When does a person's religious beliefs constrain someone who is not religious? What sorts of redress can a religious person expect in a secular society?
These questions arise from the recent to-do about PZ Myers defense of the stealing of a communion wafer from a Catholic church. As a result, he got death threats, attempts to have him fired from his university position, and general abuse while the correspondents were simultaneously affirming the niceness of Catholics [see here, here and here for example]. Meanwhile, the Catholic Cardinal of Sydney, George Pell, appears not to have learned anything about sexual abuse by priests, claiming that it's OK so long as it's serious love on the part of the priest. We'd protest about this when the Pope arrives, but there's a $5500 fine for doing so.
What in the hell is going on?
To answer this, one needs, I think, to see what the benefits of being a member of a religion are, in order to see what is at stake. A religious adherent can appeal to coreligionists for aid and succor as it used to be called. This is a classic case of reciprocal altruism, in which the religion acts as an honest advertisement of commitment, or "costly signaling", which is why religions require acceptance by their adherents of absurd ideas, like the "fact" that the communion wafer is literally the flesh of Jesus [see this pdf].
So when these costly signals are challenged, the reactions get heated. There's a lot at stake here - the unity of the entire community and the reciprocal altruism that it provides (not to mention the return on investment that each individual hopes to get on the effort already made - losing status by defecting from your community is not helpful, and so a kind of gambler's ruin occurs). Obviously one must forcibly protect this.
But that's the internal view; what about the external? Why should I, a non-Catholic (or, if we consider other acts of "desecration" like the smearing of pig fat on Jewish synagogues and Islamic Mosques, non-Jew and non-Muslim), give any consideration to the concerns of adherents in a secular society? More to the point, what protection should the state provide them?
First point is this: a nonbeliever cannot commit blasphemy. To blaspheme, one must be within the set of belief and ritual contrasts of the faith community. Smearing pig fat is merely unhygienic behaviour to me, and throwing wafers on the ground is merely littering (and temporary littering at that, as it will be eaten by birds and ants pretty quickly. As sins go, that act of desecration is quite ecofriendly). This means, so far as I can tell, that a secular state cannot enforce anti-blasphemy provisions, as to do so forcibly includes nonbelievers in the faith community, which automatically means the state is not a secular state. It also means that pretty quickly the state becomes a one-religion state, but that's another matter.
So protection against desecration cannot be justified on grounds of blasphemy. What about offense? Clearly a society that lacks all respect for others will shortly fail to be a society; and it is good manners not to offend someone unnecessarily. The very term "polite" indicates this, as it literally means the rules of the city (polis). In a multi-moré society if you do not avoid constantly insulting people you will cause social disruption. But a state cannot legislate that standard either; such rules evolve rapidly and without regard to the special interests of all groups. The best one can do is have laws of disruptive behaviour and leave it to a current judge to determine if the behaviour is beyond the pale or not. When I was a kid, the term "bloody" was a very dirty word. Now it's merely quaint.
So while I might think that the original wafer thief's actions were disrespectful, in no way are they actions that should permit the kinds of reactions he, and Myers, have garnered. Sure, I think Paul's reaction to religion is often over the top, but he has that right. If he doesn't, or if that right is removed from him, the next step is for Protestants to remove the Catholic's right to protest, and then for the Baptists to remove the Episcopalian's right to protest, and eventually we get another Thirty Years War.
So if the cost-benefit analysis is done from a global perspective, for society as a whole as well as from a Veil of Ignorance about which religion will always be on top, it serves not only the irreligious freethinker's interests, but also that of all religions, not to enforce or permit the enforcement of religious standards on the non-religious. And I have a question for those Catholics who are outraged: is Jesus such that being eaten also by ants and birds, who presumably are part of His Plan, is going to diminish Him? Surely it begins and ends with the thief and his moral standing? In which case, why the trouble? Or were Pink Floyd right when they sang
Far away, across the field
The tolling of the iron bell
calls the faithful to their knees
to hear the softly spoken magic spell?
Brain & Behavior
Humanities & Social Science
Stumble It!
Comments
I wanted to disagree with you, but then you go and quote Floyd! That and the fact I think you are basically right on, interfered with my basic confrontational nature.
Posted by: Lorax | July 12, 2008 12:36 AM
Crap. I just posted something that says something sort of like this, but less elegantly.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | July 12, 2008 1:26 AM
Great minds, and yours and mine, think alike...
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | July 12, 2008 2:04 AM
I have no idea what the wafer stealer's motivation was, and think PZ's comments were insensitive and he was being a jerk, but that's the beauty of free speech. I don't have to like what he said; too bad for me.
Posted by: Susan Silberstein | July 12, 2008 2:48 AM
This is not merely a free speech issue; this is an active call for the desecration of very important aspect of Catholic theology.
If he called for the stealing and then public desecration of a scroll from a Jewish house of worship, do you think he would be anything other than a rabid anti-semite and fired immediately?
PZ Myers is not speaking his mind - he is calling for acts of desecration and hate against the Catholic people.
Big difference.
This call for vile action on the part of his followers is a hate crime - nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 4:19 AM
Brett, I think you have the analogy wrong. rather, given that the wafers are mass produced and distributed, what Myers proposes is a bit more like going into a hotel and chucking the gideon bible in the trash.
Posted by: peter | July 12, 2008 4:40 AM
Yeah, except his initial provocation, as I recall, was to ask his readers to score him some consecrated wafers: in other words, to steal them.
If I ask my readers to hack John's server and steal all his unpublished papers, for example, so that I could print them out and piss on them, would that be considered harmless?
I think Bill Donohue is a boob--and in many ways was happy to take the bait on this stunt. But and incitement to theft is an incitement to theft.
Posted by: John Farrell | July 12, 2008 6:11 AM
Theft? Nonsense. Myers hasn't encouraged anyone to take anything that wasn't given to them. Once the magician in the church gives somebody the magical cracker, it's theirs to do with as they please.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 12, 2008 6:33 AM
Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.
"Do what it takes to get some" is not an incitement to theft? Can you find me an attorney that will agree with that?
Posted by: John Farrell | July 12, 2008 7:25 AM
One of the Boy Scout laws is reverent. Reverent is defined as not only adhering to one's own religious beliefs, but also respecting the belief of others. I am Protestant. Although I disagree with the beliefs of Catholics (as well as Jews, Muslims, Druids, etc), I respect their rights to worship in their own fashion.
Removing the "magical cracker" from the church is an act of desecration. If you don't believe in the religious symbolism of the Eucharist, you don't take it.
Posted by: Charlie | July 12, 2008 7:38 AM
"Do what it takes to get some"
presumably, go to church and take part in a mass. theft? hm.
Posted by: alex | July 12, 2008 7:39 AM
Am I right in thinking your underlying message is "live and let live"?
Two factors seem to have fueled this hoo-hah: (1) Americans' obsession with their individual rights, especially the right of free speech (it's more of a privilege than a right in most countries), and (2) the aggressive nature of American society: whatever the issue, attack, attack, attack.
I am a profound atheist, but I will always remove my hat, speak quietly, and respect the altar rails, if I visit a church to look at its architecture. It is my (and others') duty not to cause unnecessary hurt, so we can all live happily in this crowded world of ours. That's tolerance.
In this case, it looks like PZ Myers is trying to cause trouble out of pure devilment. It is not constructive. It is mischief-making intolerance. The facts of the cracker's substantiation, con- or trans- or in-, are irrelevant. He's trying to cause pain.
It has been interesting to see the Synod (parliament) of the Anglican churches in action recently on the women-as-bishops issue -- one noteworthy aspect of its proceedings is that it tries to work towards a solution acceptable to all its members wherever possible, rather than engaging in verbal battle like adversarial parliaments. Although it failed to find common ground on this issue, I think there's a lesson for us all there.
Tolerance is good, but it does have to come from both sides.
Posted by: Sam C | July 12, 2008 8:03 AM
At the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport, Muslim taxi drivers interpret the Koran to mean that they shouldn't carry any passengers who have alcohol in their baggage. They shouldn't carry any blind passengers who use canine guides.
The taxi authority threatened them with the loss of airport privileges if they continued to deny rides over the prospect of aiding sin. And rightly so. My carrying alcohol in my baggage is not a crime against Islam because I am not Muslim.
They have been forced by the governmental authority to violate a tenet of their religion. What PZ wrote was far less damaging to Catholics because he didn't suggest that any Catholics desecrate a host. Yet, here he is with the death threats and the threats to his career. The Minneapolis Airport Authority has received no such threats.
"Blasphemy cannot be committed by a non-believer." PZ can rest easy on his role. I was ambiguous about PZ's post until reading the response against him, and reading up on "host nailing" and the horrific tortures of Jews so accused.
As an ex-Catholic, even I find it hard to muster sympathy for those offended by PZ.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 12, 2008 8:08 AM
Oh, by the way, I don't agree with your assertion that non-believers can't commit blasphemy. You're trying some logic-chopping to redefine a well-accepted term in the English language, which is not constructive. A statement like "your religion's prophet/saint was a slimy slug who ate his own faeces" is irreverent and blasphemous regardless of whose mouth it comes out of (assuming that it's not a molluscophile religion!).
More importantly, blasphemy itself is not now regarded as evil or criminal in many countries' legal codes; the crime is to foment or incite racial/religious hatred. The limit of free speech is on not what one should say, but will it cause harm.
Posted by: Sam C | July 12, 2008 8:16 AM
Sam C,
Is the Anglican Church even religious? I had always considered it more as a sort of social party.
Also, the fact that blasphemy itself is not regarded so in many countries' legal codes does not mean every country's legal code. Think Pakistan.
Posted by: Brian | July 12, 2008 8:47 AM
Firstly, what the congregants did to the young man was both foolish and un-christian; in my opinion and they need to be reprimanded for their uncouth actions especially as it seems they threatened someone during Mass. Very strange thing for an RC to do.
Secondly: Myzzle knew exactly what he was doing, he was poking a wasps nest to annoy the wasps. Unsuprisingly some wasps took offence and tried to sting him.
Free speach is all well and good; but, as with everything actions have consequences; words can cause a great deal of hurt and it is no suprise to me that Myxxle's writings have engendered the reaction they did.
Given the response of some of his acolytes and his silence about their postings, it would seem that denigrating and dehumanising those who don't agree with his worldview (I know some of his followers claim not to have one) is a righteous thing.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | July 12, 2008 9:19 AM
Right. Now tell that to the Islamofascists who think that anyone not male and Muslim is offensive. To them, it's not what you DO that's blasphemous -- it's what you ARE. Your very existence is offensive to those schmucks. Should the law then be changed so that everyone who is not male and Muslim be arrested on grounds of "incitement"?
As for your last sentence -- "I find your words to be deeply offensive, and that you will certainly be harmed if I ever find you!" If I said that, should you shut up? Should you be dragged to the local police station to be locked up for "inciting hatred"? Or should I be reported to the police for making threats?
Apparently some people forget that PZ is getting DEATH THREATS over a handful of CRACKERS that would eventually wind up as feces after being digested by all those Catholics anyway. So aren't they desecrating their own "holy symbol"?
Posted by: FO | July 12, 2008 9:48 AM
You say it is good manners not to offend someone unnecessarily. I would say it is bad manners to take offense unnecessarily.
If somebody took offense to my face being clean-shaven, I don't necessarily have to shave; I could grow a beard to placate them. But then I risk offending people who don't like beards.
I hold that it is good manners for the pro-beards and the anti-beards alike to stay out of my face and keep their noses in their own business. The state of my face causes no real harm.
If they claim I am doing them symbolic harm by shaving my face, then I claim they are practicing magic.
We should recognize that religious beliefs are no more than opinions, however wacky and silly they get.
Posted by: CRM-114 | July 12, 2008 10:22 AM
Here's a list of demands I make for armed guards:
We much protect all cows to keep them from being desicrated.
We need guards at art supply shops to prevent their use in depicting muhammed.
All Butchers should maintain a rota of guards to make sure the pork doesn't touch the other products.
Maybe we need cothling tag readters to make sure noone wearing blends is allowed into a temple? By force in nessicary?
Posted by: Brendan S | July 12, 2008 10:39 AM
The two Mikes:
No, from a legal standpoint, that's not right, any more than when a car dealer gives you a car to test drive, you have the right to just drive off with it or to "test" it by entering it in a demolition derby. Property or the use of it can be given to others with strings attached, including how the property is treated.
Of course this will get all tangeled up in competing interests. For example, the Muslim taxicab drivers or Christian pharmacists who claim they can deny service out of "conscience" are getting an exclusionary license to practice a certain employment with reduced competition. I argue that they thereby have traded the right to their private conscience in return for public enforcement of their licenses. Unfortunately, society doesn't always take my legal advice.
Also as an ex, I have no particular sympathy for Catholic's offense at PZ's words, though, of course, they have every right to express it -- sans death threats -- as PZ has to express his offense at the original story. If PZ actually carried out the threat with misappropriated consecrated hosts, that would be a very different kettle of fish. The implication in his words that people should try to misappropriate eucharists is a troubling grey area.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 12, 2008 11:27 AM
I agree with you that PZ has a perfect right to be offensive, and that death threats are the wrong response.
I just wonder if PZ had expressed equally vividly offensive opinions about a race or gender that he is not a member of, whether he would have the same set of defenders he does now. I suspect that he, like Larry Summers, would be swiftly ousted from his academic job. (Larry Summers btw did nothing so calculated to offend as PZ's proposal: he lost his position after he simply suggested that women were not as capable as men in science and math.)
It depends on whose, er, sacred cow is being gored, I guess.
Posted by: Anna K. | July 12, 2008 12:02 PM
"I just wonder if PZ had expressed equally vividly offensive opinions about a race or gender that he is not a member of, whether he would have the same set of defenders he does now."
I wonder if is has occurred to you that religion is a matter of choice but sex, gender and skin colour are not.
Posted by: John Doe | July 12, 2008 12:18 PM
Whether women are actually as capable as men is presumably an empirical question -- I think PZ's point is precisely that the nature of the Eucharist isn't.
Posted by: Tulse | July 12, 2008 12:24 PM
Posted by: me | July 12, 2008 12:43 PM
John, I agree a lot with what you say. For example, as a Christian, I don't believe in transubstantiation while I have no trouble with tossing leftover communion wafers to birds and ants. And perhaps PZ can go over the top. And any violent threat against PZ is unchristian and punishable by law.
And per your complaints in Australia, ministers should be disciplined for any sex apart from marriage. And in the USA, consensual sex with underage females is statutory rape.
I also believe that genuflect worship of supposedly transubstantiated wafers is idolatry. Likewise, if some Catholics read this post of mine, they might want to line me up next to PZ.
With that said, I think that PZ went too far over the top. I'm basing this conclusion while assuming that PZ actually said the following on the air,
"Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? If any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I�ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won�t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web."
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459
This challenge to score some consecrated communion wafers goes beyond the Holy Spirit blasphemy challenge because it actually calls for the disturbance of Roman Catholic property and services. Perhaps he could have expressed his ironic satire with more civility.
If PZ said the above, then I appreciate PZ's sense of irony while I think PZ irresponsibly disturbed the peace and deserves some consequences for his irresponsible actions. I'll immediately reiterate that any violent threats against PZ have no justification and should be punished by law. On the other hand, PZ's speech may have violated his university's code of conduct.
http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/Conduct.pdf
If PZ wants to continue as the Rush Limbaugh of atheism, then he might need another day job. I'm not firm on my feelings about this, and I'm open for civil discussion.
What do you think?
Posted by: James Goetz | July 12, 2008 12:47 PM
James Goetz,
Have you read what PZ actually said ? Do you think he was actually wanting people to send him consecrated wafers ? Or given the tone of the paragraph, where he talks of the local churches having stakes prepared for him, do you think he was making a point in a humorous manner ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 1:15 PM
I've been following this in the various Sciblogs, and I don't feel the primary point PZ was trying to make is being recognized enough...
Believing that a wafer magically turns into the physical body of a guy who died 2,000 years ago is absurd and goofy to a very high degree
Oftentimes, once such absurdities become ingrained in a society long enough, they are blindly accepted without much thought, and a bit of "blasphemy" serves as a collective wake-up call that exposes the insanity for what it truly is.
Look at the Sciblogs treatment of the creation museum in Kentucky. We all looked at it and rightly pointed out just how stupid, ridiculous, and insane it is to believe that people rode around on dinosaurs like the Flintstones. Some laughed, others shook their head in disbelief, and others still were rather outraged. Why? Because the whole thing is blatently stupid.
So maybe someone needs to explain why it's ok to be rude, disrespectful, and nasty towards fundamentalist Christianity's creation museum, but it's in bad taste to be the same towards Catholicism's belief that not only does a cracker turn into flesh, but that once it does, you're supposed to eat it?
I'm sorry, but I put this whole "transubstation" thing on the same level as flat-earth geocentrism, young-earth creationism, and faith-healing. They're all pathetically ridiculous beliefs that can quite easily be demonstrated to be wrong, and thus not only deserve ridicule and disrespect, their very nature demands it.
Was PZ rude? Yep...but no more rude than many here have been to various forms of creationism.
Posted by: Jason F. | July 12, 2008 1:18 PM
Matt Penfold,
I haven't read an entire manuscript of his radio speech. I've read some of his blog. I check his blog a couple of times a week. I don't doubt that he didn't want anybody to send him a Catholic communion wafer. And as I suggested, I see PZ attempting humor with similar style to Rush Limbaugh but supporting atheism.
Posted by: James Goetz | July 12, 2008 1:33 PM
John Doe wrote: "I wonder if is has occurred to you that religion is a matter of choice but sex, gender and skin colour are not."
So, hypothetically, it would be wrong for an academic to make offensive remarks about sex or skin color, but not wrong for an academic to suggest that people steal a Torah scroll and mail it to him, so that he could publicly vandalize it?
Tulse wrote: "Whether women are actually as capable as men is presumably an empirical question -- I think PZ's point is precisely that the nature of the Eucharist isn't."
So if nonempirical questions do not deserve respect, then why should anyone respect such values-driven, nonempirical notions as freedom of speech or academic freedom?
Posted by: Anna K. | July 12, 2008 2:00 PM
"So, hypothetically, it would be wrong for an academic to make offensive remarks about sex or skin color, but not wrong for an academic to suggest that people steal a Torah scroll and mail it to him, so that he could publicly vandalize it?"
No, it would not be OK, since theft is not OK. But since no one has advocated stealing a wafer during communion your analogy is flawed.
Anna, so far we have you thinking religion is not a matter of choice, and thinking being given a wafer and failing to swallow it is theft. Can you not try a bit harder to think before you post ? Only you are coming across as an idiot, which I am sure you are not.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 2:06 PM
"I haven't read an entire manuscript of his radio speech. I've read some of his blog. I check his blog a couple of times a week. I don't doubt that he didn't want anybody to send him a Catholic communion wafer. And as I suggested, I see PZ attempting humor with similar style to Rush Limbaugh but supporting atheism."
Never having listened to Limbaugh I could not tell if the comparison is valid.
Has it not occurred to you that he issued the challenge, which you seem to agree he did not intend anyone to actually take up, in order to provoke the kind of reaction he did. And that in doing so he has shown how mean spirited, and quite frankly stupid, a good number of Catholics are ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 2:09 PM
I fail to see how walking away from a tiny fence in front of an altar to show a friend a cracker is theft, nor how fleeing the church when the people there begin to try and wrestle you to the ground is theft. The student in question kept the cracker intact, in a plastic bag, in his refrigerator until he returned it, which should tell you something about his motives and his opinion of said cracker.
Similarly, Myers' statement was that he wanted to know if any of his readers could get their hands on communion wafers and send them to him. Presumably, this included theft, but one can much more easily buy them, in bulk, online, from numerous sources, thanks to all those money-changers modern day religion employs in the temple to encourage its solvency, and I assume that it is this method that Mr. Myers would prefer.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 2:11 PM
Comparing Myers to Limbaugh is a terrible insult. Limbaugh just calls people names. Myers explains why their ideas are irrational, then calls them names.
Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 2:17 PM
Julian, anybody can buy communion wafers online, but scoring supposedly transubstantiated wafers is a totally different story. Those would have to be stolen from a Roman Catholic church.
Posted by: James Goetz | July 12, 2008 2:23 PM
"Julian, anybody can buy communion wafers online, but scoring supposedly transubstantiated wafers is a totally different story. Those would have to be stolen from a Roman Catholic church."
I think you will find they are given away freely at communion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 2:26 PM
Matt Penfold, if you actually read my first post in this thread, then you'd have an idea about the answer to your last question.
Posted by: James Goetz | July 12, 2008 2:30 PM
I believe the official term is "tithing."
Actually, PZ's words were:
Now, there is one possible way to obtain consecrated hosts short of theft. If my erstwhile theology lessons have not been gobbled up by encroaching senility, priests can be "defrocked" but not "de-priested." Once a priest, always a priest. If PZ can find a priest (defrocked or not) willing to consecrate some eucharists for him, he can avoid the misappropriation/theft problem.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 12, 2008 2:31 PM
James,
I have, I doesn't.
Here is what PZ said on his blog. It is sad some people take things so literally. I note you failed to supply the fill quote.
"So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them -- my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure -- but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address."
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 2:34 PM
"I think you will find they are given away freely at communion."
They are given to faithful who promise to revere the sacrament. If I went to a Roman Catholic communion line and said to the priest, "I'm a Protestant who doesn't believe in transubstantiation", then I wouldn't get the wafer from the priest. I'd have to play an impostor to get a supposedly transubstantiated wafer.
Posted by: James Goetz | July 12, 2008 2:38 PM
Matt,
When it comes to degrees of toleration of expressions of various bigotries, what is the relevance of whether religion is a matter of choice or not? (On that note, I have heard of studies claiming that religious and political tendencies are genetically influenced.) We have the same issue with political views, which are as chosen, more or less, as religious ones are: was McCarthy right to use his power to blacklist people in the '50s, whom he suspected of being Communists?
My point is not about choice or nonchoice when it comes to people's identities. My point is that some forms of bigotry appear to be more socially acceptable in academia than others. I'm interested in where people draw the line, and why.
Re the acquisition of consecrated wafers through deception, if John Wilkins calls it stealing at the beginning of his post, why don't you?
Posted by: Anna K. | July 12, 2008 2:42 PM
Matt,
You give atheists a bad name...
Communion are not given "away free" -- the acceptance of the communion is part of a creedal "contract" within the community and, if you are not a believer in Catholic theology, it is extremely unethical to participate - esp. with malicious intent.
Are you really so morally obtuse? So socially autistic?
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 2:44 PM
'If my erstwhile theology lessons have not been gobbled up by encroaching senility, priests can be "defrocked" but not "de-priested." Once a priest, always a priest. If PZ can find a priest (defrocked or not) willing to consecrate some eucharists for him, he can avoid the misappropriation/theft problem.'
You're close, John Pieret. I'm not sure about the "Once a priest, always a priest". But in any case, the priest would be doing the misappropriation.
Posted by: James Goetz | July 12, 2008 2:49 PM
"When it comes to degrees of toleration of expressions of various bigotries, what is the relevance of whether religion is a matter of choice or not? (On that note, I have heard of studies claiming that religious and political tendencies are genetically influenced.) We have the same issue with political views, which are as chosen, more or less, as religious ones are: was McCarthy right to use his power to blacklist people in the '50s, whom he suspected of being Communists?"
You seem to be getting dangerously close to demanding respect for all viewpoints. It is not bigotry to point out believing that a wafer becomes the body of Christ, as thinking it does is absurd. Are we bigoted to consider creationists to be either ignorant, stupid, liars or insane ?
"Re the acquisition of consecrated wafers through deception, if John Wilkins calls it stealing at the beginning of his post, why don't you?"
Simple. Because I do not consider it to be stealing. The wafer was freely given the person, who simply failed to swallow it. It so happens that although it is normal for communicants to swallow the wafer, it is not unknown for them to take it back to their pew and pray. He was then assaulted by a member of the congregation.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 2:51 PM
The -- arguably -- thief is a devout Catholic himself. He wanted to show the host to a friend who was, he said, curious about the Catholic faith. He got death threats.
Something is rotten in the States of America.
-------------------------------
And, no, replacing an inscribed scroll is much more difficult than replacing even a consecrated host.
Posted by: David Marjanović | July 12, 2008 2:54 PM
Brett,
Webster Cook is a Catholic. He was therefore entitled to stand in line for communion. I guess that part of the story passed you by.
Why did you need to lie ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 2:54 PM
He didn't lie. He just failed to inform himself and preferred going by the laughable traditional idea that Satanists steal hosts to do supposedly evil things to them.
Posted by: David Marjanović | July 12, 2008 2:58 PM
"He didn't lie. He just failed to inform himself and preferred going by the laughable traditional idea that Satanists steal hosts to do supposedly evil things to them."
Ah, just ignorant then. I was assuming that someone discussing all this would have least bothered to read what started it all. My mistake, I was expecting to much of him clearly.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 3:03 PM
"Why did you need to lie ?"
Matt,
Why do you need to project?
I am talking about PZ, not Weber; however, Weber's actions were also a violation of conduct and the congregation has every right to defend this very important aspect of worship.
It has been a historical fact that occult groups have actively tried to steal Holy Communion for desecration in private ceremony and THIS is a big part of the reason for defensive actions.
As for "death threats" these are completely inappropriate and are the result of a couple of unstable individuals - NOT the majority of Catholics or the Church.
For *extreme* atheists (such as yourself) to harp on these "threats" is a canard and simply a way for them to express inherent bigotry.
PS - isn't it interesting that Satanists (theists) and Atheists (anti-theists) have the same goal....
Maybe there is something to it after all!
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 3:06 PM
"I am talking about PZ, not Weber; however, Weber's actions were also a violation of conduct and the congregation has every right to defend this very important aspect of worship."
Well we know were you are coming from then. Violence seems to be OK by you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 3:10 PM
David: "He didn't lie. He just failed to inform himself and preferred going by the laughable traditional idea that Satanists steal hosts to do supposedly evil things to them."
Too bad there are plenty of documented cases and history of such action.
Also, regarding the scroll vs the communion, if you had even a basic grasp of theology you would understand that these are comparable offenses.
Ignorance is no excuse...
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 3:12 PM
Demanding respectful/appropriate action within a community is not violence.
Are police acting violently when they arrest a shoplifter and return the stole merchandise to the proprietors?
Wow!
Do atheists know nothing of logic and contractual obligation in civil society? Or are they simply raving anarchists?
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 3:18 PM
Matt wrote: "You seem to be getting dangerously close to demanding respect for all viewpoints. It is not bigotry to point out believing that a wafer becomes the body of Christ, as thinking it does is absurd. Are we bigoted to consider creationists to be either ignorant, stupid, liars or insane ?"
I have no problem with people criticizing ideas, theological or otherwise: that's what academia is for. But you see no distinction between criticizing the content of ideas, versus proposing to vandalize a stolen object which is deeply valued by its community?
Posted by: Anna K. | July 12, 2008 3:19 PM
No, he doesn't, Ana.
Extreme, dogmatic atheist like Matt are caricatures of the extremism they oppose in religion. How ironic!
Both extreme atheist and extreme theists lack the use logic, civility and common sense...
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 3:24 PM
"I have no problem with people criticizing ideas, theological or otherwise: that's what academia is for. But you see no distinction between criticizing the content of ideas, versus proposing to vandalize a stolen object which is deeply valued by its community?"
And who actually proposed that ? As opposed to suggesting he would in a humorous attempt to show how a good number of people claiming to be Catholics behave ?
This is third time you have made a pathetic and disingenuous comment. I suspect you not capable of anything else. If you cannot be honest there is no point continue this discussion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 3:41 PM
Matt, I don't think PZ was joking. And you have repeatedly evaded my points, instead resorting to name-calling. Which tells me all I need to know about your ability to engage in discussions.
And I agree that there is no point in continuing.
Posted by: Anna K. | July 12, 2008 3:52 PM
James Goetz:
It's not authoritative but Wikipedia confirms my memory:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicization
In other words, the act of a defrocked priest consecrating hosts (or plain old bread -- it doesn't have to the manufactured hosts) legally purchased by him or PZ would be a theological or canonical violation but not a legal one.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 12, 2008 4:05 PM
I agree, John Pieret. It would be a Roman Catholic Church violation, but not a USA legal violation. But if you tried to get a priest to do it in Rome....
Posted by: James Goetz | July 12, 2008 4:36 PM
The most astoundingly dumb thing to come out of this is the claim that this situation is equivalent to offering to "steal a Torah scroll from a synagogue and {burn it/piss on it/feed it to a pig}".
Come on, people. Ignore, for a moment, any legal and theological implications. How can anyone claim that a mass-produced cracker is analogous to a work of art?
The legal implications, as mentioned above, can be evaded quite easily by having a renegade priest (and there are some of those floating around) come and consecrate them for you. Problem solved
And Brett, although I have a (probably more than) "basic grasp of theology", that doesn't prevent me from thinking critically about it. That's why I think it's all bullshit.
Posted by: octopod | July 12, 2008 4:52 PM
"The legal implications, as mentioned above, can be evaded quite easily by having a renegade priest (and there are some of those floating around) come and consecrate them for you. Problem solved."
Octopod, that wasn't PZ's plan. PZ said, "If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address."
So nobody can claim that PZ planned to get a defrocked priest to supply the consecrated hosts. That's an afterthought brainchild of this thread.
Posted by: James Goetz | July 12, 2008 5:29 PM
Octopod,
Wouldn't the real analogy be: Eucharist is to cracker as Torah is to newspaper roll? It is all about theological implications, and not legal ones, to those respective communities. A Torah scroll is not primarily valued because it is a work of art. Its primary value, to the community that originated it, cares for it, and values it most, is that it is a sacred object, and therefore worthy of taking the time and trouble to make it beautiful. The communion host is considered sacred to the Catholic community, and therefore to that community, worthy of having ritual built around it, and beautiful and valuable objects built to hold it.
I see claims of allegedly critical thinking here, but not much evidence of critical feeling, or reflection, if you prefer. Certainly we are legally permitted to be offensive. But it doesn't follow that if it's legal to be offensive, that it is desirable or admirable to be. Certainly it may give people satisfaction to destroy others' sacred objects. I am sure the Taliban felt satisfaction in destroying the Bamyan Buddhas and that the Soviets felt satisfaction in destroying Kazan Cathedral, and that the Maoists felt satisfaction in destroying temples, and that apparently some people feel satisfied with the thought of destroying communion hosts or Torah scrolls. But that doesn't make it admirable or right or an object lesson in critical thinking.
Posted by: Anna K. | July 12, 2008 5:53 PM
Wouldn't the real analogy be: Eucharist is to cracker as Torah is to newspaper roll?
No. How easy is it to replace a Eucharist wafer, compared to a Torah?
Posted by: windy | July 12, 2008 6:00 PM
windy,
It is not the physical object that is being analyzed here.
Are all materialists so obtuse?
Posted by: Brett | July 12, 2008 6:06 PM
Are all non-materialists so quick to resort to insults? Anna K. spoke of the "time and trouble" to make a Torah beautiful. The effort required to impart spiritual properties on an individual Eucharist wafer is negligible in comparison.
Posted by: windy | July 12, 2008 7:19 PM
Posted by: me | July 12, 2008 7:28 PM
There's a world of difference between making a satirical 'call to arms' post(ala Swift's A Modest Proposal) and actually stealing a cracker.
Posted by: Maragon | July 12, 2008 10:01 PM
They make that up by charging you $250 for a radio that costs them $39.95 to install.
And no, I won't get tangled up in who is more honest, car dealers or religions.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 12, 2008 10:15 PM
I don't know what PZ really had in mind with his request, but to me the important point is that the loony-Catholic reaction (ie. Donohue and his clones) has gone well out-of-bounds. The Church is free to reprimand the orginal student (who is a Catholic); make him say a zillion Hail Marys or whatever -- but not to ask the secular authorities to sanction him as well, eg. academic expulsion (never mind the death threats, which are clearly beyond the pale).
Normally, I would not advocate - I would even oppose -- the desecration of sacred objects, out of simple courtesy if nothing else. But when the religious illegitimately try to extend their demands into the secular arena, I think it becomes legitimate to push back, and show that we're not having it. Some people really need to have their noses rubbed in the fact that they and their precious traditions aren't nearly as important to the rest of the world as they think. And I tend to regard PZ's suggestion in that light.
(But I still hope PZ doesn't follow through).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 12, 2008 11:02 PM
"Are you really so morally obtuse? So socially autistic?"
Well, if this wasn't offensive, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Nick Gardner | July 12, 2008 11:08 PM
Brett, as somone said on another blog, are you the same Brett who was sockpuppeting on PZ's blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php
"By their actions you will know them. We have had a number of raving angry Catholics in various threads here…or have we? I've had a moment to clean up a few threads and post some of the stuff that was held in comment moderation, and discovered that Naz, k8, promo, baker, PZ is a fool, Burns, rumrunner, Dobbs, NYTs, KKKAthiest, Andy, CDV, BradJ, Brett, b7, PCD, NVFU, Your daddy, facebock, baker and several other loud-mouthed asses who have been braying here are all one and the same person."
Just curious, and just to let you know, the Church has long had a tradition of blaming Jews, Protestants, and others among those "occult groups" trying to steal the holy cracker. Here's a clue. Anyone who wants to steal one to use in an "occult ritual" is just as deluded as the catholics who engage in ritual cannibalism. The fact that they are scared that someone doing something other than eating, digesting, and defecating their god does not mean that it is justification for what the bigots over at the catholic league, or those in that church, are doing or did. Is their, and your, god so small that all it takes to have power over him is steal a cracker and...well...what? snap it in two, feed it to the birds in the park, drive a nail into it in a tiny cross made of tongue depressers? If I got one and flushed it, eliminating the middle man, would that be enough?
Posted by: Badger3k | July 12, 2008 11:13 PM
Eamon:
I agree fully that Donahue is a loon and a lot of the reaction we've heard from Catholics has been over-the-top. But there are around 77 million Catholics in the US and we haven't heard from more than the tiniest fraction of them. Most, I suspect, would, if they heard about it at all, put the young man's actions down to youthful indiscression and shrug, perhaps after a brief emotional frisson of the sort that led people who should know better to speak of "kidnapping" and "hate crimes" before they thought things through. As far as I know, no one but the loons (if them) has suggested any action against the kid. Even the talk of the campus diciplinary system was just presented as a procedure that was open to bringing complaints, if anyone wanted to. (And the kid himself apparently has complaints filed against other participants -- it's pretty obvious that there is some history behind this event that hasn't made it into the stories I've seen). No group of 77 million people can fail to include some Bill Donahues and it's wrong to tar them all by the same brush.
The danger is, should PZ go through with his threat, that this is the kind of act that otherwise reasonable people could become (justifiably) enraged at, which could poison the relationship between Catholics and the secular and/or science communities needlessly. Quite apart from its legal ramifications or its moral implications, it's just damn bad public relations at a time when secularism and science are already under attack from many quarters and have enough to deal with.
Posted by: John Pieret | July 12, 2008 11:49 PM
Calling Webster Cook "the original wafer thief" is like calling early civil-rights protesters "lunch counter trespassers" and "bus invaders".
The measurable economic value of Cook's cookie was clearly several orders of magnitude less than the personal cost to him of the University of Central Florida's unconstitutional subsidies for a certain reactionary Church.
Cook was lucky, compared to the University of Florida's Andrew "Don't tase me, bro!" Meyer.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 13, 2008 1:04 AM
John Pieret @ # 70: ...it's just damn bad public relations at a time when secularism and science are already under attack from many quarters and have enough to deal with.
Tactically, is it wise for "secularism and science" to remain permanently on the defensive? For once, the data on the issue of transubstantiation are technically within the grasp of public (& possibly even media "personality") understanding. Would it be better "framing" to address only genetics and radiocarbon dating?
The only way "science and secularism" can lose is if even "friendly" reportage omits the physical assaults, death threats, general-purpose abuse and potential expulsion with which Cook was immediately inundated, or even his subsequent apology and restoration of the precious Christ Krunchy™ to the loving bosom of the Mother Church. Oh, wait...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 13, 2008 1:25 AM
1. PZ absolutely did not seem to be joking to me. Humorous, yes, but he seemed serious to me. Given the opportunity I probably would have helped him out.
2. A few nuts can be found in almost any candy bar. There are a lot of Catholics in the world. Surprise, some are nuts. Hardly inciteful commentary about the state of the human condition, or whatever people think it is.