanyo:
Hmm. I was under the impression that Catholics are supposed to regard all human beings as "worthy."
In any case, Ivanyo, PZ did not "desecrate" the cracker simply to piss people off for no good reason. The motivations for his actions have already been discussed--to show support for a young man who was receiving all sorts of abuse for doing nothing truly wrong, and to demonstrate how irrational many American Christians really can become (ala radical Muslims) in response to perceived slights.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 5, 2008 2:23 PM
Wow, ask a hysteric like Ivanyo to show a little reason, and all you get is more hysteria...
PZ can do anything he likes with a "cracker", but to go to the extent of going to a church he doesn't believe in, disguising him self like a thief to take a Host with the only purpose of laughing about it and disrespect and mock the most sacred, the core believe of millions of people, shows that he is a very selfish and a very stupid individual, no different from those who burn churches, or from the KKK.
A guy who treats a mere wafer with disrespect is no different from an arsonist or America's home-grown terrorists, the KKK? Really? If you're not capable of seeing the objecive differences between the actions of PZ and those of an arsonist or terrorist, then there's really no hope of engaging with you as an adult. Do you really think your hysterical nonsense is earning any respect from anyone? (One huge difference is, PZ isn't endangering any lives. Is that distinction important to you?)
We do not get angry at people from other countries until they burn and mock our flag!
Speak for yourself. WE get angry at them when they kill people, or commit other crimes, with no apparent good cause. Getting angry at them just for burning a flag is a sure sign of feeble-mindedness.
IT'S ALL A MATTER OF PRINCIPAL.
Funny how you confuse the meanings of those two words, "principal" and "principle."
As for how you completely ignore all of the substantive questions we've asked you here, and all the opportunities we gave you to back up your arguments, not so funny. Just tiresome. And kind of sad.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 5, 2008 2:50 PM
Ivanyo, until you either rescind or attempt to justify this quote: "Your mode here is: Let's blame the Catholics for all that is wrong every where...", your blatherings about respect are hypocritical nonsense.
Posted by: Taz | August 5, 2008 2:56 PM
I'm certain he would be offended, but I doubt he would resort to violence, or death threats, or even try to have the offender fired or expelled. A simple "Fuck you" or words to that effect, would probably suffice.
Is it sacred to you? Only the person who acquired the host knows whether it was consecrated or not. Presumably they don't know if PZ used the one they sent in, since he reportedly recieved several. So it's safe to say that nobody really knows whether or not that wafer was consecrated.
Really, you have no idea whether PZ desecrated an object you hold most sacred or simply discarded a useless shred of bread. This pretty much renders all your comparisons moot, and exposes the r