Pharyngula

Oh gods, read that article. This nutjob is also a 9-11 whacko and thinks The Sound of Music is an immoral film.

OK, those are the highlights, so y'all can save a few brain cells by NOT reading the article, which gives quotes from the Reverend Whackjob. I hope y'all appreciate the sacrifice I made on your behalf.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 5, 2008 9:48 AM

Thanks for that link, I've just read through the "greatest hits" list of Williamson's quotes. I now need a shower. In bleach.

I guess it's time for all of us from the UK to go look for our paper bags now.

Also - isn't this the same lot that Mel Gibson is entangled with?

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 5, 2008 9:55 AM

Oh wow, check out the quotes at the bottom:

'A woman can do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be thinking properly as a woman. Did this lawyeress check her hairdo before coming into court? If she did, she is a distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.'

Really? Really? Yes, sure, making sure you are presentable for a appearance before a court in which you will be representing a client who has paid you good money make you a bad lawyer.

I've got to say this for him, at least he's consistent about hating just about everybody.

Also, the Sound of Music is apparently porn now. I must have missed that amongst all the singing and fully-clothed people...

Posted by: Bouncing Bosons | March 5, 2008 10:03 AM

What always cracks me up is the fact that none of those openly anti-semitic Christians realise that their own faith basically is "just" another judean sect.

They either do not know, or do not care.

I wonder which one is worse.

Posted by: Chris | March 5, 2008 10:10 AM

You do realize that SSPX has a large seminary here in Winona. It used to be their world HQ.

Posted by: MReap | March 5, 2008 10:14 AM

Better make that, "Mental illness strikes again."

Posted by: Kseniya | March 5, 2008 10:22 AM

Well of course the Sound of Music is immoral! Just read these lyrics!

First of all, there's the free-spirited nun (and I'm sure that particular possibility caused more than a casual stirring deep within His Grace's tightly-buttoned cassock!):

Maria

BERTHE:
She climbs a tree
And scrapes her knee
Her dress has got a tear.

SOPHIA:
She waltzes on her way to mass
And whistles on the stair.

BERTHE:
And underneath her wimpole
She has curlers in her hair!

SOPHIA:
I ever hear her singing in the abbey.

BERTHE:
She's always late for chapel,

MARGARETTA:
But her penitence is real.

BERTHE:
She's always late for everything,
Except for every meal.

MOTHER ABBESS:
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel

BERTHE AND SOPHIA:
Maria's not an asset to the abbey!

MARGARETTA:
I'd like to say a word in her behalf.
Maria makes me laugh!

SOPHIA:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?

MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?

MARGARETTA:
How do you find a word that means Maria?

BERTHE:
A flibberti gibbet!

SOPHIA:
A willo' the wisp!

MARGARETTA:
A clown!

MOTHER ABBESS:
Many a thing you know you'd like to tell her,
Many a thing she ought to understand.

MARGARETTA:
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say,

MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?

MARGARETTA:
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?

MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

MARGARETTA:
When I'm with her I'm confused,
Out of focus and bemused,
And I never know exactly where I am.

SOPHIA:
Unpredictable as weather,
She's as flighty as a feather,

MARGARETTA:
She's a darling,

BERTHE:
She's a demon,

MARGARETTA:
She's a lamb.

SOPHIA:
She'd out-pester any pest,
Drive a hornet from his nest,

BERTHE:
She can throw a whirling dervish
Out of whirl.

MARGARETTA:
She is gentle,
She is wild,

SOPHIA:
She's a riddle.

MARGARETTA:
She's a child.

BERTHE:
She's a headache!

MARGARETTA:
She's an angel!

MOTHER ABBESS:
She's a girl.

ALL NUNS:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a clown and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibberti gibbet!
A willo' the wisp!
A clown!
Many a thing you know you'd like to tell her,
Many a thing she ought to understand.
But how do you make her say,
And listen to all you say?
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

Then, the Church lets this little firecracker go out in the world, complete with a license to pursue whatever she wants!

Climb Every Mountain

MOTHER ABBESS:
Climb every mountain,
Search high and low,
Follow every byway,
Every path you know!

Climb every mountain,
Ford every stream,
Follow every rainbow,
Till you find your dream!

A dream that will need
All the love you can give,
Every day of your life
For as long as you live!

Climb every mountain,
Ford every stream,
Follow every rainbow,
Till you find your dream!

A dream that will need
All the love you can give,
Every day of your life
For as long as you live

Climb every mountain,
Ford every stream,
Follow every rainbow,
Till you find your dream!

Oh, my, such steamy stuff, the very essence of pornography! But the crowning atrocity, which clinches this as immoral beyond redemption, is:

Sixteen Going on Seventeen

[Rolf:]
You wait, little girl, on an empty stage,
For fate to turn the light on.
Your life, little girl, is an empty page,
That men will want to write on!

[Liesl:]
To write on

[Rolf:]
You are sixteen going on seventeen,
Baby, it's time to think,
Better beware, be canny and careful,
Baby, you're on the brink!

You are sixteen going on seventeen,
Fellows will fall in line,
Eager young lads and rogues and cads,
Will offer you food and wine!

Totally unprepared are you
To face a world of men;
Timid and shy and scared are you,
Of things beyond your ken!

You need someone older an wiser
Telling you what to do;
I am seventeen going on eighteen,
I'll take care of you!

[Liesl:]
I am sixteen going on seventeen,
I know that I'm naive;
Fellows I meet may tell me I'm sweet,
And willingly I believe!

I am sixteen going on seventeen,
Innocent as a rose;
Bachelor dandies, drinkers of brandies,
What do I know of those?

Totally unprepared am I
To face a world of men;
Timid and shy and scared am I
Of things beyond my ken!

I need someone older and wiser
Telling me what to do;
You are seventeen going on eighteen,
I'll depend on you!

(And I thought the mainstream ones were loony when they decreed that the "Wedding March" from Lohengrin" was Satanically-inspired!)

Posted by: Farb | March 5, 2008 10:28 AM

Just remember PZ: If you don't add those disclaimers, I sheepishly believe everything you say, just like I sheepishly believe in evolution, the roundness of the earth, and the gods having no rectum.

Posted by: James | March 5, 2008 10:34 AM

No, Eamon, some things must be squarely faced. Are you all simply too frightened to face the truth about The Sound of Music? Testify, reverend:

Can you imagine Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music staying with the Captain if the romance went out of their marriage? Would she not divorce him and grab his children to be her toys? All the elements of pornography are there...

I have seen TSoM, and I have seen pornography. With the greatest imaginable respect and deference to His Bishopliness, it's just possible that the former is missing one or two minor elements of the latter. But then there is all manner of porn I haven't seen, and who is to say there isn't a market for Fake-Austrian Schmaltz Fetish videos?

jcr @4, I'm sure he'd tell us that he never left the church, the church left him. (That is, he's an American Democrat Youstabee, translated into Latin.) Of course he's catholic. He's just not Roman Catholic. Back in my churchgoing days we referred every Sunday, in the creed, to the "catholic church" and were under the impression we belonged to it (this was in a presbyterian church, you understand). With my churchgoing behind me, I think the antisemitic breakaway bishop if anything even more entitled to the term. If he calls himself "catholic", then he's catholic -- because the word has exactly as much meaning and validity when he uses it as when Ratzinger does.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | March 5, 2008 10:47 AM

That freaking moronic dreck should have been featured in
that great video "A New Pope", babbling incoherently in
the area with the "Dark Ones'!

Posted by: Holbach | March 5, 2008 11:00 AM

All the elements of pornography are there...

And I still tear up to hear that lilting Rogers and Hammerstein music:

Bow-chicka-bow-bow...

Posted by: NJ | March 5, 2008 11:13 AM

All the elements of pornography are there...

Unless there's a version of TSoM doing the rounds that I completely missed out on (if so can someone please send me a copy?) I think his Inaneness will find that virtually all of the elements commonly found in pornography are missing from it (apart, possibly, from the bad acting).

Janine said:

Only true humans are capable of rational thought. And by definition, only white male Catholics are truly human. Are the rest are merely twisted fakes.

You only just figured that out? just goes to show, us poor women are no good at this rational thinking lark.

Naturally though, his Holy Inanity is a walking advertisement for the reasoning powers of said white, male catholics and as such it is wrong and distorted of us mere irrational women to think badly of him.

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 5, 2008 11:31 AM

mind control devices the ATF puts in dijon mustard are?

Dijon? DIJON?! What are you, some kind of Frenchy?

Bake him away, toys.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 5, 2008 11:41 AM

I have never, until now, had any desire to see The Sound of Music. I must look out for it now, presumably at the local 'blue movie' cinema.

And you know those special screenings of the film where the audience dress like the actors and participate in the songs? Are they really orgies?

Posted by: MH | March 5, 2008 12:37 PM

tomandlorenzo.blogspot.com do Musical Mondays.

The Sound of Music was done July 16, 2007.
I use do and done to denote bitchy sarcasm.
Pulldown list of the musicals done is at the left side of the screen.

Tom and Lorenzo also do Project Rungay; THEY SEW, WE RIP.

Posted by: Rita Bennett | March 5, 2008 1:06 PM

Gregory:

PZ did point out in his post that this guy is from a weird breakaway cult of the Catholic Church rather than the main branch, which I'd say describes this organisation rather well.

As for him not being a bishop he is described in the below terms:

A senior bishop of the Lefebvrist Society of St Pius X (SSPX) (emphasis mine)

by The Catholic Herald, hardly a likely organ of anti-catholic bigotry.

If he doesn't like being potrayed as a stupid, poisonous bigot, then he shouldn't say stupid, poisonous bigoted things.

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 5, 2008 1:24 PM

Since this is a science blog, and many scientists define science as both the best way of knowing ever discovered and the most effective way of trying to understand the world; let us desist from joyously & self indulgently whacking the deluded fanatical holy Bishop and proceed to "change his mind" - make him more
tolerant, loving, skeptical of preposterous claims, & scrupulously scientific - more like our skeptical & tolerant selves.

We have identified the problem because it was ridiculously easy (science surely helped?), but effecting a solution is a real bummer.

No resorting to obscurantism & geisteswissenshaftens (the human sciences are different) either; it's science or nothing at this stage of human development.

If somebody "knows how to go beyond science;" please let us in on it.

We have some conflicting claims about the world and, we must struggle with them as best we can.

Stanley Jaki, a superb physicist & historian of science, maintains his Catholic premise right out of his Hungarian catechism; but is still able to elucidate science for all stumbling humans regardless of religion, mental illness, intolerance, or lack of religion.

Ditto for Pierre Duhem.

It is good thing that nobody beat Benedictine priest Jaki about the head & shoulders for his bonehead Catholicism because he never would have written some terrific books about science.

I often wonder how in the name of beelzebub, Jaki can pull it off.

Something like the mad bishop, but different, very different.

With Jaki; all I have to do is disabuse him of his dumb head Catholicism.

The saintly Bishop looks like a tougher case.

Posted by: gerald spezio | March 5, 2008 1:47 PM

'...the Catholic Church is one of the few, if not the only, branches of Christianity that has said it is basically comfortable with evolution...'

You are mistaken.

http://www.dfms.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/21/religion.uk

(you need to scroll down about 70% of the page. The archbish says creationism is a category error which should not be taught)

I can't find the citation (yet) but I believe that the Greek Orthodox church considers creationism to be on a par with astrology.

Creationism is, by and large, the preserve of American evangelicals. Thanks to the cash they generate they have made some inroads elsewhere in the last decade, but very few christian sects have a problem with evolution per se, although naturally they tend towards theistic evolution.

Posted by: Don | March 5, 2008 1:55 PM

"the moon landing "hoax", hollow earth "theory", time cube and the mind control devices the ATF puts in dijon mustard "(21)

Ok, I was just going to let it go and pretend I was one of the well informed cool kids. But too I'm curious. Could someone point me to the origin of the Time Cube business? I don't want to feel left out anymore.

Posted by: sublunary | March 5, 2008 2:04 PM

Monsieur Arnaud, Merde, some of the French people are crazy or at least had a period of craziness.

I know this because they not only like Jerry Lewis movies - they say that Jerry Lewis is a genius.

Hell is where the government is headed by Sarkozy & only Jerry Lewis movies are allowed.

Who will ever cover up the foul mess left by Foucault, Derrida, Deluze, Latour, & Levi-Strauss?

Posted by: gerald spezio | March 5, 2008 2:13 PM

Gregory, about your question. What are you talking about? It was clearly stated that this person is a bishop of a breakaway sect. Fine, he is not a main stream catholic. Trying to equate this to current scientific knowledge does not apply. The conflict between the sect is a difference of opinion, not a difference of what is known.

Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 2:20 PM

Gerry, you fucking twit.

Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 2:23 PM

Don, thanks for the info on the Anglicans/Episcopalians. As for the others, there's a difference between opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools and being conforatable with evolution, or even endorsing it as the best current explanation of "how" (as opposed to "why"). Except for such an endorsement by the United Church of Christ, my limited surfing couldn't find much else official by any of the Orthodox or Protestant Churches. Although many disclaim a belief or teaching that Genesis is literally true, they don't go the next step of saying that evolution is the "how". Some of this may be because they aren't as prone as a highly centrally administered church to take such a position, but some of it may be because they aren't willing to take the full next step and teach that Genesis is just an allegory. As a final point, if you're a Christian and an evolutionist, you have to be some version of a theistic evoutionist!

Posted by: Gregory F. Hauser | March 5, 2008 2:26 PM

gerry, stop trying to hit me and hit me.

Posted by: Stanton | March 5, 2008 2:27 PM

I think Gregory has somewhat of a point -- the Roman Catholic Church would say that, whatever this guy is, he isn't Catholic, at least in the sense that we commonly use that term. My formerly Mormon spouse gets similarly aggrieved when people talk about the tiny wacko polygamist groups as "Mormons", despite the fact that the mainstream Mormon Church repudiated polygamy over a century ago.

Posted by: Tulse | March 5, 2008 2:42 PM

[S]some of the French people are crazy or at least had a period of craziness.
I know this because they not only like Jerry Lewis movies - they say that Jerry Lewis is a genius.
Hell is where the government is headed by Sarkozy & only Jerry Lewis movies are allowed.
Who will ever cover up the foul mess left by Foucault, Derrida, Deluze, Latour, & Levi-Strauss?

Does anyone, including the author, have the faintest idea what the above is about? If so, please explain in English, using only short words and simple sentences. My brain has overheated from trying to make sense of that, and is currently melting its way through the floor en-route to China. I doubt it will return to normal operating temperature before reaching the Andromeda Galaxy (which will be in a very very long time since it's in the northern hemisphere whilst by melting brain is headed south!).

Posted by: blf | March 5, 2008 2:47 PM

Don -- see my point to Janine about the integrity of titles.

Posted by: Gregory F. Hauser | March 5, 2008 2:50 PM

Tulse, the fact remains the Gregory is trying to equate a difference in doctrine to changes in what is scientifically known. Those are very different beasts.

Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 2:51 PM

Gregory, I see you point. And I am sorry, I have little desire to go by how the catholic church desires to define things.

Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 2:58 PM

Gregory and Tulse, please read what the catholic paper had to say about this bishop.

A senior bishop of the Lefebvrist Society of St Pius X (SSPX) has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic forgery that enjoys widespread currency in neo-Nazi circles.

Richard Williamson, one of four bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, told The Catholic Herald that the document - which supposedly reveals a Jewish plot to dominate the world - was authentic.

The publication calls him a bishop. So how is PZ misnaming this person?

Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 3:05 PM

I seem to remember a bunch of religious Christian-types, including Catholics, being pretty loosey-goosey about who they designated as 'witches'.

How come titles are so important now?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 5, 2008 3:11 PM

Gregery, this is the last time I will comment on this subject. Read the beginning of the article PZ linked to. What is this person referred to as? And keep in mind, it is a catholic publication. I think you should also direct your charges of hypocrisy to the author and publisher of the article.

Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 3:16 PM

Janine, PZ erred in referring to him as a "Catholic bishop". The paper didn't refer to the guy as a Catholic bishop but only as a bishop. There are lots of bishops. Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Mormons have them. In addition, anybody can call him- or herself a bishop. There are a number of self-proclaimed bishops who head up individual Protestant congregations. The issue is whether he is a Catholic bishop. If PZ had referred to him simply as a bishop of a schismatic group or a sect that broke away from the Catholic Church, I would have had no problem. It is a fine point, but it is a factual point. And this blog is all about facts. The point is about being accurate with the facts whether you like the institution or not as a matter of integrity.

Posted by: Gregory F. Hauser | March 5, 2008 3:21 PM

The publication calls him a bishop. So how is PZ misnaming this person?

My disagreement isn't with the term "bishop", as that's a fairly generic term used by a variety of religious organizations (e.g., the Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, even the Mormons). My problem is with describing this guy as "Catholic", when the group that determines whether he is or not says he isn't.

In other words, he is indeed a bishop within the Lefebvrist Society of St Pius X, but he is most definitely not a "Catholic bishop".

Posted by: Tulse | March 5, 2008 3:26 PM

Brownian, at leat you're being frank about being a prejudiced bigot! Your point about the witches seems to be that, if an institution's authority took a position a couple of hundred years ago, we can use that position fairly to characterize that institution and its members today, in which case the United States and we Americans should all be regarded as favoring slavery!

Posted by: Gregory F. Hauser | March 5, 2008 3:31 PM

Did you see Jesus in 2006?
No, why? Is there a reward or something?

If there was, that's too bad. He was transformed into a Girl Scout thin mint in the spring of 2007 and I eated him.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 5, 2008 3:38 PM

In Hauser's attempt at sarcasm, which turns out to be little more than a poorly constructed strawman:

if an institution's authority took a position a couple of hundred years ago, we can use that position fairly to characterize that institution and its members today

I wonder if he even knows that in fact, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition still exists within the Vatican (known today as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), awaiting the day in which it can stamp out "heresy".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1251677.stm

so, we don't actually have to presume what the CC's stance is on the inquisition by looking hundreds of years ago, as they still HAVE a dept. to handle just such things, just changed the name.

I think perhaps when you use the label "prejudice", you might want to examine your own house first.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 3:48 PM

Rita, I am now about to lose hours of my life to Tom and Lorenzo's musical takedowns. Thanks a lot. Good thing it's almost spring break.

Posted by: Carlie | March 5, 2008 3:53 PM

Oops. Forgot to close the blockquote. Probably because God didn't tell me to and I made a mistake.

Have you been drinking already?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 5, 2008 3:57 PM

PZ, I'm a solid New Atheist, and in spite of my formerly Catholic roots, I don't have any emotional attachment at all to that religion. That said, I think that the terminology does matter, because it is an issue of intellectual honest. Calling Williamson a Catholic implicitly associates the Roman Catholic Church with his views, when it officially does not.

At other times you've certainly excoriated ID folks for ginning up their resumes and making claims of affiliations that just weren't true -- I see this as exactly parallel. This guy is a nutbar, no doubt, but he's not a Catholic nutbar (they have their own officially sanctioned nutbars, starting at the top).

Posted by: Tulse | March 5, 2008 4:03 PM

Ichthyic, the existence of the "Holy Office", and its dealings with theologians within the church, has nothing to do with whether Christian dealings with the witch issue centuries ago are relevant to judging Christianity today

no, it has to do with you claiming we can't view institutions today based on things they did hundreds of years ago.

IOW, we often judge catholicism based on the history of the inquisition. It's entirely relevant when there still IS a dept. of Inquisition within the Catholic church.

btw, since you brought it up, look up the usage of the term witch as associated with the word heretic historically.

then tell me it has no more relevance.

just like the name of the dept. has changed, the application of the term "witch"