…and this is a 
So far today, I have received 39 pieces of personal hate mail of varying degrees of literacy, all because I was rude to a cracker. Four of them have included death threats, a personal one day record. Thirty-four of them have demanded that I be fired. Twenty-five of them have told me to desecrate a copy of the Koran, instead, or in some similar way offend Muslims, because — in a multiplicity of ironic cluelessness — apparently only some religious icons must be protected, and I would only offend Catholics because they are all so nice that none of them would wish me harm. I even have one email that says I should be fired, that the author would like to kill me, and that I only criticize because Catholics are so gentle and kind.
Oh, and of course, the university president's office has also received lots of mail demanding my immediate ouster (keep in mind, though…Catholics are no threat to anyone at all.) I don't know how much, but since Donohue published the president's email address and not mine, I imagine it's much greater than what I've seen. Those lovely Dark Age fanatics at the Catholic League have started a write-in campaign to start up an inquisition.
So no poll-crashing today. Instead, I would appreciate it if you would write a short note to President Robert Bruininks in support (he's going to hate me for this). I have to ask for a few constraints, though: only do so if you are willing to sign a real name to it — most of the complaint mail I'm getting uses fake names, making it much less persuasive — and that, unlike the religious screeds I'm seeing, you take the time to proofread and send him something that at least looks like a high school graduate wrote it, which will put you way above the level of the hate mail. Be polite and rational, too!
If you really want to impress, send him regular mail at this address:
President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Bill Donohue has a loud, braying voice, and he's already trying to stir up a witch hunt. We need a counter-campaign from the secular community.
Whoa, this one is getting heavy traffic and we need to close it down and reroute. Continue the discussion here, if you must.
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Danley | July 10, 2008 4:21 PM
No more Wheat Thins for Bill.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 4:24 PM
"I even have one email that says I should be fired, that the author would like to kill me, and that I only criticize because Catholics are so gentle and kind."
...I loled. A lot. These folks are so much deep in their own asshole they can't see what the hell they are typing.
Posted by: James Sage | July 10, 2008 4:26 PM
Hey PZ,
I'll send along a letter to your President asap. Keep up the good (critical, rational, civil) fight!
--james
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 10, 2008 4:27 PM
Pope Benedict XVI restored the practice of indulgences to the Holy Roman Catholic Church. You may be able to buy your way out of this mess.
Posted by: Geoff | July 10, 2008 4:27 PM
Unfortunately, my real name is Spanky P. MacFucklestein, so my message might come off as a joke...
Nah, I'll do it up right. Hang in there, PZ. Fuck these fucking fucks. I'm going to eat a whole box of Cheez-Its tonight.
Geoff
Posted by: Becca | July 10, 2008 4:28 PM
I'd be happy to send a fan letter to your pres. But for my peace of mind, please tell me you don't really need it... you've got tenure right? And it means something?
Posted by: Geoff | July 10, 2008 4:29 PM
Unfortunately, my real name is Spanky P. MacFucklestein, so my message might come off as a joke...
Nah, I'll do it up right. Hang in there, PZ. Fuck these fucking fucks. I'm going to eat a whole box of Cheez-Its tonight.
Geoff
Posted by: Epicurus | July 10, 2008 4:29 PM
Tardfires are wafting over the Internet. I wonder in Ben Stein likes Honey Grahams? Stein and Donohue could have a smores eating contest with the holy ghost.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 4:30 PM
Don't let it go to your head, PZ.
Must be the most fun you've had since being expelled from Expelled, though.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
P.S. You can do whatever you wish, of course, but it's still in bad taste (and offensive to a lot of grannies) to desecrate the host.
Posted by: Greg | July 10, 2008 4:30 PM
Dude, you fully have my support. Fight the Power! (Not that Catholics are any real threat, as you said!)
Posted by: Starbuck | July 10, 2008 4:31 PM
...I loled. A lot. These folks are so much deep in their own asshole they can't see what the hell they are typing.
Really? And PZ can't see the harm he does? Why doesn't he write what he does about gays? or blacks? or jews? No, it is always the stupid, hate mongering, murdering Christians.
This is not up to the people complaining nor is it up to those who support PZ. It is up to his employers.
I for one hopes he doesn't get fired and is allowed to show his opinion on here as much as he wants. He hurts a lot of peoples feelings when he pulls out his little hate bits on Christians. But he doesn't hurt my feelings and it gives me insight on how you athiest clowns think.
Good luck PZ... and I am sincere about it.
Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2008 4:33 PM
The link to your university president is dead (for me, that is.) Is it working for others?
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 4:35 PM
I'll get a letter out, too.
I suggest also sending one to Webster Cook's school -- wasn't the last word that they were going to be acting as the Catholic Church's enforcers? (And, no, I won't be inflammatory, I promise.)
Posted by: Sili | July 10, 2008 4:35 PM
For what it's worth, you've instilled in me an appreciation for - and modest understanding of - biology that ... 23 years of education couldn't manage.
So thank you.
Posted by: firemancarl | July 10, 2008 4:35 PM
As soon as I get home in the AM I will email the pres.
Posted by: Jon | July 10, 2008 4:36 PM
Hmm why does P.Z. pick on the Christians? Maybe because in his country they're the biggest problem, the most vocal and the most influential? And why the fuck would he attack gays or blacks, just because a man dislikes all this superstitious bullshit doesn't make him a racist or a homophobe, two things I can assure you he is not.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 10, 2008 4:36 PM
I am not concerned about my job -- tenure! -- but when I get calls from the administration, I'd rather it were to tell me that a whole lot of people like what I do rather than that strangers who never read the blog before and don't know me want my head on a platter.
Posted by: IBY | July 10, 2008 4:37 PM
Damn, all of this just for a stupid cracker? This is crazy, even speaking as a former Christian who was somewhat Catholic and Protestant.
Posted by: Chris P | July 10, 2008 4:37 PM
Starbuck "PZ can't see the harm he does"
We have stood by too long suffering under the harm that religions have done interfering with the state of the planet. Believing that their god will fix everything including overpopulation.
No, we will no longer be passive and put up with the BS. It has to stop, it has screwed up the planet and our lives.
No more pandering to stupidity. No more "you have to be considerate".......
Posted by: The Science Pundit | July 10, 2008 4:38 PM
PZ,
I'll be sending my letter of support tomorrow.
Everyone else,
I highly recommend that you desecrate a holy cracker in public. It's a statement that I made a little over a year ago when I took The Blasphemy Challenge (I wanted to do a Catholic version of it). I wonder if I send the video to Bill Donohue if he'll try to get my YouTube account shut down. ;-P
~Javier
Posted by: Luke O'Dell | July 10, 2008 4:38 PM
Email sent.
Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2008 4:39 PM
The brain-dead, immoral Catholics think that having sinful thoughts is the same as doing the sin so I suggest that we all think about desecrating transubstantiated crackers. Just imagine, you dipshit Catholics, thousands all over the world having sinful thoughts aimed at your stupid crackers.
Posted by: caynazzo | July 10, 2008 4:39 PM
This kerfuffle gives the jokey expletive, Christ on a Cracker, much more weight.
I'll always stand by a fellow z-fish researcher!
Posted by: Nick Gardner | July 10, 2008 4:39 PM
Really? And PZ can't see the harm he does? Why doesn't he write what he does about gays? or blacks? or jews? No, it is always the stupid, hate mongering, murdering Christians.
Ah yes, those stupid, hate mongering, murdering gays!
Posted by: James Sanner | July 10, 2008 4:39 PM
I'm frankly not shocked, but I'm certainly nauseated.
I'll show my moral support by decimating a box of Ritz crackers this evening.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 4:40 PM
"Really? And PZ can't see the harm he does? Why doesn't he write what he does about gays? or blacks? or jews? No, it is always the stupid, hate mongering, murdering Christians."
He's pretty pro-gays (speaks a lot against biggots), he is not racist, and I think he spoke a few times against them crazy jews.
Stop it. That argument is getting old and it is just not valid. He is not doing any harm at all. It's just that the crazy folks decided that he is making a terrible harm... A harm so terrible that Donohue can't think of something more harmful and hateful.
...And somewhere out there a woman's getting raped, I bet.
Posted by: s9 | July 10, 2008 4:40 PM
He got one from me. (Yes, signed with my full real name.)
Posted by: steve murphy | July 10, 2008 4:41 PM
I'm in; will alert the Canadian contingent as well (as I am sure others will as well).
Posted by: Aaron | July 10, 2008 4:41 PM
Done!
Posted by: Jon H | July 10, 2008 4:42 PM
What could be a worse thing to do to a eucharist wafer than eating one and turning it into poop? I don't get it.
Catholic boys should be dressed in eucharist-print underpants. Maybe that'd protect them.
Posted by: Paul Hands | July 10, 2008 4:43 PM
Just sent the following.....a bit stilted, but conveys what I want to get across......
Dear President Bruininks,
I write to add my voice of support for PZ in the face of the witch hunt launched by the Catholic League simply because an opinion was voiced which they do not agree with. Prof Myers is a bastion of common sense and rationality - something much lacking in the world these days. To take any form of censoring (or other) action against him at the urging of any extremist cult would be to capitulate to their irrational bigotry and distorted world view.
My name is John Paul Hands, and I live in Ireland. I'm perfectly willing to be publicly identified as supporting prof Myers.
Than you for your attention.
Paul Hands
Posted by: Wes | July 10, 2008 4:43 PM
Uhhhh...He didn't do anything to any Christians.
He made fun of a glorified cookie, and of the people who get their panties in a wad over said cookie. The vast majority of my Christian friends don't really give a shit about what so-and-so says about a cracker. People like you, however, seem to think it's acceptable to compare making fun of a hysterical flap over a cracker to racism, hate crimes, etc. It's quite indicative of your mentality and of the way you view your fellow humans.
Posted by: Danio | July 10, 2008 4:43 PM
PZ, you have my full support on this. A letter to your Uni Prez is on the way. Reason will prevail.
Posted by: DavidR | July 10, 2008 4:43 PM
Firstly,
Congratulations to PZ for his new daily death-threat record. Hip, Hip, Hoo-ray!!
Second, I don't know whether the president will appreciate it or not, but I will send a proper letter of support, all nicely written and spell-checked.
(He doesn't need to know I am a (severely lapsed) protestant from Northern Ireland, and tomorrow is our traditional "kick-the-Pope" celebration, were we burn effagies of his holiness on bonfires across the north!
Hip, Hip, Hurray for the medi-evil mindset!)
Consecrated wafers would sell like hot cakes at the bonfires here.
If feels good to kick the pope again, even though I'm now an atheist.
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 4:43 PM
Was Bill D. the cracker you were rude to? I imagine he has a pointy hood a few bedsheets for dress up (with black latex undies and fishnet stockings, natch) and a cat o' nine tails too.
I support you PZ. You are a personal hero of mine.
Posted by: Britomart | July 10, 2008 4:44 PM
Email sent.
I am celiac, so would you all please munch a wafer for me ?
thanks you kindly
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 4:45 PM
Oh and Starbuck... I'd like you to read this over again. And think it over.
"I even have one email that says I should be fired, that the author would like to kill me, and that I only criticize because Catholics are so gentle and kind."
Posted by: minusRusty | July 10, 2008 4:45 PM
100 Church Street S.E.
The irony! lol
Consider the letter in the mail, PZed!
Posted by: Sidheag | July 10, 2008 4:46 PM
Done.
Posted by: Sean Wills | July 10, 2008 4:48 PM
I've just sent an e-mail to the Pres. I've got my fingers crossed that he's a sensible man.
Posted by: J (not J) | July 10, 2008 4:48 PM
Starbuck:
You need to brush your teeth... the shit stains are showing.
Posted by: TSC | July 10, 2008 4:49 PM
Dah crakkher o' da tupid Bill iz bad cuz da Christ iz goood.
Posted by: Geoff | July 10, 2008 4:50 PM
Well my real name is Geoff and I'm sending a letter through to the president. You have my support. Don't let these douche bags get you down.
Posted by: logos | July 10, 2008 4:51 PM
It's only a cracker, but it's also only a job. If you don't see any harm in attacking the former, then there should be no problem with attacking the latter (especially if you're cloistered in tenure).
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 4:51 PM
Message sent, saying that I don't agree with PZ's stated intent to "commit sacrilege", the whole thing should be allowed to die out of its own meaninglessness--and other things.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: sabrina | July 10, 2008 4:51 PM
I just sent my letter off. This is utterly ridiculous, and we need to show there are more people who support PZ than there are morons who oppose the first amendment.
Posted by: Zeno | July 10, 2008 4:52 PM
I am a former altar boy who was my extended family's #1 choice for a priestly vocation (smart enough to learn Latin, useless enough around the ranch to be spared). This apple, however, rolled pretty far away from the tree. Most of my family remains devout and occasionally they rue the "fact" that anti-Catholicism is the only form of bigotry still tolerated by society at large. There's not a lot of substance to this claim. Most current criticisms of Catholics and Catholicism are aimed at the Church's intrusion into politics and its encroachment into health services (Catholic Healthcare provides excellent service as long as you don't want any form of birth control; dogma trumps client choice).
I'm embarrassed for the members of my former faith that they are so often represented in the mass media by that cretin Bill Donohue, who has made being a noisy jerk into a full-time job. (He does, admittedly, have the perfect skill set for such an occupation.) I could not resist twitting Donohue in a post I wrote back in 2005 on anti-Catholicism. It concludes with some of Donohue's fulminations about the supposed "war on Christmas" and I reproduce Donohue's perfect quote about his relationship with Jesus: "I've never met him." (Eaten him, yes. Met him, no!)
Posted by: Ryan | July 10, 2008 4:52 PM
PZ, I sent my letter by snail mail. On nice stationary too, with a watermark.
Starbuck, there's no point in detailing the foolishness of your comment, you wouldn't understand the reasoning anyway.
Posted by: zer0 | July 10, 2008 4:53 PM
Sending my letter off as soon as I get home and put a stamp on the envelope! I have followed this whole thing lurking and reading... and it's effin ridiculous. I would gladly stand beside you and desecrate a cracker with you any day of the week. Keep up the good fight PZ. Rationality wins.
Posted by: Jody | July 10, 2008 4:54 PM
"Good luck PZ... and I am sincere about it.
Posted by: Starbuck | July 10, 2008 4:31 PM"
No, you aren't.
Posted by: KK | July 10, 2008 4:54 PM
Javier: too bad you didn't come up with anything more "brutal" than eating the damn cookie (sorry if I spoiled it for someone).
I have a bunch of ideas, but no cookies (my cat must've eated them)...
Posted by: Drew | July 10, 2008 4:54 PM
PZ if you're still reading these comments I would suggest to you that you send those death threats into the FBI along with the corresponding IP addresses they came from.
Posted by: Annie | July 10, 2008 4:54 PM
Who says the Dark Ages are history?
Consider my small candle missive to the UM prez declaiming your enlightened public service done and done.
All will be well and all will be well and all will be well. /snark
Posted by: Ktesibios | July 10, 2008 4:55 PM
PZ, some sites actually have a "hate mail" page, where they publish the really ugly stuff that flies in over the transom. I suggest that you consider doing the same.
If you get a drool-bedewed snail mail full of abuse, scan it and post the image. If an email, cut and paste the sucker, complete with signature and all headers.
Exposing the vileness of these outbursts of authoritarian-aggression-by-proxy in the full light of day seems to me to be altogether fitting and proper.
Posted by: Numad | July 10, 2008 4:55 PM
The religious people who are getting all sinfully wrathful about this have a pretty low opinion of their god.
Posted by: drew | July 10, 2008 4:56 PM
I also like the idea of a hate mail section
Posted by: Cathy Gill | July 10, 2008 4:56 PM
I'm sorry you recieved hate mail. I really hope nobody actually acts on any of the threats against you.
My friends and I debate theology all the time. We learned early on that if you actually want to convince somebody of something, you have to respect thier opinions first, and keep the argument on the level of the intellectual, not personal.
Please respect my beliefs.
Posted by: Mickey Mortimer | July 10, 2008 4:57 PM
E-mail sent! Hope it helps.
Posted by: Simon Owens | July 10, 2008 4:57 PM
Hey PZ, did you get my interview request about this incident? Please contact me at simon.bloggasm@gmail.com -- I'd love to do an article.
Posted by: Jennifer | July 10, 2008 4:57 PM
I love that liberals are all about tolerance, until it comes to something they don't like--like religion. How very, ummmm, tolerant of you all.... (Insert eye roll here)
Posted by: MrGadget | July 10, 2008 4:58 PM
Email sent.
Thanks, PZ, for being a beacon of reason in an increasingly Dark Age.
Posted by: infidel.michael | July 10, 2008 4:58 PM
- "I was viewed as a wafer terrorist .."
- "If you have insulted a cracker, that's it - your career is over."
- "Just stand up and insult crackers. You'll find out how risky that is!"
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 10, 2008 4:59 PM
Just e-mailed the following over my real name and University affiliation:
Dr. Bruininks:
Despite what you are apparently hearing from the followers of Mr. Donohue of the Catholic League, your faculty member Dr. P.Z. Myers does not need to be fired or disciplined in any way. Although I do not personally agree with everything Dr. Myers posts on his well-known weblog Pharyngula, I have great respect for him as a biology educator. As one myself, I can recognize in Dr. Myers's clear and well-written posts concerning scientific topics that he must be a fine teacher and a scientist fully current in modern biology. That he chooses to spend some of his free time on the internet goring the sacred cows of various religious groups clearly has nothing to do with his effectiveness in teaching, research, and service to the university, profession, and community. Please ignore the calls for his head and be assured that he is, in my opinion, an asset to UMM.
Sincerely,
[Sven DiMilo]
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 5:01 PM
Respectful, full-name-and-phone-number-included letter of support sent.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 5:01 PM
Jennifer, #60: I love that liberals are all about tolerance, until it comes to something they don't like--like religion. How very, ummmm, tolerant of you all.... (Insert eye roll here)
Yeah. How dare secularists express outrage at death threats directed at a kid who pulled a prank that harmed no one. We sure are an intolerant bunch!
Posted by: JoeBlu | July 10, 2008 5:02 PM
Here's my letter:
President Bruininks,
I'm writing to you in support of Prof. Myers, who you no doubt know has come under considerable attack for his statements about Catholic altar bread, photos, and UCF. Since his statements did not occur on a UMM hosted site, and since his views are no doubt well known to you, I assume that there is already an understanding in place that Prof. Myers can use his SEED blog to express personal opinions. I urge you to stand by that, even in the face of the incoherent anger of people like Bill Donahue and the Catholic League, whose major complaint seems to be that he is insufficiently deferential to their particular religion.
Thank you for your time,
Joe Blubaugh
Undergraduate Student, Purdue University
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 10, 2008 5:02 PM
@ 36
I briefly dated a celiac and did a good bit of research on what was and wasn't safe for consumption. She and I broke up before it really became an issue...regardless I'm sure we can come up with a proper wafer for you to munch!
Something peanut based perhaps, or soy? :D
I'll be dropping a real life, hand written letter of support in the mail tomorrow.
Personally I can't see a major university firing a prof. for something like this, talk about negative P.R.
Posted by: DBC | July 10, 2008 5:04 PM
A nicely formatted, well-written, congenial letter of support and identical email will be in the works tonight and sent out tomorrow.
Posted by: TSC | July 10, 2008 5:04 PM
What the fuck is wrong with Bill's rotten, nasty-ass teeth? I'd hate to be a cracker in his house. Oh fuck, that would be goddamn terrible.
Posted by: dieselrain | July 10, 2008 5:05 PM
Nicely written note of support for you, PZ, to President Bruininks from me, will be sent in tomorrow's mail. Your blog keeps me sane. Carry on, sir!
Posted by: Justin | July 10, 2008 5:05 PM
I will do a snail mail letter for you PZ. This whole scenario is just so utterly ridiculous.
Posted by: Boosterz | July 10, 2008 5:05 PM
"Really? And PZ can't see the harm he does? Why doesn't he write what he does about gays? or blacks? or jews? No, it is always the stupid, hate mongering, murdering Christians."
Um, maybe because they weren't the ones that went bat shit nuts and started attacking some kid for taking a CRACKER? And just for the record, there is ZERO harm in taking your precious jesus cracker.
Posted by: Kougaro | July 10, 2008 5:08 PM
Hello PZ Myers, i would have gladly sent a mail to the president, but i'm not confident enough in my writing skills.
Furthermore, the whole thing is ridiculous to a point i'm not sure what to write ("Mr President, please don't fire PZ Myers, because the cracker is not really the Christ.")
I live in France, and most people here are catholics. While we have our own bunch of crazy extremists, i don't know or heard of anyone who do really believes that the cracker is the Christ's body. Even the priests here will tell you that's symbolic.
I hope you don't get into any trouble because of this crazy bunch of idiots.
Posted by: George W Bush | July 10, 2008 5:09 PM
Bring 'em on!
Posted by: garth | July 10, 2008 5:09 PM
prof: i sent a brief email of support to your prez. now you can continue your work of destroying the gays and the blacks! muahahaha!
wait, that's not what you do at all.
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 5:10 PM
I apologize if this has been done already. Here is a link to a place that sells communion supplies. I might just buy a few dozen pounds of wafers and use them for kitty litter. I wonder if I can get a batch of wafers blessed somehow.
Posted by: RWHouchin | July 10, 2008 5:11 PM
I sent this e-mail to President Robert Bruininks:
Posted by: Papilio | July 10, 2008 5:11 PM
zero #49: I would gladly stand beside you and desecrate a cracker with you any day of the week. Keep up the good fight PZ. Rationality wins.
I'm Spartacus!
(Or, in Monty Python mode: I'm Brian, and so's my wife!)
Letter on way from Blighty.
(Mind you, if you got fired for this, the universe would probably come to a grinding halt as rationalists go on strike.)
Posted by: Steve in MI | July 10, 2008 5:11 PM
Done and on its way to sunny Minnesota via snail mail. :-)
Posted by: minusRusty | July 10, 2008 5:13 PM
Re: In Support of Dr. Paul Z. Myers
President Bruininks,
As you are well aware, Dr. Myers has managed to inspire some outrage regarding a post on his blog, Pharyngula, regarding the desecration of Roman Catholic communion wafers. The post in question was inspired by the highly overzealous and unreasonable reaction to an incident where a Roman Catholic communion wafer was taken from mass after it had been consecrated.
This letter is to inform you that I strongly support Dr. Myers' freedom of speech regarding religious issues, including religious issues and opinions that some, or even many, might find highly offensive. His blog entry was not done as an official part of the University of Minnesota, nor as part of his official duties as a Professor, nor is it hosted on any University computer servers, and therefore, there should be no need for any formal review or action against Dr. Myers from the University. I also don't think that there should be any suggestions made to Dr. Myers regarding altering the content of his Pharyngula posts, past or future. (Provided, of course, that such posts are within the legal bounds of free speech, rather than, say, illegal threats against persons or property.)
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[-me]
Posted by: Chris (in Columbus) | July 10, 2008 5:13 PM
PZ --
I am a senior at The Ohio State University and I am planning on attending University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) for grad school. It was your blog that got me interested in the school in the first place, and I am so grateful because U of M is an absolutely INCREDIBLE school and I cannot wait to get started there. I have you to thank for that.
I'll draft a letter right now to send to the President of U of M (Morris). I'll specifically state that without you, I would not be moving to Minnesota nor attending U of M. As crazy as that sounds, it's honestly the truth. I had little knowledge of the school until reading your blog. Thank you for everything you do. As exaggerated as it sounds, it is true when I say "your blog changed my life"!
Posted by: Jeff Dee | July 10, 2008 5:13 PM
Here's what I wrote:
Dear President Bruininks:
I assume you've already been deluged by emails on this subject, so I won't waste your time by repeating the details.
I would just like to say that Catholics are within their rights to treat a cracker with as much respect and reverence as they wish. But when they demand that anyone who doesn't respect their crackers as much as they do must be punished, then *they* are the ones who are out of line, not those who criticize them for it.
Thank you for your time,
-Jeff Dee
Austin, Texas
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 5:13 PM
Whoops.
communion supplies
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2008 5:14 PM
Sent something as soon as I noticed that there was an email address on the hate site's page. I expressed the hope that the University would take the high road by saying that your opinions are your business, and are neither supported nor opposed by the U. Good Luck!
Posted by: Josh | July 10, 2008 5:14 PM
Ok, this is craziness. I'm Catholic, and when I first read the story, I thought "Yeah, that guy was a bit rude for just taking the Eucharist like that", and that was it. No death threats. No calls for people to be fired. No demands to have the host back (for what reason?? There are stacks and stacks of them in any church!!). Just a bit of a headshake, and that's it. Why people are making such a huge deal about this, I have no idea. They've got nothing else on the go I suppose. It stories like this that don't make me feel great about my beliefs at all. I don't always agree with what your blog says when it comes to religion, but this time, I do.
Posted by: Anna | July 10, 2008 5:15 PM
This may not a good time to say this, but how many presidents of a large university want their mailbox and inbox spammed about one professor and his personal (I assume) blog? That said, I'll go think up some nice things to say...
Posted by: MS | July 10, 2008 5:16 PM
Emailed sent, in support of PZ, with pleasure.
Have also fired off unflattering (but not rude) feedback to the Catholic League... can't stand those sabre-rattlers.
Posted by: Steven H | July 10, 2008 5:16 PM
I just posted the message below in the "anti catholic bias" comments section on the Catholic League website.
"You guys started the inquisition and murdered Giordano Bruno for believing there might be planets around other stars and you have the audacity to worry about anti catholic bias. I am more concerned about anti reality bias and the Catholic Church(TM) is the biggest offender."
LONG LIVE PZ!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: John | July 10, 2008 5:17 PM
My letter!
"Dear Mr. Bruininks,
I write to you with regards to the copious amounts of (probably illiterate) mail that you have recently been receiving, urging you to fire or otherwise discipline Prof. PZ Myers from Morris University, on account of his threatening to physically and psychologically abuse a cracker. I turst I do not need to remind you that Cracker Abuse is not a crime, and Mr Myers should therefore be allowed to abuse as many crackers as he wishes, without having to worry about losing his job. Indeed I believe that, under the circumstances, it would be highly appropriate for yourself and Mr Myers to unite in a joint display of public cracker desecration, in order to show these professional moaners that their cracker-loving protests are falling on deaf ears.
Yours faithfully,
John Yates, Scotland."
Hope it gets you off the hook, PZ! ;)
Posted by: sterge | July 10, 2008 5:18 PM
Email sent...
Dear President Bruninks,
I'm writing to show my support for one of your one, Paul Zachary Myers. A wonderfully articulate and thoughtful human being under attack by a horde of hypocritical, anti-intellectual troglodytes for merely pointing out the absurdity of a group of superstitious miscreants. Criticizing religion or anything for that matter is something that enables all of us to engage in critical thought and pursue discussions that can help us all advance as individuals and as a species. Criticizing things that are blatantly absurd and CRUEL (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=912931E6387D06E86603288C86CA66A1?contentId=6932236&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1) should be rewarded, not punished.
For reference, I have no problem giving my name and standing up for the RIGHT cause here... and that is the truth that folks like PZ speak and seek...
Gregory D. Johnson
Syracuse University Graduate (BS in Computer Science - 1999)
Thanks and please don't ever let the hysteria overtake the truth,
Greg
Posted by: asad | July 10, 2008 5:18 PM
I think I'll hand-deliver my letter! Morrill Hall is right next to the physics building here on the Twin Cities campus...
@Alex #83,
Sure you can buy them, but I doubt they've been consecrated so they're just crackers.
Posted by: Mark P. Shea | July 10, 2008 5:18 PM
Dr. Myers:
You really should see a shrink. Normal people do not go around pissing in the faces of total strangers and explaining that they do it because they are mad at somebody who is not there.
What the hell your antics have to do with the promotion of science is beyond me. But, of course, here in your cocoon of Bright sycophants, pointing that out will have no effect. Proceed with the juvenalia.
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 5:19 PM
"This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests for the
purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves." [Robert G. Ingersoll]
Posted by: Chris P | July 10, 2008 5:19 PM
If you subscribe to the crazy e-mails from Human Events you will find, apart from the daily offers of magic drugs and cheap conservative books, a pile of hate about Muslims.
It seems as though Donahue is all about emulating the crazy Muslim ideas that have to be respected.
Posted by: Dave Thuleen | July 10, 2008 5:19 PM
Cathy Gill --
You say "Please respect my beliefs." That notion, that beliefs should be respected, is the deep problem that is common to all dogmas, religious and secular. It is not only ridiculous, but it is self-evidently ridiculous when you stop to think about it. If I claim to believe that a potato chip is the incarnation of my deceased grandmother, whatever that might mean, and then I ask you to repsect my belief, do you honestly think that you should? If I believe that aliens from the Crab Nebula have settled on Pluto and have opened a chain of hamburger restaurants there, do you respect that belief?
No, the respect a belief deserves is in direct proportion to the evidence supporting that belief, not the sincerity with which that belief is held.
Note, by the way, that I can respect you as a person while having zero repect for your ideas. As a high-school teacher, I routinely tear to shreds the work my students display on their exams, but I love and respect them as people. And I never hold back on finding fault with their work out of a concern that I might hurt their feelings.
They, at least, understand the distinction between respecting people and respecting ideas.
PZ -- I hand-wrote a letter and will drop it in the mailbox this afternoon.
Posted by: Hillary Rettig / www.lifelongactivist.com | July 10, 2008 5:21 PM
PZ - note sent. Please remember that Donahoe went after Amanda at Pandagon back when she was hired by the Edwards campaign. Perhaps she has some information or advice that might be helpful.
Hillary
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2008 5:21 PM
Gawd, the whinging!
Please respect my beliefs.
No.
Posted by: JoJo | July 10, 2008 5:22 PM
E-mail sent with real name and all.
Jennifer #60:
Jenny (you don't mind if I call you Jenny. It seems like a much more tolerating name than Jennifer), like so many conservatives, you're a idiot. I can tolerate idiots, but it does seem that too many of you are also conservatives.
PZ is not complaining about religion in this particular thread. He's pointing out that a religious figure, the self-appointed head of the Catholic League, is making threats because PZ is not taking his religion seriously. I suspect that's your problem. You notice that many liberals don't take religion seriously and you don't like it.
You know, Jenny, that's just too bad. Americans believe that each and every one of us has the right to say whatever we want, as long as it's legal. However, there is not a similar right not to be offended. You may whine that liberals don't tolerate religion, particularly religious excesses like Bill Donahue is indulging in. However, neither you nor Bill have the right to expect that statements you find offensive be punished.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 5:22 PM
But only Davetard would try to incite a terminally ill person to try to actually kill you.
He really is one of the nastiest and most evil persons on the planet. What a shock that he's also an IDiot.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: david | July 10, 2008 5:23 PM
Just emailed El Presidente. I like this blog too much and my sister liked your instruction too much for me to stand on the sidelines on this one.
Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2008 5:23 PM
I smell martyr blood! Yessssss.... YESSS!!!
Posted by: Wes | July 10, 2008 5:23 PM
I think I've figured this out. By Catholic logic, Attacking a Cracker = Attacking a Person. Because the Lord Jesus says, "Take this, and eat of it, for it is just as important as a real, live person."
So if someone says something bad about a biscuit, that justified threatening the person's well-being, job, and life. Also, if a person is intolerant towards a cracker, this justifies Catholics in being intolerant towards people. If someone attacks a cracker, then you've been victimized, and can threaten to kill them.
It all makes sense when you think about it that way...and huff some paint...and slam your head against the wall a few times.
Posted by: Niobe | July 10, 2008 5:24 PM
I find it disheartening that you would have to need positive email, as if this brouhaha actually threatened your position.
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 5:24 PM
"but I doubt they've been consecrated so they're just crackers."
Umm, they're always just crackers. But I understand your point. That's why I was wondering about a way to do a giant batch-blessing. Maybe I can find something on the interwebs.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 5:25 PM
"Four of them have included death threats, a personal one day record."
All this for a tiny wafer. I'm in favor of never letting Catholics forget this wafer incident, especially the death threats. This evidence for their immorality and stupidity should be shoved into their faces every day for many years. The Catholics are no better than Muslim terrorists and they should never be allowed to forget it.
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 5:26 PM
Save a Cracker - Kill a Human!
Cafe press idea?
Posted by: Kergillian | July 10, 2008 5:26 PM
Here is a copy of the letter of support I just sent:
Posted by: Sam Centipedro | July 10, 2008 5:28 PM
Re the Catholic celiacs and communion: yes, gluten-free god is available, and in the UK many priests will happily put the appropriate cracker christs on the plate (they like it if they're a different shape so they don't get them muddled up, how practical). That said, some bishops have been less accommodating presumably because they believe that the chemical reaction of transubstantiation:
cracker + wine + blessing -> flesh + blood + holiness
does not obey the Law of Conservation of Gluten does not apply (a miracle!).
Of course, other countries' voodoo merchants might be more difficult (Catholic priests in the UK nowadays understand that they can't bully their congregations as much as they used to, and I think even in Ireland, most priests no longer practise buggery with their altar boys).
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 5:28 PM
Cathy Gill,
We should, and do, respect your right to your beliefs. We will not try to have you fired for them, we won't email and harass your cow-workers and family.
We do not have to respect your beliefs themselves, and you do not have to respect ours.
ALL beliefs can and should be criticized. If we were to live in a world where any ideas a human brain could hold were to be given equal respect and therefore treated as equally valid... well, we wouldn't be here conversing in the manner in which we are.
Posted by: brandon | July 10, 2008 5:28 PM
"Four of them have included death threats, a personal one day record."
All this for a tiny wafer. I'm in favor of never letting Catholics forget this wafer incident, especially the death threats.
If someone designs an pleasing, "It's a fucking cracker" badge, I'd add it to my site. I'm sure many, many others would, too.
Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | July 10, 2008 5:30 PM
Apparently the link to Pharyngula from the university website has been removed - compare the current version with the cached one.
Posted by: epsilon | July 10, 2008 5:30 PM
I sent one for you. I'm not just gonna sit around and let these bigots trample all over our freedoms over some goddamned cracker
Posted by: lo-rez | July 10, 2008 5:30 PM
you have my sword, sir!
Posted by: John Olthoff | July 10, 2008 5:30 PM
Snail mail sent!
Posted by: valdemar | July 10, 2008 5:31 PM
Sent off my email from England, in what I hope is proper English, funny imperialist spellings and all. Was careful to use my patent 'death threat checker', just in case one had snuck in.
Posted by: andrew | July 10, 2008 5:31 PM
reallly?? i just wonder how many catholics thought it was outrageous at how upset Muslims got at a danish cartoon.
ridiculous and hypocritical
Posted by: Andrew Skegg | July 10, 2008 5:32 PM
I find all this rather incredible. For centuries religious organisations have wielded power over the masses by amazing them with apparent insights into the nature of the universe and threatening hellfire for those who dare to question the divine providence of god representatives. Moreover, they take your money for the privilege.
At some stage we came to the point where "host desecration" is considered the most heinous crime - an attack on the saviour himself. Through the magic of transubstantiation a cracker can actually change into the living flesh of Christ, but no evidence for this miracle has ever been presented. Hell, they even tell us that the form, shape, colour, texture, taste, smell, and feel do not change, but the *substance* changes. What on Earth can this mean?
Taking it a step further and calling a cracker a religious icon whose sanctity os paramount borders on pure insanity. If this madness were limited to a small cult the wider community might see it as slightly bizarre, maybe even humorous. But I am afraid to report that this particular breed of madness is wide spread - a pandemic.
Their reaction to such comment stinks of hypocrisy. The suggestion that their holy relics and voodoo rituals are untouchable, yet another's faith is open to abuse is ridiculous. I live in hope that those making such comments are able to take a step back and objectively look at what they are doing. So far I have been uniformly disappointed.
Posted by: J (not J) | July 10, 2008 5:33 PM
"But, of course, here in your cocoon of Bright sycophants, pointing that out will have no effect. Proceed with the juvenalia."
And ending on that line, Miss Shea flounces out of the room...
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 5:34 PM
I'll send a letter. But better advice is that if they try to sanction you in any way, get lawyered-up with the ACLU.
Chances are they'll back down so far, so fast it'll take weeks for the smoke of their retreat to settle.
Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | July 10, 2008 5:34 PM
Bill is going to metaphorically kick your arse buddy. Bet on it.
Posted by: GentlePath | July 10, 2008 5:35 PM
wtf? Death threats over this? Why not just pray that you get hit by lightning?
Posted by: rod-the-farmer | July 10, 2008 5:35 PM
I too sent an e-mail to the Pres. In thinking over the situation that caused all this fuss, I wonder what would happen if a number of churches were suddenly confronted with attendees, one of who managed to drop a host cracker, during some sort of processional walk. Where it would be trod upon, of course. All those crackers presented by the staff would of course be consumed in situ, but somehow someone smuggled in an extra cracker. Then dropped it without being seen. You could have so much fun with this.
Posted by: Jeff Schmidt | July 10, 2008 5:35 PM
Email of support sent. The day we aren't allowed to criticize ideas is the day education is rendered worthless.
PZ, you should post all the info on the death threats and forward it on to authorities. Put their "anonymous" ugliness -- and whatever identification is available -- on full display.
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 10, 2008 5:36 PM
Prof Myers, I would like to send a brief email to President Robert Bruininks. It would be in support of your stance against religion, on the grounds that excessive belief in superstition can be, & oftentimes is, dangerous for human society. Before I do this, I need to know if your University President is a rationalist.
(Sorry for shouting.)
Posted by: Wes | July 10, 2008 5:36 PM
Someone oughta make a cartoon of Pope Ratzi with a wafer-shaped bomb in his pope hat.
Posted by: Katharine | July 10, 2008 5:36 PM
I sent this email:
I am an undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin - Madison who reads the blog of Professor Paul Z. Myers, a professor at your university system's campus in Morris, MN. In hearing of the news that, in response to Dr. Myers' criticism of the reaction to a student's actions at a religious ceremony in Florida, several members of that religion had sent him death threats and called for his firing and/or resignation, I am appalled, and I highly suggest you keep him on your staff. He is respected among members of the scientific community for his advocacy for the teaching of sound science and his willingness to criticize those segments of society that indulge in ridiculousness, and he has no shortage of admirers here at the University of Wisconsin - Madison (in fact, the atheist student group which I am a member of is inviting him to speak here early next semester). I trust that you, being a former professor yourself, realize the value of this highly competent professor to your institution.
Sincerely,
Katharine Leah Dickson
kldickson@wisc.edu
Posted by: Stu | July 10, 2008 5:38 PM
I sent off a note myself.
You know what the worst thing is? Communion wafers aren't very tasty.
They're cheap and cardboardy.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 5:38 PM
Message sent! Keep us informed, PZ, and keep dishing out the deserved disrespect for daft delusions!
Posted by: DanB | July 10, 2008 5:38 PM
Prof Myers, I sent an email to President Bruininks in your support. Keep speaking out against ignorance no matter how loud it may be.
Posted by: David Wiener | July 10, 2008 5:39 PM
I've sent your President the letter of support you asked for. It is the least we can do to support you - keep up the good fight!
Posted by: James F. Elliott | July 10, 2008 5:39 PM
Done. Best of luck.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 5:40 PM
Done. And even with my real Irish American name.
Posted by: kubenzi | July 10, 2008 5:40 PM
I will take your bet Ben.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 10, 2008 5:41 PM
Gesundheit!Posted by: Papilio | July 10, 2008 5:41 PM
J (not J) #118:
"But, of course, here in your cocoon of Bright sycophants, pointing that out will have no effect. Proceed with the juvenalia."
And ending on that line, Miss Shea flounces out of the room...
It's juvenilia, anyway.
Posted by: lydia | July 10, 2008 5:43 PM
When will it become apparent that crackers don't matter!
I'll send a letter of support, and turn up on Saturday in solidarity. Do you think you will need security in Atlanta?
Posted by: wright | July 10, 2008 5:44 PM
Done. This breed of asspanda needs to be slapped down hard, or they just keep shoving their agenda more intrusively. Their weakness is that they can't see how ridiculous their shrill flailings make them.
Posted by: CrypticLife | July 10, 2008 5:44 PM
Starbuck,
On "hurting feelings" -- right now, there is a post on the Religion Clause blog about someone suing because sodomites was translated as "homosexuals" in one edition of a Bible, and his feelings were hurt. The general consensus there (correctly) is that he has no case. To the extent you bring it up, though, think about it -- Christians/Catholics say homosexuals are doing something evil and will be going to hell for eternity. For that matter, atheists are to suffer the same fate. Theists will try to get laws passed to prevent these types of behaviors. Somehow, this isn't seen as bigotry by most theists.
As for giving insight into how "athiest [sic] clowns" think, I hope that it does. I note that you've shown rather selective memory about responses here -- please try to pay better attention. I do note that you've been politely disagreeable, which is fine, and I hope comments regarding your teeth (for example) do not bother you too much. Just don't mistake them for atheism -- that's just the internet.
Posted by: Axel Muller | July 10, 2008 5:44 PM
Just sent a short email to your president.
As far as all the upset Catholics are concerned, I think they should accept the challenge, live up to their own expectations and forgive you - end of story.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 5:45 PM
Yeah. A kid did something trivial and done by THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF CATHOLICS. You nutters, suffering from withdrawals in the current lack of "missing white woman" news cycle hysteria took this non-event to the point of idiocy.
Your kind made death threats and are demanding the expulsion of this student trying to, at the very least, set his life back a year or two as he'd have to start over at a new college where won't, because that's how it works, get full credit for the 3.5 years of college he's completed.
And when we pointed out your INTOLLERENCE and MASSIVE OVER-REACTION to his mistake, you got even nuttier.
SO, fuck off. You're so goddamn delusional in your sanctimony it's not even funny.
Posted by: oldtree | July 10, 2008 5:46 PM
Are you telling me that is all you get for a lifetime's contribution to NAMBLA? One lousy cracker a week with nothing on it? Who the hell is stupid enough to pay that kind of money for rotten food? No wonder the priests can't afford to buy a hooker for their Monday off. They have to use little boys for their NAMBLA membership requirement. I guess fellow gay priests are somehow off limits, so children are better?
Groucho was right about clubs.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 5:46 PM
Please respect my beliefs. - Cathy Gill
Since you don't say what they are Cathy, how can we decide whether to respect them or not? for all I know you might believe the British royal family are anthropophagic shape-shifting alien lizards whose schemes are laid bare in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or even something reallywacky, like that the Pope is infallible and a man in a dress can turn a biscuit into part of another man who died 2000 years ago!
Posted by: Steve F. | July 10, 2008 5:46 PM
Wow, this is the catholic version of the Danish cartoons. This may be fun. Go for it PZ, let's see some cracker abuse, email sent including my real name!
Posted by: Doug | July 10, 2008 5:47 PM
I just ate some Cheezits, will I go to Hell or did I offend some cult?
Posted by: Cyril | July 10, 2008 5:49 PM
I just wrote to the President as follows:
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing in defense of P Z Myers regarding the controversy with certain Catholics and others of similar persuasion in the matter of communion wafers (crackers).
While religious authorities and spokespersons have no problem denigrating other human beings, homosexuals for example, they become highly irrate if anyone dares to consider their own beliefs and rituals equally abhorent or at the very least meaningless and without rational basis.
Any effort of these people to demand the dismissal or censure of P Z Myers through their self righteous furvor should be totally disregarded by the University.
I hope you will consider this plea in your deliberations.
Posted by: Christopher Johnson | July 10, 2008 5:50 PM
Do you really think this juvenile crap impresses people, asshat? And I'm not even Catholic. But do keep it up. You're just demonstrating what insecure, intolerant a-holes atheists really are.
Posted by: Cary | July 10, 2008 5:50 PM
Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"?
I am going to write a nice, long letter to President Bruininks tonight. I think I will have some clout being a recent graduate of the University.
Posted by: JoJo | July 10, 2008 5:51 PM
You're safe, as long as some guy wearing a dress didn't mumbo-jumbo over the cheezits, turning them into Cthulhu's toenails or something like that.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 5:51 PM
And the new IRONY METER just exploded! And I only got it last week. Fortunately, it is still under warranty.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | July 10, 2008 5:51 PM
PZ, I suspect that the calls for you to desecrate the Koran or otherwise offend muslims are the product the trope popular in social conservative political discourse that liberals hate christianity but give a pass to radical islam.
Posted by: rob | July 10, 2008 5:53 PM
since PZ received death threats, it is only fair that he receive a life threat:
Professor Myers,
you are a learned scholar, a proponent of rational thought, debunker of dubious claims and incredulous of the credulous.
if you continue this pursuit of knowledge and education, you will find that others will follow in your footsteps and contribute positively to society.
you have been warned.
Posted by: Paul Johnson | July 10, 2008 5:53 PM
but what i really want to know is: what is bill donohue's email address?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 5:53 PM
Normal people do not go around pissing in the faces of total strangers and explaining that they do it because they are mad at somebody who is not there. - Mark P. Shea
Mr. Shea, may I point out that the idea of "pissing in the faces of total strangers" came out of your degenerate mind? PZ Myers has been rude about people issuing death threats because someone didn't eat a "magic" cracker. See the difference?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 10, 2008 5:54 PM
I've sent off a nice letter by mail. Knowing Australia Post he should get it in about a year.
I pointed out that the university should be proud of their Professor and, whilst there will always be the nutbags, the press he generates for the institution is overwhelmingly positive. Personally I'd never heard of the place prior to reading Pharyngula and, I'd probably bet, neither had most of the non-US readers, but as a direct result of me discussing it my young cousin is at the moment wading through admission procedures and is going over to the study there.
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 5:54 PM
True story: The Dominicans take their name originally from Domini Canes, "Hounds of the Lord". They were given the original license by teh Pope to hunt down and kill unbelievers. Not hurt their feelings, hunt down and kill.
Methinks these cracker-worshippers can shove their phony outrage up their own asses.
Posted by: Dave Mueller | July 10, 2008 5:54 PM
Well, of course, if we believed it was a cracker, we wouldn't be so upset. Why is it that the supposed champions of tolerance don't extend tolerance to those that disagree with them? In fact, what good IS tolerance if not extended to those that disagree with you?
I used to be an atheist so I understand your science-alone tunnel vision, but some of us don't believe that everything can be explained by science.
So, since many people believe that the consecrated host is the very Body of Christ, why can you not be civil to us? Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us, so you really shouldn't be surprised to get some serious anger directed towards you.
Atheists don't hold much sacred, so it is probably hard for you to understand, but someone threatening to kill your family is probably something you'd get a bit upset and angry about, I assume? Well, that's about how we Catholics feel when you threaten to profane the Body of Christ.
I hope you see the error of your ways and grow out of your quite prolonged adolescence. When you realize that there are people that are just as intelligent as you (probably more, judging by your behavior) that have believed in God and Catholicism, you'll take the first step towards sanity and maturity. To think that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and not worthy of respect is itself mind-bogglingly stupid and juvenile.
Do you think you are smarter than Blaise Pascal? How about Louis Pasteur? I could go on and on, but it is probably useless.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 10, 2008 5:54 PM
I sent an e-mail. Subject: "Don't bow to a mob frothing at the mouth over one man threatening an inanimate object."
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 5:55 PM
Christopher Johnson, #146: You're just demonstrating what insecure, intolerant a-holes atheists really are.
Well, I dunno. Death threats over a pretty trivial matter will make anyone feel insecure. Expressing outrage by making threats against crackers rather than against people seems to be pretty civilized to me. But then, I am an intolerant a-hole.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 5:55 PM
"Do you really think this juvenile crap impresses people, asshat? And I'm not even Catholic. But do keep it up. You're just demonstrating what insecure, intolerant a-holes atheists really are.
Imagine the GALL of these atheists, intolerantly criticizing the DEATH THREATS of others!
Posted by: blue_Jan | July 10, 2008 5:55 PM
Just sent my email and added a post scriptum. It might have a typo but telling the president that if he doesn't take steps to protect PZ the reputation of the university will be damaged. I guess that many skilled people who think about joining this university will inform themself about it. When it turns out that the president of the university isn't protecting a free thinking, pro science member of his faculty and blogger its reputation will be greatly damaged.
Dear President Bruninks,
I am sadend to hear that one professor of your university is a victim in a hate campaign. I believe that you will do whatever is possible to protect the right of free speech for your faculty. Intimidation and threats are not acceptable in a discourse about religion even when the discourse was started in a mocking tone (and there is a good reason for this tone: "taking hostage" a cracker).
Sincerly,
Dr. Jan
P.S.: I only know about the University of Minnesota because of Prof. Myers, his blog, Pharyngula. I visited the website of your university and consider it as an optiion for my future career in science.
Posted by: Bob L | July 10, 2008 5:55 PM
Death treats from Catholics? I seem to recall a lot of sermons on turning the other check from the priest of my parish back in the day I was a believer. These Christians apparently believe in God just as much as we atheists do if they go against own beliefs like that. Hypocrites.
Well I sent my e-mail supporting you with my real name and real e-mail address to your boss Pz for what is worth.
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 5:56 PM
Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us
Posted by: Dave Mueller
Seek medical help.
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | July 10, 2008 5:57 PM
Email sent, and a pleasure to do so.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 5:57 PM
Minneapolis Tribune (the largest paper in Minnesota) reports on the story:
It's so many words, Myers seems to be saying there.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 5:57 PM
Minneapolis Tribune (the largest paper in Minnesota) reports on the story:
It's so many words, Myers seems to be saying there.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: John Pieret | July 10, 2008 5:58 PM
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 10, 2008 5:59 PM
Dave at #156
Blah,blah,blah..I could go on and on, but it is probably useless.
Not probably, Dave, definately. I used to be a Catholic and I call bullshit on your statement about fucking around with a wafer being worse than threatening to kill you.Liar.
Posted by: Betsy | July 10, 2008 5:59 PM
Letter mailed with real name and affiliation:
I write in support of Dr. Myers. As someone who was raised Catholic, I find this made-up controversy instigated by Bill Donohue to be completely shameful. Being offended by a sacrilege does not justify an attempt to ruin another person's life. Dr. Myers himself was only responding to another overreaction at another university by highlighting how ridiculous that overreaction was. That's what satire does. The fact that a brief bit of satire has prompted death threats to Dr. Myers is appalling. And what would be even more appalling would be if these elements in society should succeed. Because where will it stop? Even Protestants don't think the wafers are literally the body of Christ. Who then would be safe from the Catholic mob hunting for Dr. Myers?
As a fellow educator working part-time at a community college, this kind of threat to intellectual freedom is greatly disturbing to me because I don't have the kind of safe guards that Dr. Myers has in being a tenured professor. I hope that you will continue to stand behind Dr. Myers and not allow the university to be manipulated by those who would control even those beyond the reach of their religion.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 5:59 PM
Damn, why does the server allow double-post now? It didn't in the past.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glenn | July 10, 2008 6:00 PM
I, too, sent an email in support.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 6:00 PM
#111, you're right. The university link to Pharyngula was removed.
PZ talks about death threats against a student for not eating a wafer, then PZ gets death threats, then his university removes a link to his website. That's the power of faith.
Any letters to President Robert H. Bruininks might want to make a request to have PZ's link restored.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 10, 2008 6:01 PM
Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us, so you really shouldn't be surprised to get some serious anger directed towards you.
HATE SPEECH! HATE SPEECH! HELP! I'M BEING ASSAULTED!!!
I believe this BLOG is the Sacred Incarnation of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the word "body" is the most offensive word in the English language. Your posting it here is worse than threatening to kill me! How dare you? You must respect my irrational and unprovable nonsense!
Now it's time for me to follow Christ's example and get REALLY FUCKING MAD AND HATEFUL!
Posted by: Henzu | July 10, 2008 6:01 PM
At the horror of finding myself actually somewhat understanding the evil fundies (not the parts with death threats and harassment e-mails tho') I think that the comments have veered somewhat off-course: wasn't the main point of PZ's first post the reaction of the catholic community to the college student's stunt, rather than trans-substantiation itself? I think we can all agree that it was a stupid prank (on par in seriousness with putting tabasco in your friend's beer). What went wrong was the awfully revealing aftermath where the catholic community just over-reacted (as they habitually seem to do.)
Now while we should stand in defense for the poor college kid and PZ, what is there to be gained from willfully hurting peoples' feelings when cracker-eating is not exactly a major issue of e.g. civil rights.
We should not fight the fundies "on the beaches" when the battle is already "in London" - any moderates or otherwise who might be fostered in support for the really important issues - like abortion, gay rights , separation of church&state, evolution etc. - should not be antagonized over trivialities over crackers (double meaning here: WE should not antagonize them, but of course they shouldn't be antagonized in the first place).
There was a good article in Foreign Affairs some while ago that argued for a "broadened" concept of allies for the US selected on more pragmatic grounds (avoid the flashbacks of Noriegas etc. here =P). In similar spirit I suggest that we should work with people "we wouldn't want to have dinner with".
*sinister smile* and when the time is right it is the crackers' turn!
Posted by: sjburnt | July 10, 2008 6:02 PM
#92 "You really should see a shrink. Normal people do not go around pissing in the faces of total strangers and explaining that they do it because they are mad at somebody who is not there.
What the hell your antics have to do with the promotion of science is beyond me. But, of course, here in your cocoon of Bright sycophants, pointing that out will have no effect. Proceed with the juvenalia.
Posted by: Mark P. Shea | July 10, 2008 5:18 PM "
Mark, the antics serve to bring faith-based belief into the light of day.
If one can assume that racism, gender bias, and other forms of hatred and bigotry are not helpful to our society, then sometimes challenging beliefs with rational, empirical thought is a good thing.
Try it!
Let Mr. Donohue express his beliefs on his own time.
Posted by: splendidmonkey | July 10, 2008 6:02 PM
Hello Dr. Bruininks,
This is just a brief note to express my support for Professor PZ Meyers at Morris. I understand that he is under attack from religious organizations for opinions he has expressed in his personal blog. I hope the University of Minnesota will stand behind Dr. Meyers and his right to express his opinions. PZ boldly promotes rational thinking, and our state and our country need more of that.
I hope my kids go to UM Morris some day.
Sincerely,
[me]
BAgE class of 1987
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 6:02 PM
Dave Mueller, #156: Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us, so you really shouldn't be surprised to get some serious anger directed towards you.
And this is why people like you scare the living fuck out of us. Remember how Muslims all over the world rioted when European newspapers printed cartoons of Muhammad? Do you really think that no one should ever, ever print cartoons about Muhammad, that "serious anger" directed toward someone who publishes a cartoon about Muhammad "shouldn't surprise" us? Or is that just getting silly>
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 6:03 PM
#156: "I used to be an atheist"
Bullshit.
Posted by: room101 | July 10, 2008 6:04 PM
Don't know if this has already been asked...isn't there somewhere we can beseige Donahue with email, spam, mild threats, what-have-you??? Maybe we can crash his website somehow?
We need to counter these idiots. This really is no different from insulting mohammed via a cartoon, right? I mean these xtian idiots are 1 step away from it, it seems.
Oh how I hate it when people act so insulted on God's behalf....narcissitic bastards.
Posted by: chgo_liz | July 10, 2008 6:04 PM
I figured that it was better to immediately send an email than to run the not-insubstantial risk that I'd never get around to mailing a actual letter.
One thing I pointed out was that both PZ and the kid who did not immediately consume the cracker have received multiple death threats from Christians. Instead of being arrested for their crimes, these perpetrators are brazenly trying to get the second death threat victim fired for standing up for the first death threat victim.
PZ, is there any (even slight) identifying info on the death threats that could justify filing a police report? If they're going to attack you, might as well make them sweat a bit.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 6:04 PM
Email sent.
Was almost caught up with posts, now 100+ behind again, but it was worth it.
So much ado about a bloody cracker!
Posted by: DrBadger | July 10, 2008 6:05 PM
E-mail sent. Hey PZ, are the death threats sent by people officially calling themselves members of the catholic league? If so, you got a case against them. Maybe we should all publicly call a cracker a cracker, and see how many death threats from the catholic league we get...
Posted by: Jennifer | July 10, 2008 6:05 PM
Dear President Bruininks,
This letter is intended as a gentle plea to you in the hopes that you might not let the multitudes of screaming, hateful rabble drive you into firing or otherwise punishing an intelligent and decent human being for the crime of free speech. I am speaking, of course, of the recent imbroglio over the words of P. Z. Myers regarding the so-called 'kidnapping' of the Catholic Eucharist.
I am not Catholic, or even Christian. Frankly, my religion, or lack of it, shouldn't be an issue here. Regardless of what people might believe, in the United States, the Constitution still guarantees all men the freedom to speak what they believe about matters that interest and engage them.
I am quite certain that Bill Donohue and the others at the Catholic League will be whipping their followers into a frenzy in the coming days to send you mail and email demanding that Myers be fired, that Myers should even die for what he has said; indeed, on Myers' blog, he has stated as of this afternoon that he has already begun to receive death threats for his words. It is both reprehensible and lamentable that, in this day and age, people can be so driven to hatred by another man's words that they would think nothing of killing him, or inciting others to do so.
I have every confidence you are a reasonable and rational man. I hope that in the days to come, you will weather the criticism stirred up by these hatemongers with grace, patience, and confidence.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Lawrence
Whiting, Indiana
Posted by: Starbuck | July 10, 2008 6:05 PM
Starbuck "PZ can't see the harm he does"
We have stood by too long suffering under the harm that religions have done interfering with the state of the planet. Believing that their god will fix everything including overpopulation.
No, we will no longer be passive and put up with the BS. It has to stop, it has screwed up the planet and our lives.
No more pandering to stupidity. No more "you have to be considerate".......
Geez, I said I hope he doesn't get fired for it.
And I might say, boy aren't you the long suffering martyrs...
And for you yahoos who think Christianity was supposed to bring peace to this earth, think again. Christiany is a lot of things, but peace is NOT one of them.
Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace to the earth, in fact he said he brought a sword.
And that is very evident. The hate coming from the Christians is appalling. But the hate coming from the athiests is very telling. They aren't as smart as they think they are. You are just a bunch of ticked off humans, nothing more.
If you want to deny the Lord, ok, that is your right. It is also your right to send yourself to hell. And that isn't hate speech or anything of the sort, it is a reality.
Do Judges send criminals to prison? No the prisoners send themselves, for doing the crime.
Now, if you can't figure out that if Christians are right and there is a God, that you will go to hell (the place for satan and his cohorts, because that is the side you chose.. well then I guess the infinitely stupid will go to hell as well.
I am amazed at the stupidity level of athiests who describe themselves as "progressive" "intellectual" "brights".
Stupidity is oozing from you.
I apologize, it isn't so much stupidity as being naive.
Or better yet, you are decieved.
And seeing is you don't believe in God, that means you will believe in ANYTHING but God.
Idiots, all of you.
You do realize that God himself calls athiests fools?
It's in the Bible...
Posted by: Michael Pack | July 10, 2008 6:07 PM
*ATHEIST IN DISTRESS HAND GESTURE @ PZ*
*ATHEIST IN DISTRESS HAND GESTURE @ PZ*
*ATHEIST IN DISTRESS HAND GESTURE @ PZ*
*ATHEIST IN DISTRESS HAND GESTURE @ PZ*
I'll write up a little something when I get finished work. I don't think you have anything to worry about PZ; all this guy along with his minions have done, is show their true colours.
I think what they've accomplished here is, frankly, great. I hope they continue to throw themselves head first into the fire like the ignorant, confused lemmings they've proven themselves to be. Bring more attention to the astounding absurdity their side of the "argument" entails!
Come on Donohue; the cracker debacle is no laughing matter!! Don't stop at an email to his boss, call the news papers! Call CNN! The American people deserve to know!
Posted by: John | July 10, 2008 6:08 PM
OK. I fully agree that it's just a damn cracker. Nevertheless, these crackers are an important symbol to a certain population, and announcing on your blog that you want to desecrate that symbol is deliberate disrespect. It's one thing to criticize the remarks that people make, and to criticize their opinions and beliefs. By my standards, that stuff's not only acceptable but encouraged. But it's quite another thing to take an action, or threaten to take an action, with the direct intention of causing offense. That's called an insult, and it's unproductive, childish, and just not called for.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 6:08 PM
You do realize that God himself calls athiests fools?
Wow! Really? An imaginary construct has called me a bad name. I'm scared now!
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 6:09 PM
Not only have I been thinking that for the past two days, but I bet these same self people were along the lines of "those fucking rag-heads need to get over it." I bet ol' Bill Donahue and the Catholic League didn't start a letter writing campaign against the paper that published the Mohammad cartoons.
In fact, they got pissed when an "Opus" cartoon that poked fun of Islam wasn't published in the Washington Post:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1323
Seriously, if you're demanding respect for religions, shouldn't that include all religions? Shouldn't you COMMEND the Washington Post for their growing senstativity toward the worlds relgions?
Posted by: Peter Milley | July 10, 2008 6:09 PM
Letter sent.
Death threats. Threatening letters to employers. I say this entirely without irony: JESUS WEPT. If any of these neo-Pharisees ever met the saviour they claim to follow, they would die of shame.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 6:09 PM
"So, since many people believe that the consecrated host is the very Body of Christ, why can you not be civil to us? Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us, so you really shouldn't be surprised to get some serious anger directed towards you."
They might well believe it. Many Americans believe they have been kidnapped by aliens, and even more believe aliens visit Earth. There is no evidence or reason to believe them, and there is no evidence or reason to believe Catholics who believe a wafer really has turned into the body of Christ. If they produce evidence to support that claim then I am prepared to re-consider, as I am sure is PZ. Until then they are just deluding themselves.
Posted by: JoJo | July 10, 2008 6:10 PM
According to the propaganda, Christ is able to raise himself from the dead. Seems to me that Ol' JC can take care of himself. If PZ gets struck by lightning, then we'll know that JC is feeling pissed off. Until then, you and your foaming at the mouth loonies might want to moderate your anger.
Posted by: room101 | July 10, 2008 6:10 PM
Dave Mueller #156:
That unqualifyingly is the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in quite some time. Comparing this to killing someone is stone-cold fucknut batshit.
Get help. And stay the fuck away from me or anyone related to me...
Posted by: Calladus | July 10, 2008 6:10 PM
Mueller - #156
Do you think you're smarter than Richard Feynman?
As if that meant anything more than empty bleating.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 6:11 PM
"Nevertheless, these crackers are an important symbol to a certain population, and announcing on your blog that you want to desecrate that symbol is deliberate disrespect."
No shit. So what?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 6:11 PM
o you really think this juvenile crap impresses people, asshat? And I'm not even Catholic. But do keep it up. You're just demonstrating what insecure, intolerant a-holes atheists really are. - Christopher Johnson
True, you're not a Catholic. But since your website (which is abominably badly designed and very slow, by the way) is labelled "Midwest Conservative Journal" and is full of ravings about the evil Archbishop of Canterbury's betrayal of Anglicanism, we can be sure you're well up to the standard of lunacy they've been displaying here, so you needn't be ashamed!
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 10, 2008 6:13 PM
I just hope you don't start knocking the toasted raviolis and wine that signify the body and sauce of the Great FSM. That would be crossing the line.
Amen and pass the Holy Mozzarella
FSM League President
jimmiraybob
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 6:14 PM
I see you missed it, Starbuck, but that fallacy was thoroughly debunked years ago. Blaise Pascal isn't in heaven or hell now, he is simply no longer alive, and his body has rotted away.
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2008 6:14 PM
Dave Mueller,
To think that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and not worthy of respect is itself mind-bogglingly stupid and juvenile.
It's not a matter of "everybody who disagrees" with us, it's that you're stupid and your holy crackers are not worthy of respect, being as they're, y'know, crackers.
Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us
You're a liar. Nobody actually believes that. You lackwits are just playing a bizarre game of who can claim to believe the stupidest shit. The rest of the world is tired of the fallout.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 6:15 PM
Amen and pass the Holy Mozzarella
FSM League President
jimmiraybob
Parmesan is the true cheese, blasphemer!
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 6:15 PM
Riiiiiight... Because we make DEATH THREATS and try to RUIN PEOPLE'S LIVES over a cracker.
And, btw, shouldn't the all powerful, all knowing big fairy in the sky take care of this? Seriously, why does he have to rely on PEOPLE, who are infinitely weaker and more fallible, to take care of blasphemers?
Really, just let old Thor or Vishnu or whichever sky-fairy of your choice uncork 3 million volts on ol' PZ and the problem is TAKEN CARE OF. No need for you to get involved.
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 6:15 PM
Cathy Gill #57 wrote:
It seems to me that your last sentence contradicts your earlier point. "Desecration" is an intellectual issue, and the concept of what it means to desecrate something sacred deserves to be taken seriously. Disagreement -- even angry or mocking disagreement -- is a necessary part of the landscape of debate. Attacking an idea is not attacking a person.
We DO respect your beliefs -- in the way that counts. We think them worthy of discussion and criticism. We also think they happen to be wrong, and foolish, and should not be treated as if those who hold them must of course be simple and sensitive children who cannot understand that all ideas are open to discussion and criticism. On the contrary. You are worthy of better beliefs.
Posted by: Doug | July 10, 2008 6:16 PM
"So, since many people believe that the consecrated host is the very Body of Christ, why can you not be civil to us? Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us, so you really shouldn't be surprised to get some serious anger directed towards you."
Why should we respect your silly superstitions? You guys worship crackers, how can anyone take you seriously?
Posted by: tes | July 10, 2008 6:17 PM
Support mail has been sent.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 10, 2008 6:18 PM
Man, all these threats and hatred over holy crackers is making me so hungry I could eat a savior.
Posted by: Cary | July 10, 2008 6:18 PM
I think secretly most christians know god does not exist, because they sure as hell don't follow the bible or Jesus' teachings.
It's all about control. This little Catholic League dustup really just confirms that.
It just seems like the god people want to rule everything. They want their little christian nation where they can hate gays and oppress women all day long without anyone calling them out for it.
But yet, Iran is evil because it's a "muslim state".
So hypocritical.
Posted by: Dave Mueller | July 10, 2008 6:18 PM
#177 BobC "Bullshit"
If you don't believe there is such a group of people as forme r atheists, you really do need to get out more.
I can't even count the number of people I've met that went through an atheistic phase, usually beginning in adolescence, and lasting into young adulthood. That seems to be true of most of the people on here.
Some of them are even rather famous, such as Anthony Flew.
Posted by: sjburnt | July 10, 2008 6:19 PM
I tried to bcc P.Z., but his listed email won't accept my emails, so here is what I sent off to the Pres:
Dear President Robert Bruininks;
It has come to my attention that there are those who would demand the
head of one of your Assistant Professors, P.Z. Myers. While righteous
indignation can be a source for motivation, it can also be a very
destructive force if it is guided by 'beliefs' instead of rational,
empirical thought.
I do not appreciate Mr. Donohue's foisting of his belief system upon
the rest of us!
So, this is just a quick note to let you know that I value, and in no
way am I offended by, the discussions contained in P.Z. Myer's blog.
Of course, I do not lock-step agree with everything that he or his
many readers have to say, but I really appreciate his blog as a source
of thought-provoking information. In this age of touted diversity, it
is good to see voices from all perspectives.
Challenging our beliefs is basic to the very concept of the University
as a center of learning. Certainly, challenging beliefs is essential
in learning to overcome long-term stereotypes like racism, gender
bias, and homophobia.
Personally, I appreciate the challenges that I have gotten from Prof.
Myers for the last year, and so I respectfully submit this note in
support of Professor Myers and Pharyngula.com.
Let Mr Donohue speak by way of his own blog, but please, do not allow
his zealous attitudes pressure you or your University into any
constraints on Prof. Myers' personal Science Blog. I would hate to
see any repercussions that would detract from one of the few available
forums for free opinion and thought.
Sincerely;
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 10, 2008 6:19 PM
Just sent a support mail to President Bruininks (with my full name, as always). I hope he can find some time to read all this, and that his mailbox won't explode...
I think that people like PZ are a powerful advertisement for his university. On the other hand, I think that people like Donohue are a disgrace for about any place they go to.
Posted by: Jonathan Hansen | July 10, 2008 6:20 PM
While composing an email of support to President Bruininks, it thought back many years to the last time I tasted a communion wafer. The body of Christ tasted OK, as I remember. His blood made me think he might be diabetic though.
Posted by: Bob L | July 10, 2008 6:20 PM
Starbuck 183 @ "Idiots, all of you.
You do realize that God himself calls athiests fools?
It's in the Bible.."
Bible makes a great blunt object to attack other people, doesn't it Starbuck? That's why it is the good book, good for a weapon. The nonsense that comes out of people like you is can't be parodied, too back you can't figure out why that is a problem. That or you just don't care, the felling of self righteousness is the only thing that counts your psychopathic mind.
Low lives like you are just about spreading hate. You don't believe in God anymore than we atheists do.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 10, 2008 6:21 PM
I'm an atheist, but how about picking up a bible and read about how your god feels about idolatry. Also, maybe pay a little more attention to the things Jesus supposedly taught you:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Notice how many words he spent there telling you how to treat people? Really fantastic stuff. But there's not a DAMN word in that bible about how to treat communion wafers. You're so worried about a symbol of Christ's body that you've completely forgotten the reason anyone paid any attention to him in the first place! Is your theology really so shallow that you believe The Son of God died so you could eat crackers once a week?!
IT'S CALLED PERSPECTIVE. GET SOME!
Posted by: Carol Shillibeer | July 10, 2008 6:22 PM
Dear Dr. Bruininks,
I am writing in support of Dr. PZ Myers' recent posts regarding the captured Catholic cracker.
I was present on the campus of Eastern Washington University (as both a teacher and a student) when a similar uproar began over the proposed presence of an American Indian activist and professor named Ward Churchill. (He had been invited by the Department of Indian Studies to speak during American Indian Awareness Week.) Churchill had made the radical suggestion that past American foreign policy might have had something to do with the 9/11 bombings. His hate mail escalated. His job was threatened as was his life. The then-President of the University un-invited him. The Faculty Senate voted to re-invite Churchill. The President wouldn't change his mind. Churchill came anyway and spoke to us.
It was a mess, that time. Everyone understood that the President's primary job was to raise money for the University and yet there should have been a line beyond which he would not go. It was interesting that at the same time as Churchill was un-invited a man (and porn star) named Ron Jeremy came to speak to the student body about the value of pornography. Yes to difference with respect to sexual preferences; no to differences with respect to political interpretations: Now I am sure the message that this weird pairing of decsions sent to the student body and faculty wasn't intentional, but it was a message nonetheless.
I would think you would want to be very clear what message you send with respect to the religious outrage against the questioning of whether a cracker can indeed be deemed to be kidnapped, because that is, in essence, what Dr. Myers questions. He is asking if a cracker can be reasonably argued to be a living presence. Now I know that there are people who claim that a cracker can be kidnapped. Some of Myers' mail apparently says so directly. But the point is that Dr. Myers is questioning those assumptions. Questioning assumptions seems to me a critical aspect of an academic life, and one at which Dr. Myers excels.
So instead of bowing to the demands of the unquestioning (but demanding) hoards of those who believe crackers can be kidnapped, perhaps you might consider a counter measure and elevate Dr. Myers' status, or at the very least give him a raise.
Thank you,
Carol Shillibeer
Vancouver BC
Posted by: Timcol | July 10, 2008 6:22 PM
Let's put this in context by comparing the sins of PZ against the sins of the Catholic church
PZ Myers:
1) Said rude things about consecrated crackers and threatened to do bad things with said crackers
Catholic Church:
1) Killed thousands during Spanish Inquisition
2) Dealt enormous psychological abuse to adherents through fear-mongering and dogma
3) Sexually abused of thousands of minors (and for which it has never really taken responsibility for)
Sorry, PZ, but you a mere amateur on the sin-scale compared with the Cathies.
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 6:22 PM
The weaker position always has the tendency to escalate the competition stakes.
At stake initially, the idea that a cracker has some magical, mysterious property that equates it with actual human flesh. Since this bat-shit-crazy idea is indefensible with reason, the opposing position escalates the stakes - by introducing personal harm and murder. What a bunch of losers.
Posted by: eric | July 10, 2008 6:23 PM
So I'm curious...hypothetical situation: Donohue is put in a situation in which he's forced to decide between saving the life of a person who is about to be murdered, and saving a communion wafer that is about to be thrown into some mud (or otherwise defiled/destroyed - i'm not sure what the equivalent of death would be to a cracker...it's obviously not being eaten, since it happens all the time with no fuss...) which would he choose? how long would it take him to decide? both are people, but one is jesus...hmm.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 10, 2008 6:23 PM
I want to see some of you guys doing YouTube videos with blindfolded crackers where you wear masks and water-board them.
And congratulations PZ! You're now as officially famous as D-list actress Kathy Griffin.
Posted by: Colin M | July 10, 2008 6:24 PM
For what it's worth, here's the letter I sent. Feel free to "remix" it as you desire, but please make it original -- exact copies will probably have a negative impact overall. Bonus: I am a University of Minnesota alum (Computer Science, 2003), which hopefully adds some weight.
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing in support of Dr. Paul Myers in the controversy regarding his comments about communion wafers (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html). I agree with Myers that it's "insane" that people would send death threats to a UCF college student because of an apparent prank involving taking a single communion wafer out of a church service. Though Myers' blog does not couch his sentiments in a particularly respectful fashion, I think his rhetorical style is effective at clearly communicating his argument that religious Christian extremism is alive and well in the USA. I would be very disappointed if the University were bullied into taking any negative course of action against Dr. Myers for this controversy.
Thank you for your consideration.
(contact details removed)
Posted by: co | July 10, 2008 6:25 PM
#161:
I seem to recall a lot of sermons on turning the other check from the priest of my parish back in the day I was a believer.
Hehe. It seems that tithing has got a lot more blatant these days, eh?
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 6:25 PM
#156: "'I used to be an atheist' but now the Lord has my life..."
You guys have some form letter for that post? Kind of a "I used to be an atheist" mad-libs? Because you pull the same "I used to be an atheist, but now I'm so mature" crap all the time.
It's predictable. It's common. It seems to happen like clockwork as you try to claim some maturity high-ground while espousing your childish beliefs and immature demands for unearned respect.
Posted by: Mark Baxter | July 10, 2008 6:25 PM
Long time reader, first time commenter. I've just sent an email to the president in support of you. You do a fantastic job on this website and long may it continue.
In the spirit of Spartacus.
"I'm PZ Myers!"
:D
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 6:25 PM
Oh, for the love of chocolate cake and orgasms, I'd like to think this was sarcasm, but I just can't tell anymore. We atheists believe, on the basis of historical and scientific evidence, that the Bible was written by people. Not by one god, not by one god with a triple split personality, not by a god who spake unto scribes the words he wanted scritched down on dead animal skins, but people. Frightened, insecure, tribalistic, occasionally thoughtful, sometimes loving people, with the limited knowledge they had available at the time.
This, we believe.
Why do you not respect our belief?
Posted by: TK | July 10, 2008 6:26 PM
Post the hate mail, for great justice.
Posted by: Scott Rhoades | July 10, 2008 6:26 PM
Letter sent. Hopefully he realized that you are better business for the University than outraged Catholics. If I was high school right now I'd be considering the University of Minnesota for a biology degree because I know I would be taught facts by someone I respected. I sent this:
President Bruininks,
In light of the attack on Professor Myers professional status for expressing his view on his blog concerning the catholic church, I'd like to let you know of my support of his constitutional right to free speech. Please do the right thing and ignore Bill Donahue and his Catholic League extremists. Professor Myers inspires many people including young future-biologists who would love to learn from him at your institution..
Thank you,
Scott Rhoades
Ashland, PA
Posted by: raven | July 10, 2008 6:26 PM
Will be done.
I've been through the threat cycle myself many times. FWIW, if they are serious, the FBI is legally obligated to investigate and they will do so. For Cthulhu's sake, turn the serious sounding ones over to the local, state, and federal police. One group of ugly people after me were picked up by the feds and last I heard, were explaining their activities to a federal judge with a felony indictment to show for it.
Posted by: sfatheist | July 10, 2008 6:28 PM
PZ,
I just sent a letter to Mr.Bruininks, and copied you. Please suggest something else I (we) can do for you. I really want to help with this unwarranted attempt at censorship.
Best Wishes from San Francisco
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 6:28 PM
Starbuck:
"You do realize that God himself calls athiests fools?
It's in the Bible.."
You are so dense, so idiotic...I can't stop laughing at what passes for thought in your little pea brain.! That is probably the worst case of circular logic EVER!
Astrid, Baal (insert any deity here) says you, Starbuck, are an asswipe because you don't believe in them (and you should be put to death if you don't convert).
or
My nonexistant Purple Unicorn God told me personnally that you were a jerkward and latent homosexual because you don't believe in him. So you can't play with us until you renounce all your heathen pink unicorn-as-god denying ways.
Do you get it now? Your claiming the bible is true, but what about the Book of Mormon? It's even newer than the New Testament. What about the Quran? I'm sure it says that you are an infidel because you don't believe it to be the word of Allah.
You are so sad, little man.
Posted by: William | July 10, 2008 6:29 PM
I've send my pro-PZ spam off to President Bruininks.
And I hope that kid licked the cracker before returning it. :)
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | July 10, 2008 6:29 PM
Hey PZ,
If you are required to post an apology in order to keep your job will you do it?
Posted by: Mena | July 10, 2008 6:29 PM
It's really annoying when those wafers rise up after three days. Just sayin'...
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 6:29 PM
Who (a) did not "convert" to theism, but to a vague kind of deism; (b) did so for logically and scientifically invalid reasons; and (c) is an old man who can, with no ill will, be described as past his intellectual prime.
Your argument from authority is even more impotent than most.
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 6:29 PM
"...not by a god who spake unto scribes the words he wanted scritched down on dead animal skins..."
Wonderful.
And, to further clarify, what is this thing called god? Without parallel exemplar I have no way of understanding this concept. Is there something you can show us? Or is all there is are the scritchings of men?
(I'm stealing the scritch verb Blake - with all due respect. Hilarious.)
Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 6:30 PM
Dave Mueller, #156: "Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us, so you really shouldn't be surprised to get some serious anger directed towards you".
How about "Drawing pictures of the prophet is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us, so you really shouldn't be surprised to get some serious anger directed towards you".
All religious extremists are clinically insane.
Posted by: Schnurx | July 10, 2008 6:30 PM
Frankly ... even if desecrating a cracker would be as evil as cogvering up a single "child fuck incident", PZ would have to buy the yearly cracker production of the united states to even come close to the evilness of the "Kinderfickerschutzgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit" called catholic church.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 10, 2008 6:30 PM
#156 "I used to be an atheist..."
Yeah, right. I've heard that so many times from Christians, usually guest speakers who see it as a way to get instant "street cred." It's always the same. "I used to be an atheist, I was so godless and lived it up and didn't care 'bout nothin' or no one.
But then Juh-ay-zuss came into my life and look at me now. But for the Grace of God, I'd still be out there whorein' and scorin, dopin' and mopin! Amen!"
Most of us are atheists because we see no evidence for these religions. Unless you can provide some real evidence and not just personal accounts or God-of-the-gaps arguments, we aren't going to be swayed.
And I'm familiar with the Bible verses about how "the fool says in his heart there is no God," etc. It's a cute little game that the author plays, knowing that he's got an indefensible position. So just say anyone who disagrees is a fool! There, now we all feel nice and smug. If someone threatens you with rationality, just point at this verse, huff and walk away.
Posted by: WarrenS | July 10, 2008 6:30 PM
I am sending the following in tomorrow's mail:
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing to offer my support to Professor P.Z. Myers, and to urge you to ignore the campaign against him which was initiated by the Catholic League.
As a committed secular humanist, as an academic, as an intellectual, and as a Faculty-Member-Once-Removed of the University of Minnesota (my mother, Dr. _______, was co-founder of the Minnesota Project for Continuing Education for Women back in the 1950s, and I missed being born in one of her Introduction to Psychology lectures by about an hour and a half), I wish to reiterate my support for Professor Myers and to urge you not to capitulate in any way to the forces of bigotry and intolerance exemplified by the Catholic League and their leader, Bill Donohue.
Sincerely Yours,
WarrenS
-- oh, and by the way, I'm a first-time poster but long-time lurker. Love your blog! --
Posted by: God | July 10, 2008 6:30 PM
Yes, it's true, I do exist. And I do think that atheists are fools.
But all you believers are fools as well. Do you not realize that there is nothing that you can do to affect Me? Pray all you want. Perform rituals. Eat crackers. Fight holy wars. I'll laugh. I don't care because I don't have to care.
I'm eternal. Why should I care about anything you do or don't do?
I'm eternal. Why should I care about what atheists do or don't do?
Do you think it hurts me? Do you think I'm as pathetic as you humans?
PS: Satan is my sockpuppet!
Posted by: UKGP | July 10, 2008 6:30 PM
FWIW:
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 6:31 PM
Post the hate mail, for great justice.
Take off every 'ZIG'!!
You know what you doing
I am aware of all all internet traditions.
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | July 10, 2008 6:31 PM
'You do realize that God himself calls athiests fools?'
I'll do you a deal: if your God calls me a fool to my face, I'll convert. Send Him round.
Posted by: Doug | July 10, 2008 6:31 PM
Would the Catholic League be pleased if Myers changed his position and did the Christian thing and molested a holy cracker?
Posted by: cary | July 10, 2008 6:33 PM
#205:
But did they start "believing again" because of logic or reason? Was there some overwhelming evidence that pointed towards the existence of god?
No, probably not. I'd bet most "former atheists" converted to belief for emotional reasons, or they wanted easy answers to the questions science can't yet answer.
And personally, pooh-poohing atheism as a "phase" is so ridiculous I won't even regard it.
I think in reference to #156, Sure, there are plenty of intelligent folks who believe in a god, but that doesn't mean they're right. I find that humans have a very, very tough time of letting go of religion, even if presented with overwhelming evidence that their religion is based on falsehoods and fabrications. That doesn't mean that somehow we're imbued with religion, it just means that religions these days have a very, very good knack at getting people to believe anything they want them to and to hold onto it for dear life.
Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2008 6:33 PM
I took the communion as a (too young) Protestant. Their beliefs were inconsistent with the Catholic church... Please share the outrage with all the misguided Christians!! They acutally ATE it without believing in your (well thought out) views. :)
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 6:33 PM
True statistic: 100% of people are atheists at birth.
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 10, 2008 6:34 PM
Sent my support off.
Posted by: J | July 10, 2008 6:34 PM
Do you people kick up the same level of fuss whenever it's the Muslims that are going batshit ballistic over cartoons or teddybears or (most recently) a cute puppy? I don't think so. On Pharygnula, every thread about such a topic seems to infallibly degenerate into an analysis of the effects of European colonialism and the socio-economic state of Muslim societies.
That's not to say you shouldn't kick up this level of fuss. But realize how soft you're going on Islam.
Posted by: Mai | July 10, 2008 6:34 PM
Letter written and posted PZ. Good luck and love your blog!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 6:34 PM
Randy Stimpson (#227):
Hey Randy,
Have you stopped beating your gay lover yet?
"Yes" or "No" will do, thank you very much.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 10, 2008 6:35 PM
I seem to remember they tasted like shitty little dry bits of cardboard. And they inevitably stuck to your palate and you had to use you tongue in most unladylike manner to peel it off. Hey, there's a thought. I tongued Jesus. Woot!
Posted by: raven | July 10, 2008 6:37 PM
Busy today. I will write tonight.
Hard letter to write. "I understand Dr. Myers has been threatened with death for contemplating cracker abuse. I abuse crackers often, they are sold in stores and I eat them. Ritz, cheez-its, soda crackers and occasionally sociables. I understand that some people claim crackers are really Jesus. They don't look remotely like Jesus. And it seems to me that the omnipotent creator of the universe could take care of itself even if it looked like a mundane cracker.
Ignore the good Christians that are threatening to kill Myers. They know not what they do as they are retarded religious fanatics and all. In fact, you might want to increase the police security at Morris unless you want some pathetic headlines for U. of Minnesota, "Professor killed over a cracker by psychotic loons."
Yours in Christ,
Signed Dr. Real Name.
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 6:37 PM
First time visiting here, eh?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 10, 2008 6:38 PM
J at #244
I understand it requires a brain with functioning cells to do a blog search but give it a go. You'll find PZ is plenty critical of Muslims who act in similarly batshit, insane and illogical ways as Christians or, for that matter, any other sky-fairy-loving , juju-worshipping wankers.
Posted by: Sharon | July 10, 2008 6:38 PM
Ooh, I'm a UMN alum. I will send a letter on your behalf, I'm sure they'll listen to someone who might give them money if she ever pays off her student loans. ;)
This is one of my favorite blogs PZ, keep up the great work.
Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2008 6:39 PM
Do you really think this juvenile crap impresses people, asshat?
______
Quite a number of theist and religious apologists are oddly complimenting us, comparing us to children. Jebus says something about how we must all be children before we can see the kingdom of god, so it must be one of the best compliments they can pay us. No? They are trying to insult us? Wow, they need to take a remedial course in insulting and maybe also take a refresher in their holy book.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 6:39 PM
Flew is apparently suffering from dementia. This allowed an unscrupulous hack to take advantage of him and "co-author" (that is in reality, wholly wrote) a book that makes great claims about the existence of God that are, in parts, partially or wholly opposite everything Flew wrote before he became unstable.
That an unscrupulous Christian could take advantage of a mentally ill and incompetent person is, well, par for the course. Because, well, that's what you do - exploit the fear and frailties of others with vague promises and concrete threats.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 6:39 PM
Fuck the heck?
The situations are not fully comparable. Now, we have (a) direct threats against our host, which makes the matter personal; and (b) an influx of drive-by trolls insisting upon their own dogmatic, inegalitarian, intolerant mysticism. Of course the comments will be more heated now. In this circumstance, the emotional reaction cannot but be more outspoken, while most of the participants have consistent intellectual positions in the two cases.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 6:40 PM
I wanted to know if "Desecration of the Host" is a mortal sin (penalty: eternal torture) and I found this Catholic blog that has a long thread about it.
"By receiving on the tongue you avoid this possibility, because the entire host, particles and all are already in your mouth. There is no chance of them falling about, unless you wag your tongue in a disrespectful manner, or play with it after receiving it. In which case you would be guilty of mortal sin."
More insanity here: http://tinyurl.com/65swxb
From a Time magazine article dated Mar. 05, 1934: "It is mortal sin for anyone but a priest or deacon even to touch the Host."
So according to the Catholic beliefs, the student who didn't eat the wafer can be expected to be tortured in hell for the next several trillion years.
Posted by: TDJ | July 10, 2008 6:40 PM
Mr. Myers you may hold whatever opinions you wish about Catholicism and Catholics, and express them freely. What you cannot do in view of your institution's mission "to empower members of the campus community to particulate fully and thoughtfully in a diverse society - regionally, nationally, and globally" is to incite to hatred.
And you have done that.
In fact, I have some doubts about taking you seriously. I believe that this is a publicity stunt. By and large, you have succeded. Congratulations. Judging by most of psycophantic reaction I read here, you have achieved that.
The bad example that you have set diminishes the University of Minnessota's efforts to pursue its mission and have in fact, brought dishonor to the University and to you personally. I hereby question your character and your integrity for having done so.
I do, however, believe in redemption and I hope that you come to see that in order to disagree with others you don't have to incite to hatred, and to recognize this realization through a public committment to state your opinions civilly and thoughtfully in the future.
-Theo
Posted by: k8 | July 10, 2008 6:42 PM
People, people....
You are defending a publicity seeking FOOL!
==============================================
The top atheists attack religion in the theoretical ground and would never stoop down to attacking actual sacred and physical objects of a tradition.
Do you think Dawkins or Harris would pull a stunt like this?
SO, why stand up for this fool if not for a sheer sheep-like mimetic desire?
You are not doing yourselves any favors...you think outrages Catholics look "extreme," take a look in the mirror...
Posted by: Noadi | July 10, 2008 6:42 PM
I did my part and sent an email supporting you and this blog.
It makes me so angry that people would send you death threats over something so ridiculous. I can't imagine what goes through the head of someone who would send a death threat. I hope none of them are serious but still report them.
Posted by: Brian Williams | July 10, 2008 6:42 PM
Dear Mr. Bruininks,
As you are certainly aware, the Catholic Leagues Bill Donohue is running a campaign to oust or at least censor Prof. PZ Myers.
I wish to write in support of Prof Myers. The blog posting that Prof. Myers wrote, in which he said that he would desecrate a cracker was an excellent retort to the insanity of the Catholic communities reaction to the earlier cracker incident.
Mr. Donohue will no doubt claim that this talk of cracker abuse is Catholic defamation and is not in the realm of free speech. The very fact that anyone could consider the treatment of a cracker (no matter what's been done to it) is very troubling. It is reminiscent of the "Host Desecration" incidents in which Jews were burned or otherwise killed and tortured because it was believed that they had desecrated a Eucharist. Clearly the people that are at risk here are not Catholic.
If we allow mobs of irrational people to punish others that do not respect their beliefs, there are very dark times ahead for humanity. If one is required to respect and affirm the Eucharist as the body of Christ, then there is nothing stopping the forced belief in Christianity or any other religious belief.
Please let the days of actual religious intolerance be behind us and let no harm come to Prof. Myers for his justly held opinions. After all it is just a cracker.
Sincerely,
Brian Williams
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 6:43 PM
TDJ, so PZ's desire to abuse a wafer is worse than death threats against a student?
Posted by: Adobedragon | July 10, 2008 6:44 PM
Supportive, polite email sent with my real name, yes indeedie.
Now gimme me a poll to crash. :)
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 10, 2008 6:44 PM
#257
I think we should listen to K8. He/she is clearly one of us. I am completely convinced! For reals.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 6:45 PM
How has PZ Myers tried to "incite hatred" towards anyone? He has tried to incite hatred for silly beliefs that make people threaten a young man with expulsion, injury, or worse. But hatred for stupid beliefs is not the same thing as hatred for individuals
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 10, 2008 6:45 PM
Theo, can you describe a specific point where PZ has incited anyone to hate anyone else?
Posted by: Forti | July 10, 2008 6:45 PM
-sigh- I knew something like that would happen.
Anyway, did you actually receive any pieces of Jesus yet, Doc?
Posted by: Zach Miller | July 10, 2008 6:46 PM
I think Jesus tastes great with cheese spread. There's a brand in a rectangular clear plastic box with a blue lid. It's...phenomenal. It really adds some zing to Teh_Christ, because otherwise he's just kind of salty and bland.
Posted by: Ashley | July 10, 2008 6:47 PM
lol! #247
That description couldn't be more correct! I just got done telling my boyfriend about how they stick to the top of your mouth...ugh, they were awful! I'm so glad I don't have to eat those things anymore.
Posted by: Miguel | July 10, 2008 6:47 PM
Hey PZ, I love your blog. I'm sending an email to your President right now, even though I hail from Brazil. Hope he can see you reach us overseas :)
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 10, 2008 6:47 PM
Bill Donahue can go fuck himself. He should do so, and leave the altar boys alone.
-jcr
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 6:48 PM
@266...
My Jesus wafers never had any salt on them. At least, none that I could taste.
Posted by: mandrellian | July 10, 2008 6:49 PM
Good onya PZ, I'm sure your President will understand :)
Here's my letter:
Dear Mr Bruininks
This email is in support of PZ Myers, whose recent Pharyngula post ridiculing some strident over-reactions to a student leaving a church with a communion wafer has attracted a large amount of hate-mail. Some call for his dismissal while others, more troublingly, are calling for his head. It also appears the Catholic League's Bill Donohue has started some sort of witch-hunt against Prof Myers, but as I'm sure you're familiar with the situation I won't go into detail.
I don't think for a second that PZ is (or should be) in danger of being dismissed, censured or disciplined in any way, but because Mr Donohue seems intent on seeing him crucified for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and is fomenting some sort of PR campaign against him, I felt it was only right that I formally voiced my support for PZ on this occasion. The US seems to be a hotbed for Christian extremism, more so now than ever before, and even though I'm an Australian citizen I won't stand by and watch someone I respect be dragged through the mud by hysterical fanatics without expressing solidarity with him. It may only be a symbolic gesture but I hope it adds to some kind of critical mass of support to counter Donohue's smear campaign.
Kind Regards
[Real Name supplied :)]
Posted by: ddr | July 10, 2008 6:49 PM
Letter sent. Copy to PZ
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 10, 2008 6:50 PM
"Nevertheless, these crackers are an important symbol to a certain population, and announcing on your blog that you want to desecrate that symbol is deliberate disrespect."
As opposed to conquering, enslaving, and attempting genocide of indigenous peoples around the world in the name of the Christ and God? I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that that has hurt a lot of feelings too. Pardon me while I don't shed a tear for your grief over the insult to your symbol.
How many times have you/the Church/the Catholic League/the Protestant Evangelical nation condemned unbelievers, faggots, uppity women, or believers in the "wrong" religion to eternal burning in a lake of liquid fire. How many times have they piously beseeched the Lord to rain down his fiery wrath onto whole nations? Sheesh, and you're offended? Stand back, wambulance coming through.
Now, stop insulting my feelings with your spreading of superstitious ignorance, defense of barbaric flesh and blood eating rituals and your whiny indifference to your own participation in sins against humanity.
Yours in FSM
Posted by: Jonathan Rothwell | July 10, 2008 6:52 PM
It's hard to believe this hate mail isn't some kind of sick joke, it is so ludicrous.
You have my support, PZ. As soon as the Earth swivels so that the Sun can light up my desk sufficiently, I intend to write to the President, simply to defend the right to free speech concerning religious beliefs.
People consider it the norm to call the 9/11 bombers 'nutcases', so why is it now considered to be sacrilegious to make a joke in a piece about one's honest opinion of a religious ceremony? This is a sign that the world is completely insane.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | July 10, 2008 6:53 PM
Done. Snail mail with full name and signature.
Posted by: Bob Russell | July 10, 2008 6:54 PM
PZ - Please post the emails you have received....and notify the police about the threatening ones
Posted by: mikeg | July 10, 2008 6:55 PM
but, but... crackers aren't comic fodder! http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1855
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 6:55 PM
Well, given that Dawkins voiced his approval of the Blasphemy Challenge, I don't think he'd be upset if, let's say, young people all around the world started uploading YouTube videos of themselves desecrating crackers. As he wrote,
So, he might think he has better things to do with his time (and maybe he does), but I doubt he'd be opposed to the principle.
Posted by: Jors | July 10, 2008 6:55 PM
Dembski's take: "Paul Zachary Myers: Evolutionist and Now Imminent Desecrator".
A mere homophonological error: PZ is an eminent desecrator!
Of course it's also funny that "evolutionist" is thrown in to boot, as if that counts as a strike against him.
Posted by: raven | July 10, 2008 6:56 PM
Seems to me that cracker worship violates one or two of the Ten commandments. The one's about idolatry. "Thou shalt not worship graven images or have any other gods."
The cracker is just a freaking cracker. It isn't god for Cthulhu's sake.
Posted by: Kryth | July 10, 2008 6:57 PM
Theo, PZ is inciting hatred? Hatred of crackers?
I hope your a writer at The Onion. If not you need to check yourself.
Oh, yeah F*** Ritz.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | July 10, 2008 6:58 PM
I'll fire a hand signed snail mail letter off to the UMN president. Academic freedom must be maintained.
To all the Catholics demanding respect, as soon as you show the same respect you demand for my belief in a woman's right to choose, a gay couples right to marry, the need for the pedophilic priests to be prosecuted and defrocked, we can talk. Otherwise, take your hypocritical attitude and give it a long walk off a shot pier.
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | July 10, 2008 6:59 PM
Your poor university president will be inundated even more with emails. I've added my voice of support. And do let us know if you or your family are in any real danger.
I cannot, alas, say I am SURPRISED by this hysterical, irrational reaction. I grew up with fundamentalists...
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | July 10, 2008 6:59 PM
'Do you people kick up the same level of fuss whenever it's the Muslims that are ... '
Yeah, OK. Let's play this game.
When you hear some news report that a Muslim father has beaten his daughter to death for talking to a boy, presumably you admire him?
Because you're on *that* side of the equation. Simple as that.
After all, you're supporting the people who are threatening to kill a man over what he thinks about a biscuit.
Posted by: kryth | July 10, 2008 7:01 PM
I can't come up with anything better than
"Get a f***ing life Bill".
Posted by: Michael Pack | July 10, 2008 7:01 PM
This is still an argument over the "kidnapping" of an inanimate cracker, correct?
Listen, if Billy and his traveling inquisition want to look like fools, let them. But don't let them pull you into their flaming bullshit with them; we're a recession and new pants ain't cheap.
Alright, carry on.
Posted by: Jack Of Knives | July 10, 2008 7:02 PM
Message sent. I hope this serves as a suitable counter demonstration to the Catholic's Antics...
Posted by: Jack Of Knives | July 10, 2008 7:04 PM
*Should be "the Catholic League's antics..."
Posted by: DS | July 10, 2008 7:04 PM
At the risk of being attacked as a concern troll, I have to say I agree with what Glen D's said a couple of times on this thread: Donahue's challenge is ridiculous, I agree with the substance of the point PZ is making... but, the whole thing does seem in poor taste.
The reason I wouldn't desecrate a host? Many people I love (though don't necessarily agree with) would be hurt and offended by such an act. Doing so anyway might be politically provocative and maybe even morally justifiable, but it would also be... classless. Just because (otherwise good) people believe something you think is stupid, and just because other people who are not so good have used those beliefs to justify a lot of bad things, doesn't mean doing something hurtful is therefore ok.
I try not to cause people pain unnecessarily. Sometimes, an action that will cause some people pain is necessary because of a greater good. I don't see how that would be the case here.
So I won't be sending a letter in support of PZ. His job certainly isn't in any danger, anyway. But personally I don't think he needs to be commended for being, frankly, a jerk.
Posted by: Friendo | July 10, 2008 7:04 PM
Death threats? But the great Ceiling Cat(holic) has said:
Surely the Cat(holic)s would never disobey their own commandment...unless...you haven't been dressing up Cat(holic)s have you Pizzy?
Because that would be disrespectful!
Posted by: Mooser | July 10, 2008 7:05 PM
C'mon, PZ! You should know better! Insult one cracker, and the whole South will rise against you.
Posted by: TheOtherOne | July 10, 2008 7:05 PM
Letter will go in the mail tomorrow . . . .
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 7:06 PM
Dembski's take: "Paul Zachary Myers: Evolutionist and Now Imminent Desecrator".
Immanentize the Desecration!
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 7:06 PM
Here's mine:
Dear President Bruininks;
I am writing in support of Professor PZ Myers, freedom of speech, and the ability to honesty criticize and disagree with any and all ideas, including religious beliefs. When people wish to close all discussion, they call an idea (or person or place or thing) "sacred." I think that, as a matter of principle, we need to challenge the sacred, because it is we who set it apart. And we are all human, and can always be wrong. We need constant reminders of that.
"Respect" comes in many forms. It does not always involve deference, or agreement, or gentleness. Sometimes respect entails treating the other side as intellectual equals, and not as children who need to be appeased, coddled, or pandered to. I do not think PZ Myers has been disrespectful to Catholics. On the contrary. He is treating them as the same as himself. Each individual is capable of recognizing the absurd, the hypocritical, and the unjust for themselves. They are not their religion.
The faith that Faith is privileged -- and that believing in irrational things is a form of mental and moral fortitude -- needs to be challenged, and at times even ridiculed. Faith gives people too much power, and closes off dissent. The original violation of the eucharist was perhaps rude and a bit foolish. The extreme over-reaction was the outrage. People should not think that their religious beliefs are themselves sacred. Doing so makes them dangerous. It always leads to violence, because it cannot be defended by reason, and force is eventually all that's left.
So PZ Myer's criticism of the reaction to Mr. Cook was spot on. We need people who are willing to say hard things. We need people who are willing to challenge the sacred. We need people who are impolite enough to say "a teddy bear cannot offend" and "a cracker is a cracker -- stop and think." Just as we need people to say "atheism is stupid -- of course God exists, just look around."
A view which cannot stand up to examination and ridicule is not worth keeping. So whether they keep their beliefs or change them, PZ Myers has treated them with the respect of a friend. He has, when all is said and done, defended being reasonable.
I think that is what brings us all together, whatever our beliefs.
Posted by: Cheezits | July 10, 2008 7:06 PM
I just ate some Cheezits, will I go to Hell or did I offend some cult?
I for one am shocked and appalled.
Can I just mention here how much I love the phrase "frackin' cracker"?
Posted by: J (not J) | July 10, 2008 7:08 PM
Kate or K8,
What, like, is your favorite subject in High School? Like, you are sooo cool. U R a deep thinker + u rock 4ever! Even tho you're obviously not an "A" student, but obviously still a virgin...
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 10, 2008 7:11 PM
Amen and pass the Holy Mozzarella
FSM League President
jimmiraybob
Parmesanite heretic!
Posted by: ERV | July 10, 2008 7:12 PM
Ummmmm...... Everyone knows the Catholic Dough-Boy is an Antisemite and likes degrading Muslims, right?
Just so everyone is clear on the sheer hilarity of this hypocricy...
Posted by: Keith B | July 10, 2008 7:12 PM
E-mail sent. It actually took a little while to draft, longer than I expect anyway. I won't bother reposting it here. There's no real reason to since everything about this absurdity has probably already been said at one place or another. I just wanted to let you know that this secular Texan is backing you and your Pharyngula blog. I read it at least once or twice a day and without it I would feel a little more alone in the world (especially since I'm constantly surrounded by so many Evangelical Christian Republicans in this state). Keep your chin up, keep your job and keep ridiculing nonsense.
- Keith
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 10, 2008 7:13 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age people continue to propound the divinity of bread products.
It's enough to make me sympathize, albeit briefly, with the cause of reformed religion.
Was it not the Covenanters who said:
We shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissioners, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 10, 2008 7:13 PM
#296 What is this crap? I've been here way longer than Kate and J (not...J?) never hits on me. I call shenanigans.
Oh and while I'm griping about stuff, PLEASE PZ take that scary wasp/hornet head off the rotating banner at the top of the page.
Thing freaks me out hardcore, for serious.
Posted by: Stella | July 10, 2008 7:13 PM
Done.
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing in support of Dr. P. Z. Myers, in the wake of the Catholic League's out-of-proportion and inquisitional calls for his silencing.
A Texan and graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, as well as the University of York (UK), I have to admit the only thing I know about the University of Minnesota is that PZ Myers is on the faculty there. His blog, Pharyngula, contains some of the most accessible, timely, and fascinating discussion about contemporary biology on the Internet. I believe it is also one of the most read blogs by a Minnesotan, in any subject.
Aside from these reasons, I shouldn't have to point out that the University of Minnesota taking any action against Dr. Myers, who - as an Associate Professor - surely has tenure, would be betraying its mission as striving "to sustain an open exchange of ideas in an environment that embodies the values of academic freedom, responsibility, integrity, and cooperation"; never mind making itself the pitied laughingstock of academia. To allow a shrill group of partisan irrationalists to dictate the boundaries of the discourse or to influence the depth of scholarship at UMN (or, indeed, in the wider society), would be unthinkable.
Please make a record of my support of Dr. Myers. His work and writing on evolution and popular science in general are extremely important at this time, when the obstinate, calliopean voices of anachronistic minds are doing everything in their power to stifle real debate and, real science. They want throw a dark shadow over the enlightenment, and you are in a position to stand in their path.
Many thanks for your time,
Stella Realname
Posted by: Patricia | July 10, 2008 7:14 PM
#118 - Miss Shea flounces out of the room... No she does not!
We strumpets do the flouncing here. The Sluts sashay.
Your bar tab for grog & swill is now at 12 ducats. You can on this special day, call 'waf-foonery' went to your head or offer outrageous french flattery and I'll 'forgive' you your tab back to 100%
The Strumpet ;)
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 7:15 PM
Parmesanite heretic!
Splitter!!!
Posted by: Brett | July 10, 2008 7:16 PM
Poor PZ,
What a victim....bigots PZ cry too!
:-(
PS - one wacko on campus calling the FL kid in the middle of the night does not equal a Fatwa!
Atheists are such drama queens...
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 7:17 PM
Theo or TDJ,
I saw your website. You are a brilliant thinker, with no bias whatsoever.
I'm sure we're all hurt that you feel the way you do, especially Dr. Myers. We've seen the light through your masterful use of logic, personal insight and unimpeachable code of ethics and morality. May your God go with you...
Posted by: Wallace Breen | July 10, 2008 7:17 PM
There you go again, Dr. Meyers. What won't you desecrate? First it is the flesh of God, but where will you stop, I wonder? What's next for you? A headline reading "Wonderbread: Perhaps not SO wonderful?" I would not be surprised.
You have plunged humanity into free fall. Even if you offered your surrender now, I cannot guarantee that Our Benefactors would accept it. At the moment I fear they have begun to look upon even me with suspicion - so much for serving as humanity's representative.
This operation has no room for a rogue biologist.
Posted by: Maragon | July 10, 2008 7:18 PM
Does anyone else feel a sense of profound pity for Dave Mueller?
He's pulled out practically ever fallacy he could think of(ex-atheist, pascal's wager, appeals to authority, scripture quotes, ad hominem) - all in defense of his cracker.
Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2008 7:20 PM
DS wrote: I try not to cause people pain unnecessarily. Sometimes, an action that will cause some people pain is necessary because of a greater good. I don't see how that would be the case here.
____
The most important and biggest lessons in my life to date have been accompanied by emotional pain. It is called growing up; we don't like to do it, we would prefer to stay in the womb, but reality says otherwise.
Your stance reminds me of the Tasaday (a supposedly stone age Philippine tribe found out to be a hoax)--they claimed that they abhor violence so much that they did not stab a frog with a stick, no, they slowly, taking hours, thumped it to death by tapping the forehead of the frog. And they thought that was merciful?
Mel Brooks famously recounted how a Freudian analyst cured a patient from compulsively tearing paper by simply saying, "Don't tear paper. What are you tearing paper for? Stop tearing paper."
That is what PZ and many of us are doing here. "Don't tear your rationality. What are you tearing your rationality for? Stop tearing your rationality.
Posted by: alec | July 10, 2008 7:20 PM
I've been asleep for a while, so PZ: crack these fuckers' heads with my blessing. The Catholic League are some of the nastiest, most dishonest, and most pretentious idiots ever to be confirmed, and we're talking about the church primarily responsible for the Crusades, so that's saying something.
They're as viciously anti-immigrant as any natvist anti-Catholic, and they basically ignore the one or two things that makes the Church tolerable to begin with. If there were a God he would have cracked open the Earth and swallowed up Donohue long ago.
Posted by: Geoffrey | July 10, 2008 7:20 PM
Professor Myers,
I'm going to send an email and a snail mail letter.
Go Ducks!!!!
Posted by: SC | July 10, 2008 7:20 PM
Shorter J @ #244: "Sam Harris, you're so fine!"
Posted by: Doug | July 10, 2008 7:21 PM
"Atheists are such drama queens..."
Yeah, because we're the ones getting all violent over crackers and cartoons.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 7:21 PM
Yeah DS, you do sound like a concern troll. Even if you do believe that Myers' actions are jerky and in poor taste, is it appropriate for an interest group to campaign to take away a tenured professor's job? Isn't the nature of free speech that obnoxious speech needs more protection than bland speech.
Even if you find Myers' actions objectionable (and I, personally, do not), isn't his freedom of expression worth protecting? I was seesawing on whether I'd send a letter, and now I've convinced myself that I have to. I don't want to align myself with the concern trolls.
Posted by: pazuzu | July 10, 2008 7:21 PM
PZ, I knew you had gone to far when I read your post.
It was not just any old cracker you know.
People have been killed over these crackers, and I am sorry to say no one will be
able to save your tenure now. Be thankful that you will not be burned at the stake,
and next time (if indeed there will be one) just shut TFU. Just a cracker? OMFG!
Posted by: ngong | July 10, 2008 7:23 PM
Meanwhile, another e-mail campaign is undoubtedly being waged, with priests worldwide being asked to raise the wafer security threat level to "red".
Posted by: Craig | July 10, 2008 7:23 PM
Where you and Fox are going astray is in thinking the cracker is symbolic of the body of Christ. To the Church, it IS the body of Christ. Really. The wafer is transubstantiated when it is blessed by the priest, miraculously transformed into the actual body of Christ in such a way that the change cannot be detected by human senses. Even if the priest is a drunken child molester high on crack, his mumbling the right words over the wafer makes it the actual body of a long dead man. And that, my friends, is lunacy.
Can the Catholic spokespeople really not tell the difference between criticizing a belief and threatening a person? Good grief.
Craig
Posted by: Karley | July 10, 2008 7:23 PM
I made a Facebook group.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18536863233
Fellow Facebookers, please join!
Posted by: SteveC | July 10, 2008 7:24 PM
@256,
> is to incite to hatred.
> And you have done that.
Baloney. Thinking a person is stupid is not the same as hating that person.
Anybody who thinks transubstantiation turns a cracker in to the corpse of Jesus is just as stupid as a person who thinks 1 + 1 = 5. I don't hate such people, I do however think they are stupid.
All PZ has done is threaten to publicize the completely obvious stupidity of certain Catholic ideas which aren't as well known as they might be.
The idea of the transubstantiation -- that a cracker actually turns into Jesus -- is indefensibly stupid, and there is simply no getting around this. Hence the death threats against PZ, the threats that his job should be taken away, that whining that he's being "intolerant," etc. There is no good defense for the notion of the transubstantiation, so people are resorting to the only kind of defense left, the worst kind of defense -- threats.
Mocking people who claim that 1 + 1 = 5 and who also demand that this idea should be respected, should be an expected outcome. Likewise with the idiotic notion of the Jesus cookie.
I don't hate Catholics who believe this, I pity them for being so gullible and stupid, and have no problem mocking those beliefs in the hope that others would see how stupid those beliefs are.
And if ever there was an appropriate time to use the word "stupid," this is it. It doesn't get any more stupid than a magic Jesus cookie.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 10, 2008 7:24 PM
For what its worth, while you're all in letter writing mode, you might try sending one to Bill O'Donoghue at
cl@catholicleague.org
I'm sure he'd love to hear our opinions on his campaign to try and influence PZ's boss.
Posted by: MikeP | July 10, 2008 7:25 PM
Apparently it is not sacrilegious to offer discounts on the proto-body-of-christ (crackers before the priest casts his spell on them). (500 crackers for just $7.63 at eChurch Depot!)
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 7:25 PM
"It was not just any old cracker you know."
Umm, yes it was. Incantations don't work....they're not real. The magical utterances directed at the cracker do not affect the cracker. If you can show they do, then by all means, show us all.
No. It's a stupid cracker that is being worshiped by idiots.
Posted by: ShavenYak | July 10, 2008 7:25 PM
I somehow cannot bring myself to write a serious message about such a ridiculous topic, so I'm afraid anything I write would be more harmful than helpful. I'm sure there is no shortage of Pharyngulites rising to the occasion at this time, so I'll just wish you the best and continue having lulz about the whole situation over at Rants 'n Raves.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 10, 2008 7:27 PM
Starbuck, read some history of the Catholic Church. Whenever these guys (and to a lesser extent, other churches) held levers of power, they caused mischief or worse. Blacks were victims, Jews were victims, gays were and are victims, while Catholics in power were and are perpetrators. See the diff?
What is so dangerous is the combination of unsupported beliefs with the ability to force these beliefs and their consequences on others. Given a chance, they'll go for it.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 10, 2008 7:27 PM
This seems appropriate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5btRmGiYi6Q
"The body of chriiiiiiiiist."
Posted by: Scrofulum | July 10, 2008 7:28 PM
Not sure if they want to get messages of support from someone in the UK, but I've heard about catholics setting up some chapters over here as well, so I think an international show of solidarity against such cults is acceptable.
Also, I like to say body of christ when I eat a pringle.
Posted by: reggie | July 10, 2008 7:29 PM
Mine Own Letter (SENT!)
The Catholic League wants me to write in demanding the immediate removal of PZ
Myers. Bill Donohue says ""It is hard to think of anything more vile than to
intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
I can safely presume that a man who has achieved your position would be able to
discern the difference between a cracker and the body of a long dead human or
supreme deity. The uproar over this abused Eucharist is reminiscent of Muslims
rioting over cartoon depictions of Mohammad. It is the height of irrationality
and any calls for the removal of PZ in regards to this matter will hopefully get
the same attention your saltines get just before you crumble them up into your
tomato soup.
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 7:30 PM
Alex (#322):
/me starts in confusion
Hold on a sec, I gotta test this.
/me points chopstick at Bill Donohue
"Avada kedavra!"
Mmmm, didn't seem to have any effect. Must be my pronunciation.
"A-VA-da ke-DAV-ra!"
Etc.
I can keep this going until I get bored. If some sarcasm-impaired fellow accuses me of advocating violence, I'll be entertained and keep going longer.
Posted by: Ross Nixon | July 10, 2008 7:31 PM
Dear PZ, you said "We need a counter-campaign from the secular community."
Can born-again Christians join in too?
We support your campaign to call magic crackers, completely crackers!
Posted by: jj | July 10, 2008 7:31 PM
Mailed.
Phil, copied you, check your inbox.
jj
Posted by: MikeM | July 10, 2008 7:31 PM
Starbuck, that was one of the worst concern-troll postings ever.
You're welcome.
Please be advised that it provided further motivation for me to, once again, support PZ. Thank you.
This really is one of the dumbest flaps ever.
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 7:33 PM
I, personally, wouldn't desecrate a consecrated host. If I found myself in possession of one, I would sell it on eBay. There are probably Satanists and others for whom such a desecration would be meaningful, and some of them have disposable income.
Posted by: maditude | July 10, 2008 7:34 PM
If the fools at Catholic League REALLY want to silence PZ, I humbly suggest that the best way to do so, would be to donate a big stinking pile of money to the Biology department at UM-Morris. PZ and the rest of those no-good-nik scientists will be busy for months buying spiffy new lab equipment and filling out paperwork, with precious little time to offend the pious, and for years thereafter, doing cutting edge research. And just think of the heartburn you'd give PZ: he'd feel obligated to be polite for a while (it's a midwestern thing), but it would just eat at him to no end.
Or I suppose they could just keep paying out hush-money to child-rape victims.
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 7:35 PM
Pringle's brand eucharist are less than 50% Jeebus.
Posted by: pazuzu | July 10, 2008 7:35 PM
Dear Alex, people fly aeroplanes into buildings for less. I reiterate: it was not just any
old cracker. You cannot just walk away with the flesh of our saviour,
where would that leave us? I ask. A fleshless saviour? Is that even remotely possible?
No, this is the end of tenure for our beloved PZ. Sorry.
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 7:35 PM
October Maid,
I love your posts (and yer writin' ain't bad either), but I assume you are referring to J (the muslimphobe)
Patricia,
I was commenting on Mark Shea's rather flamboyant and petulant departure.
I would never demean your strumpery (?!!??) with an illegal use of "flounce".
And if I knew french, my voluptuous strumpet...ooh la lah!
Posted by: Patricia | July 10, 2008 7:36 PM
You will end up on TV with this one PZ. The death threat thing is going too far.
When I was still with the snake herders club our preacher thundered fire and brimstone against the pope for the wafer thing. All True Christians know that jeezuz ascended BODILY into heaven, therefore NO part of him remains on Earth. The wafers are idolatry = hell bound sin.
I intend to send Billy Boy a firmly worded letter on the subject. Pure "wine-curdling blasphemy." (Thanks Pierce)
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 7:36 PM
So there's:
- murder
- rape
- killing babies
- torture
- planetary destruction (except for a boat-full of people)
- blood sacrifice
- vicarious punishment
- vicarious redemption
- eternal suffering
...and now cannibalism.
Where do I sign up?
Posted by: William Bishop | July 10, 2008 7:38 PM
PZ,
Letter (appearing to be written by college educated person) is now in the US mail... to your University President. Keep up the great work as you soon realize how many fans and admirers you really have!
Posted by: Lou FCD | July 10, 2008 7:39 PM
My letter, just emailed:
Dear President Bruininks,
I wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know how important I find the words of Dr. Myers. His is a voice of rationality rising above an increasingly shrill cacophony of anti-intellectualism. The attempts by the religious to roll back the Enlightenment run rampant and roughshod over Science, the Constitution, reality, and reason.
I can think of no more appropriate example of the absolute inanity of religious retardation than the recent episode involving the Catholic League's frenzied and maniacal campaign against Dr. Myers because of his comments regarding their mystical crackers. In fact, even as a writer, I'm quite sure I could not have invented such an absurdity and maintained a suspension of disbelief in my readers. Nobody in his right mind would buy into such a ludicrous plot device. And yet, there it is, in real life; death threats to an esteemed Professor of Biology because he dared to point out the bizarreness of a physical altercation over a magic cracker.
These are truly strange times in which we live, when we can put people into space, decode the human genome, communicate nearly instantaneously with any point on the globe - and yet Dr. Myers is threatened with death for not showing proper deference to ancient superstition.
After all is said and done, we as a society need more PZ Myerses and fewer Popes, if we hope to fully emerge from the darkness of ignorance. It is my sincerest hope that you value Dr. Myers as much as I do.
With regards,
Posted by: A. Macrae | July 10, 2008 7:40 PM
An email, properly, if Britannically spelled has been sent, as follows.
Sir,
Forgive me for taking up your time.
I wish simply to add my support for P.Z. Myers in this silly business regarding a communion wafer.
By any objective measurement, a wafer remains a wafer, blessed or not.
That Mr. Donohue and others are entitled to their beliefs, however unscientific, is not at issue.
What is at issue is the right of others to question those beliefs and to point out where they are manifestly nonsensical.
American education has taken a serious beating in recent years, as seen from outside the US. (I write from the UK). There seems, among other problems, to be a reluctance- even a fear, to challenge superstition. America needs all the clear thinkers and dedicated educators it has left.
Myers is far too great an asset, both at home and internationally, for you to risk losing.
Sincerely,
Alastair D. Macrae, B.Sc. Hons (Glasgow 1978)
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 7:40 PM
where would that leave us? I ask. A fleshless saviour? Is that even remotely possible?
Parody? It's hard to tell, but I'm leaning towards the position that pazuzu is a parody troll.
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 7:40 PM
"A fleshless saviour?"
Actually, boneless-skinless is healthier.
Posted by: michael | July 10, 2008 7:41 PM
I just sent an email to your president. I spell-checked it. Go, PZ! You rule!
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2008 7:42 PM
Just a cracker? OMFG!
That's right, dipshit. It's just a cracker. OMFG.
Spare us your case of the vapors over it, mmmmmkay?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 10, 2008 7:42 PM
Alex @ #338
Well, yes, I can see that's all attractive but remember, here on the side of science we could do all that too but from a secret moon base, or an evil vlocano lair. ...and we have sharks, with FRICKING LASER BEAMS. Tell me science isn't cooler huh?
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 7:42 PM
Parody trolling is really hard to do well, just because the real trolls have all the angles covered on stoopit. About the only one that I've ever seen that was consistently funny was MERKIN PATRIOT on Atrios.
Posted by: alec | July 10, 2008 7:43 PM
Dear PZ, you said "We need a counter-campaign from the secular community."
Can born-again Christians join in too?
We support your campaign to call magic crackers, completely crackers!
Right, because believing that saying a set of magic words over a cracker turns it into the literal flesh of a 2000-year-old Palestinian schizophrenic is so much crazier than believing that saying a set of magic words while squinting really hard forces the same 2000-year-old Palestinian schizophrenic to protect you from his father, who would otherwise punish you eternally because the mother and father of mankind ate an apple given to them by a snake 6000 years ago.
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 7:44 PM
Wasn't Pazuzu the name of the demon in The Exorcist?
Posted by: Maragon | July 10, 2008 7:45 PM
Hey pazuzu,
Obvious troll is obvious.
Also, you REALLY need to look up the definition of 'tenure'.
To quote The Princess Bride;
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Posted by: alec | July 10, 2008 7:45 PM
Wasn't Pazuzu the name of the demon in The Exorcist?
Not to mention the gargoyle in that one episode of Futurama.
Posted by: Valeria | July 10, 2008 7:47 PM
My letter is on its way.
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 7:47 PM
Several of the support letters posted have talked about the contributions PZ has made to science and rational thought and what a great guy he is all around. While important, and true, I think they omit the most salient point: PZ writes about religion on this blog, a blog which is not in any way connected with the University of Minnesota. Donahue is trying to get PZ fired based on something which isn't related to PZ's work and wasn't paid for or in any way supported by his employer.
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 7:47 PM
"...with FRICKING LASER BEAMS."
I dunno. The laser beams or the cracker-flesh thing. It's a tough one. Do you still get to smite people?
Posted by: Bryan | July 10, 2008 7:48 PM
Just finished my email.
Unbelievable what extents the "tolerant" followers of a man who told people to foster peace and goodwill towards others will go to.
The irony is very thick.
Posted by: oriole | July 10, 2008 7:48 PM
Here's my email, PZ! I've just sent it off to President Bruininks.
Dear President Bruininks,
I am the Head of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at a private school in Zurich, Switzerland. I write to defend Professor Myers against the extraordinary hate campaign being waged against him by the incendiary Bill Donahue, who is the president of the radical group which calls itself the Catholic League.
Donohue's "Catholic League", which despite its name is a private group with no affililation with the Catholic Church, has attempted to destroy the careers of two employees of Senator John Edwards, pressured ABC into cancelling the Peabody-Award-winning series "Nothing Sacred" (created by Jesuit priest Bill Cain), and has also attacked, variously, the ACLU, Miller Brewing Company, Abercrombie & Fitch, the television programs "South Park" and "The View", actress Rosie O'Donnell, writer Christopher Hitchens, comedians Bill Maher and Kathy Griffin, singer Joan Osborne, director Kevin Smith, and numerous others, including, of late, Mr. Webster Cook, a college student who chose to walk out of a Catholic Church service with the communion wafer he was given, instead of eating it. Mr. Donohue has accused Mr. Cook of "taking [a] hostage", described his harmless action as "beyond hate speech", and has suggested that his university should consider expulsion.
Enter Professor Myers, distinguished faculty member of your university, who in his free time, explicitly without making any connection to your university, publishes Pharyngula, the world's most popular science blog, in which he exercises his First Amendment rights by criticising, among others, religious groups, specifically of late by noting the incredible hate campaign, including death threats, directed at Mr. Cook, the student whom Mr. Donohue attacks. To show his support for Cook, Professor Myers (again, on his private, non-university affiliated blog) has flippantly suggested that he (Myers) would be willing to publicly "treat [a wafer] with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse".
In a statement publiched on the Catholic League website, Mr. Donahue has disingenuously responded to Myers's blog entry by first trivialising his (Donahue's) vicious attack against Mr. Cook as simply "criticising the student", and then suggests that Myers's blog is part of the "content" of the university's website, since it can be accessed from that website - a silly argument, since the blog can of course be "accessed" from any computer and from any website, simply by typing "Pharyngula" in the search box - nor, as you know, does the university's home page offer any link to the blog. Donohue then accuses Myers, and hence the university (following his bizarre associational argument), of threatening to "desecrate the Body of Christ", and agitates his followers to mount a letter-writing campaign against Professor Myers, which has resulted not only in calls for his ouster but also numerous death threats from Donohue's excitable (and frequently excited) followers.
I am sure you will protect the academic freedom and the First Amendment rights of your faculty member against this attack by the radical Mr. Donahue, who is once again trying to aggrandize himself by adding another scalp to his belt.
Sincerely,... (yes, I signed it.)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 10, 2008 7:48 PM
The goddess speaks (go for about 1:10).
Posted by: Cyberguy | July 10, 2008 7:49 PM
Email done.
Sir
I am writing in support of yourself and Professor P.Z. Myers against the hysterical over-reaction regarding a piece of communion wafer by certain Catholic pressure groups, in particular the Catholic League.
As well as being a excellent scientist and educator, Professor Meyers is a highly regarded social commentator, and his web log is one of the most-read on the internet. His critical focus on religion is extremely necessary, due to the anti-intellectual stance of many religious groups who seek to undermine the foundations of rationality itself. This particular incident is a case in point.
It would be a disaster if threats coming from a completely irrational mind-set was allowed to suppress a clear voice of reason. Arguments based on automatically demanded respect for a given belief-system, or on the degree of offence taken, should be given absolutely no weight.
I strongly urge your university to fully support Professor Myers in his important work, and to protect him from continuing attacks by those with a pre-enlightenment agenda.
Yours Sincerely,
(real name)
Posted by: pazuzu | July 10, 2008 7:50 PM
I am not a troll, just a sad observer of the decline of the american empire.
How are you supposed to fight people who actually believe that their saviour
can suffer from you actions against a cracker? Since I hold strongly that
there never was a person named Jesus (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm)
I clearly have a hard time sympathizing with the view that a cracker is is flesh.
Unfortunately that will not save PZ at this time. His tenure is now forfeited. Sorry.
Posted by: steve8282 | July 10, 2008 7:50 PM
this may already have been stated but Dawkins has got behind this in a big way on his site as well.
Posted by: Patricia | July 10, 2008 7:51 PM
Ahhh j, bar tab loaded, grog & swill for you Mon deux. *wink*
Posted by: John McKay | July 10, 2008 7:52 PM
Dear President Bruininks,
This is just a short note to express my support for Dr. Paul Z. Myers and his right to free speech. I have been a reader of his blog Pharyngula from the very beginning. I have found his writing to be entertaining, informative, and provocative--sometimes all three at the same time. He is always very clear that what he writes on his blog is his opinion alone and not that of the University of Minnesota or of Seed magazine, the host of his blog.
Now, I see that Dr. Myers is under fire by William Donohue, a minor cable news personality who claims, without authority, to speak for all American Catholics. Manufactured outrage, intimidation, and calls for boycott (usually unsuccessful) are Mr. Donohue's stock and trade. Mr. Donohue is attempting bully the University of Minnesota into punishing or pressuring Dr. Myers into censoring his speech. To do so would be a grotesque violation of Dr. Myers academic freedom, personal freedom of speech, and an improper intrusion by the University into his extracurricular life.
On a more general level, giving in to Mr. Donohue would legitimize and encourage his brand of strong arm tactics to the detriment of our common political culture. I have confidence that you will not do that.
Thank you for your time,
John J. McKay
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 7:53 PM
pazuzu, who the hell do you think are?
Posted by: Kel | July 10, 2008 7:53 PM
Those poor persecuted crackers... won't someone please think of the crackers!
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 10, 2008 7:54 PM
I think we could adapt the "fertility clinic" thought experiment:
"A fire breaks out at a Catholic Church. You can save either a child or a plate full of consecrated wafers, but not both. Which one do you choose to save?"
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 7:55 PM
Letter sent. Along with my wife, that's two more U of MN alums behind ya.
Posted by: Stephen Majewski | July 10, 2008 7:58 PM
Dear Professor Myers,
I urge you not to desecrate the Eucharist.
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, Catholics believe that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.
Such a sacrilege would not only be deeply offensive to Catholics, but also to people of all faiths for such a blatant disrespect of a profoundly held religious belief.
Thank you for your consideration.
Posted by: Cracker Joe | July 10, 2008 7:58 PM
When I see Bill Donahue, I think that he had too may crackers!
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 10, 2008 7:59 PM
From Pazuzu:
Not even kittens?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 10, 2008 8:01 PM
Pazuzu
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tenure
Just stop ok, if you're a parody, you're a bad one. If you're real, you're a twat.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 10, 2008 8:01 PM
You do realize that God himself calls athiests fools?
It's in the Bible...
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And that's a convincing claim?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 8:01 PM
I think we could adapt the "fertility clinic" thought experiment:
"A fire breaks out at a Catholic Church. You can save either a child or a plate full of consecrated wafers, but not both. Which one do you choose to save?"
What happens if the priest consecrates more wafers than can be consumed on a given date? Must the consecrated crackers be individually crucified, so as to avoid being tossed down the toilet without being saved when they go stale before the next mass?
Similar to what happens when more embryos are fertilized than can be implanted. They can be kept on ice for a long time but eventually the unimplanted embryos have to either be disposed of or used for research. And fertility treatments generally make a lot more embryos than are implanted.
Posted by: AJ | July 10, 2008 8:01 PM
I'll send mine tomorrow as it's getting late over here in Europe. Don't worry PZ - if religious bigots are angry at you, you know you are doing something right...
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | July 10, 2008 8:04 PM
AS YOU WISH, COMMANDER!
/////sent via g-mail//////
Dear Mr. Bruininks,
I am writing to try to help counterbalance the flood of angry nonsense you must be receiving from many flustered people- to give you perspective in the issue that has just landed in your lap.
PZ Myers is a well appreciated and funny man, and his following online is not small. I don't take time out of my work day to write this kind of message for just anybody. While this media circus may put pressure on you to take action against Dr. Myers, please add my voice to the "oh, nonsense." list- apparently freedom of speech is not well appreciated by some.
Thank you for your time,
-Will
Posted by: chgo_liz | July 10, 2008 8:04 PM
@365:
Sadly, many of those yahoos (Swift reference) would save the crackers. Unless they particularly fancied the child.
Posted by: John | July 10, 2008 8:05 PM
Maybe it really is the body and blood of Christ. If you want to partake, shouldn't you be able to get take-out?
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 10, 2008 8:05 PM
Mr Majewski, you obviously don't know me at all well. You have just convinced me that I must commit sacrilege, since I oppose the whole nonsensical notion of a "profoundly held religious belief".Posted by: DoctorE | July 10, 2008 8:05 PM
Christians are so angry because they think big daddy will take his anger for you out on them.
The bible is full of stuff where god totally goes berserk and kills everyone, innocent babies.. fargin everyone.
Thats why christians get so pissed, they are scared of the big tyrant in the sky, that he will kill them for something they did not do.
What baffles me the most is why on earth anyone would want to live with that madgod in the sky, hell is probably heaven compared to heaven. ohh.. well shrug
Posted by: Zeno | July 10, 2008 8:05 PM
My letter is written on paper and is sitting in a small metal box with a raised red plastic flag on it. A woman will come by later in the afternoon, take it out of the metal box, lower the red plastic flag, and drive away with it in a little vehicle, after which I will probably never see the letter again. But President Bruininks will.
I hope the lady with the little truck doesn't desecrate my letter. It is sacred to me. (The letter, not the little truck.)
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 8:05 PM
Desecrate the Eucharist... man, I just don't understand that, but then I never was any good at playing cards.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 8:06 PM
Stephen Majewski at 7:58 pm
That's actually not a bad letter, Stephen. Too bad Donohue and his followers had to resort to crazy threats.
Posted by: MikeM | July 10, 2008 8:08 PM
I'm going to make a suggestion here that I hope people pay attention to.
The letters I've seen have been heart-felt and sincere, and strongly support PZ's position. I'm down with that.
And for those who've noticed that I can be vebose at times, this may strike you as coming from the wrong source, but I'll say it anyway:
You're making your letters too long!
Mine was 2-3 sentences long. All you really need to say is that this is a ridiculous campaign, and you support PZ. That's about it.
Seriously, think it over, people.
I sent a CC of mine to PZ. Sorry, but I'm not going to reveal my actual name here. Not going to happen.
Posted by: Rev. Dr. Jim Roche | July 10, 2008 8:09 PM
Let some rationality survive here. Its a cracker. Period. Are we to also protect Zeus? Religion is personal, keep it that way. Good luck, sent my support letter.
Rev Dr. Jim Roche
Posted by: OHNHAI | July 10, 2008 8:10 PM
just sent this. hope it helps
-----------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
I have been following over the last day or two what in other realities would be an amusing comedy sketch regarding the 'hostage taking of a communion wafer'. Today however I have learned that a particular presenter (Bill Donohue) has initiated a campaign to have your esteemed employee (PZ Myers) ousted from his employment. In light of this I write to you to lend my voice in favour of PZ Myers.
I do not wish to belittle anyone's religious beliefs, but the hysteria we have seen over this is so disproportionally off the chart you would normally associate this level of reaction with the more radical friends of the prophet. According to his blog, PZ Myers has even received death threats. Even one calling for his dismissal, and death, then in the same breath extolling the virtues of the meek, mild and so blatantly persecuted Christians.
After all if you were to truly believe the 'miracle' of the Eucharist then the Christians, so offended by this theft of a wafer, are really complaining that the fellow in question refused to participate in sanctioned ritualised cannibalism and then had the gall to run off with the sacrificial victim... In this light PZ Myers' commentary seems commendable even.
All PZ Myers has done was voice an opinion over the blatant absurdity of this story. I urge you not bow to the pressure of crazed hysteria. PZ Myers is a good writer and a voice of educated reason in a sea of crazy. As he has remained employed for so long I can only assume that he is fairly good at his job too, it would be a shame for him to be punished for his not unreasonable opinion.
Yours in support of PZ
Stephen J Rushbrook
Posted by: Craig Holman | July 10, 2008 8:11 PM
I'm honored to be able to lend my support to PZ Myers.
I'm sending the following letter to Dr. Bruininks tomorrow morning.
______________
Greetings,
I write to you in support of Dr. P.Z. Myers, a man who I have come to admire greatly.
We live amidst people who still are, in large part, deeply superstitious and irrational, preferring their delusions to the real world. Not being content to ruin their own lives and those of their children, these 'people of God' seek to bring the rest of us down with them.
Dr. Myers has taken a stand against ignorance and superstition and has chosen to fight the scourge of religious belief that plagues mankind. A man of principle, reason, and love for humanity could do no less. He is a light in the gathering darkness.
He is an excellent educator and a good man. You should be very proud to have him affiliated with your school.
With warm regards,
Craig S. Holman, Ph.D.
Posted by: Zeno | July 10, 2008 8:16 PM
I, too, wrote a long letter, mainly to establish that I knew the situation involving Webster Cook, Bill Donohue, and PZ Myers. When I did constituent services for a state legislator in California, we often got short letters in mass-mailing campaigns that said little more than "I support X" or "I oppose X". Those letters got little weight because they showed no sign that the letter-writer had done more than sign a form letter. The longer, more personal letters had more impact.
The last paragraph of my letter, however, makes my point very specifically and alludes to my inner nastiness (or perhaps to PZ's):
Posted by: Jonathan | July 10, 2008 8:16 PM
via snail-mail:
Dear President Bruininks:
As I'm sure you've already been inundated with mail about the Communion-wafer comments made by Professor PZ Myers, I'll spare you the details of the incident. Suffice it to say that I am writing to voice my support to Professor Myers.
While nearly all of my knowledge of Prof. Myers work comes from the posts on his blog, it is through that lens that I can see that his passion for researching and teaching science is rivaled only by his passion for freely expressing his views in spite of his detractors (who have, I'm sure, made themselves well-known to you by now). What Myers did, in this instance, was to write about the essence of a thing - just as one might write about a fetus in an article concerning abortion - and to characterize the extreme reactions of others to a perceived slight against that thing. And just as you would support Myers for freely expressing his views on abortion (whatever those might be), you must stand by him now.
Best,
[Me]
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 8:17 PM
You're making your letters too long!
Mine was 2-3 sentences long.
I'm making a note on the outside of the envelope that says "In support of Dr. PZ Myers". That way, even if they don't get to open it for a while, at least they can see my position of support. I would assume that if you are corresponding by email, it would be good to make your postion clear in the subject line.
I plan to make my letter pithy, but I haven't seen any problems with any of the letters I've seen here so far. Every one has been eloquent and well written. As long as your support is clearly stated in the first paragraph and repeated in the closing, the reader will get the idea. Honestly, I doubt they will read much of what goes between, anyways.
Posted by: keafan | July 10, 2008 8:19 PM
Message sent to the Prez.
Will forward a copy to you.
Christians are so loving when they think they can convert you. Point out an absurdity though, and they want to kill you.
Did they forget the admonition of the Jesus character to "turn the other cheek"?
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 10, 2008 8:19 PM
I am writing in support of Dr. Myers. His defense of reason and rational thought must be encouraged. Please resist the agents of intolerance who are almost certainly trying to silence people like him (and me, to a lesser degree).
Sincerely,
Posted by: protocol | July 10, 2008 8:19 PM
Written. Will be sent by snail mail tomorrow...I kept it short
Posted by: Dylan | July 10, 2008 8:20 PM
My e-mail has been sent. I kept it to a few sentences. Basically, to sum up: You are a university, which is supposed to be founded on things like facts and reason. Dr. Myers is speaking out in favor of facts and reason against myth and superstition. It should be pretty obvious which side the university should come down on.
Keep it up, PZ. I knew the minute I read that cracker post that it was going to start a shitstorm, but you've outdone yourself. And you're way funnier than the religious nuts.
Posted by: U of M student | July 10, 2008 8:20 PM
Seriously, I doubt Bruininks is going to give a flying fuck one way or the other about the cracker or ensuing debate/outrage/nonsense. All you're going to do is fill up his email box and piss off the office workers who actually have to read it. The people who are really feeling the brunt of your efforts can't do anything about the situation and will just resent you (and the Catholics) for creating a ton of work. Bruininks won't take sides anyway; it's a freedom of speech issue.
If you really want to do something about it, donate money to some cause that works against religious intolerance.
Posted by: Ann R. Key | July 10, 2008 8:20 PM
". . .send him something that at least looks like a high school graduate wrote it,. . ." How? The topic is pre-school level.
Posted by: Cracker Joe | July 10, 2008 8:21 PM
Pop quiz!
Which of the following is worse:
a) drawing the Prophet
b) holding hostage a wafer
c) protecting a pedophile priest in order to keep the face of the Church clean
If you answered a) or b) you can't seriously pretend to be called a human being.
Posted by: Fitzgerald Doubet | July 10, 2008 8:21 PM
You go PZ, we're with you. I sent a letter off today.
Can we start a campaign to start sending boxes of crackers to the Catholic League? An ex-catholic myself, I'm trying to get excommunicated.
Posted by: TImcol | July 10, 2008 8:24 PM
To : Stephen Majewski @367
If we stop desecrating the host, will the Catholic church promise to stop diddling with minors, and condemning to hell everybody who doesn't agree with them?
Men in frocks in glasshouses should not throw stones...
Posted by: CB Allard | July 10, 2008 8:25 PM
Here is the email I sent in support of PZ:
Dr. Myers is a scientist, and as such, he is entitled to put forward any hypothesis, no matter how offensive, so long as he backs it up with evidence. In so many posts on his pharyngula website, he fights against the irrational.
If people have a problem with it, they should feel absolutely encouraged to make counterarguments - using logic and evidence, of course - no matter how offensive Dr. Myers may find them. It seems that those offended by Dr. Myers' words have gone on the offensive, attacking him personally and professionally, without making any persuasive arguments that he was actually WRONG.
Dr. Myers is what every great scientist should be: brutally honest. Nobody - academic or otherwise - should be afraid speak freely for fear of personal retribution.
Freedom of speech entails the freedom to offend.
Christopher Allard, Toronto, Ontario
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2008 8:27 PM
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, Catholics believe that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.
Yes, we get this, asshole. We understand that your creepy cult has members who claim to believe such bat-shit insanity for the purposes of playing a strange game of epistemological chicken, trying to prove HOW MUCH and HOW DEEPLY they believe, because surely someone who says bat-shit crazy things like this with a straight face must be a True Believer.
You know what, though. WE DON'T FUCKING CARE. Just please try to get that through your magic-cracker-addled skull.
Posted by: Calilasseia | July 10, 2008 8:27 PM
Letter of support duly sent. Also posted on the Richard Dawkins front page along with numerous others from other contributors from that source.
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 8:28 PM
The fact that otherwise intelligent people actually believe that is exactly what we are making fun of.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 10, 2008 8:31 PM
I wrote the following:
President Bruininks,
I just wanted to take a moment to express my support for Dr. Paul Z. Myers. As a student of biology, I have found the thoughts he shares on his personal blog, Pharyngula, to be insightful, entertaining, and educational. His explanations of complex topics are eloquently simple and easy to understand. His passion for his field is second-to-none. He has been a real inspiration to me to become the best biologist possible.
Additionally, I believe he has the constitutional right to express his opinions on sometimes controversial topics such as religion on his personal blog. I would hope everyone would understand these opinions are his alone, and do not reflect on the positions or policies of the University of Minnesota.
Given the quality of the biology content Dr. Myers provides on his personal blog, I'm sure he must be excellent professor of biology. It would be tragic if the outrage over his personal opinions on his personal blog had an impact on his employment with the University of Minnesota.
Thank you for your time,
ME
Posted by: --PatF in Madison | July 10, 2008 8:31 PM
Here is my letter. It goes out tomorrow.
-----------------------
Thursday, July 10, 2008
President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Dear Dr. Bruininks:
I am a regular reader of a weblog named Pharyngula which is maintained by Paul Z. Myers, a faculty member of the University of Minnesota at Morris.
I have found Dr. Myers writings thought provoking and challenging and even entertaining. As a Mathematician who has had little contact with the biological sciences, I find his defense of evolution to be enlightening both as to the biological science involved and to the philosophy of the larger issues of how should science be conducted. His weblog is a valuable resource for those of us who are concerned that the enemies of academic freedom are attacking the university in ways that are both open and covert. Their policies, should they gain more adherents, will eventually reduce academia to a barren desert on their theocratic continent.
Currently, Dr. Myers is engaged in a controversy with a bully named Bill Donohue. Mr. Donohue has taken a minor childish incident - a student tried to leave a church with a Catholic Eucharist - and blown it far out of proportion to its real significance. He does not acknowledge the triviality of this incident but, instead, has resorted to threats to the livelihoods of those who disagree with him.
For many years, the great universities of the United States have stood as bastions of freedom both academic and constitutional. Mr. Donohue and his ilk would be very enthusiastic about you or university abrogating this tradition and disciplining Dr. Myers publicly. Currently, they are organizing a campaign to influence you and the Minnesota legislature to do this.
I want to register in the strongest terms my support of Dr. Myers and Pharyngula and my disgust at the strong-arm tactics of Mr. Donohue and the Catholic League. He understands neither freedom of speech nor the vast difference between childish pranks and threats to livelihood or worse.
Sincerely yours,
Patrick J. Fleury, Ph.D.
Posted by: Damian | July 10, 2008 8:33 PM
DS said:
I would not have supported PZ actually desecrating a host, but you seem to have missed a very important point, here. The reason that PZ said what he did was to express his solidarity with the young man who had been assaulted and had been sent death threats. That, I believe is commendable.
And it also serves another purpose. For how long, and for which beliefs, do we allow "respect" and "reverence" to be used as an excuse not to offend people, and at which point do we take a stand and say that enough is enough?
In my opinion, not telling family members that you think that some of their beliefs are very silly -- or at least attempting to reason with them, based on current evidence -- can, in some circumstances, be immoral. Again, at which point do you decide that they have gone too far?
And was there really any need for the insult at the end? What if you have hurt PZ, unnecessarily? Oh, you only hurt people when you think that its necessary? Hypocrite.
Posted by: Doppelganger | July 10, 2008 8:35 PM
PZ,
I think you're a fucking idiot. No more than that. Why don't you come from behind your child-porn filled computer screen and shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Cheezits | July 10, 2008 8:36 PM
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, Catholics believe that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.
Why do they believe something so truly, really, substantially ridiculous?
Posted by: Mark Dixon | July 10, 2008 8:37 PM
Tolerance is really easy when the it comes to tolerating those people and ideas we like and agree with. The challenge comes when you have to tolerate those who don't agree with you and have differing opinions. For all your talk of tolerance and free thinking, I can find no evidence that you or anyone else on this blog is capable of tolerating those who disagree. A true intellectual, academician would see the inconsistency here.
The only thing you are proving with your little stunt is that intolerance is not the sole province of the uneducated masses. It is alive and well amidst the ivy covered walls of our so called institutions of "higher learning."
Step back, sir and see what this is doing to you and your profession. You have allowed your politics to trump your sense of reason, fairness and propriety. You have ceased to be a scientist and have become everything you say you hate about those who you are ridiculing. If you were truly a "tolerant" person, would this wafer thing have even registered on your radar? A truly tolerant person wouldn't seek out the chance to heap ridicule on another person for their beliefs, now would they? Stop and think. Please. If you expect tolerance of others, shouldn't you be willing to be tolerant of their flaws, real or perceived?
Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 10, 2008 8:38 PM
Sent by snail mail:
Dear...
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter in support of Dr. PZ Myers, whose life and livelihood are threatened by zealots of the Religious Right. Having had the privilege of working with excellent scholars of the Department of Epidemiology and the School of Public Health, I have the greatest respect for the University of Minnesota.
In my opinion, Dr. Myers has greatly contributed to the reputation of your institution by being an outspoken champion of scientific scholarship and a courageous foe of "absolute truths", which are neither true nor absolute. One only needs to look at the interference in stem cell research by religiously motivated politicians to be reminded of a long history of damage done by religion in positions of power.
Please include me, should you find it advisable to publicly identify supporters of Dr. Myers.
With respect and affection for a great institution of science, I am ....
Posted by: Markus Karlsson | July 10, 2008 8:39 PM
Greetings from Sweden PZ! You are one of my heroes, keep up the good work!
Posted by: matt | July 10, 2008 8:41 PM
done
Posted by: TonyInBatavia | July 10, 2008 8:41 PM
I'm in with a note of support to the prez. (Hat-tip to Alex for the Ingersoll quote, which I used in my very brief message.)
Posted by: mezzobuff | July 10, 2008 8:42 PM
done.
Posted by: BradJ | July 10, 2008 8:43 PM
PZ writes:
"Mr Majewski, you obviously don't know me at all well. You have just convinced me that I must commit sacrilege, since I oppose the whole nonsensical notion of a "profoundly held religious belief"."
Well, just because he does not have any "profoundly held religious belief" does not mean that he must physically assault the beliefs of others or that he should incite hatred/violence in the general community.
Myers is an embarrassment to the scientific community and displays the intolerant and extreme nature of "new" atheism.
Finally, this is little more than a cheap trick; I have never heard of Mr. Myers before and will certainly not hear from him again after this publicity stunt.
Posted by: spurge | July 10, 2008 8:45 PM
To all the moronic concern trolls.
The religious issue death threats and try to get people fired and you complain that PZ is being intolerant because he wants to do nasty things to a cracker?
Get some fucking perspective.
Posted by: octopod | July 10, 2008 8:46 PM
Yeah, BradJ, don't worry -- your third paragraph had already convinced us all that you don't spend much time keeping up on science blogging. Or, likely enough, science.
Posted by: Banjar | July 10, 2008 8:47 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster here. Sent away this email not long ago: I hope my non-native english will be good enough for a university president.
Greetings Sir,
I am writing this on behalf of PZ Myers to show my support for him and his ever-entertaining, intelligent and no-nonsense blog, Pharyngula. I will personally never be able to enroll at your university (as I live in Sweden), but I think PZ Myers is a great asset to your establishment, and people like him makes me feel there is still hope for the United States. PZ Myers puts the University of Minnesota on the map all around the world, even Scandinavia! If the current 'cracker-affair' affects PZ Myers' current standing with you or your university, I would be deeply disappointed.
Best regards,
Posted by: greylocks | July 10, 2008 8:47 PM
The comment trolls apparently need to be reminded that this all got started because a bunch of Catholic fanatics were quite literally terrorizing some poor college kid who stole a cookie, and kept at it even after he gave it back.
This isn't about the wafer. It's about the behavior of the Catholic wackos who went after this kid the way they did.
Tolerance for religion doesn't extend to tolerating this sort of behavior, which included death threats and trying to get the kid expelled from school. And whatever PZ said, the same applies - death threats and trying to get him fired are not an acceptable response when he exercises his free speech rights.
Tolerance means only that you have a right to your beliefs. It certainly does not mean you have a right to harass, intimidate and threaten people who disagree with you. Nor does it mean that no one else can express their own beliefs that your beliefs are idiotic, which is all that PZ did - he's not sending out death threats or trying to get people fired.
Posted by: JoJo | July 10, 2008 8:49 PM
Rarely have I read such a rational plea for tolerance. All the concern trolls should take heed of this calm, logical, objective appeal for charity and understanding.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 10, 2008 8:49 PM
I don't say this about too many people, but when Bill Donahue dies, I'll dance on his grave. In fact, I'll hire a whole circus, with elephants, midgets, and mexican acrobats with montezuma's revenge to take turns trampling, trashing, and shitting on his grave. But I'm above the type of idiotic hate mail reserved for his minions, so I'll just imagine all this with a smile on my face, or perhaps just ask my girlfriend to help me paint a fully illustrated picture with happy-to-see-you-dead symbolism.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 8:50 PM
Mark Dixon, #407, wrote:
Mark, try going back to the very beginning. The original act was, a rude and silly one (someone taking the host without consuming it) and if the reaction of the church and its adherents had been to simply point out the rudeness and silliness of that, then PZ wouldn't have made any noise about it.
He reacted the way he did because that rude and silly boy was threatened with legal action, physical violence and death for what he did.
Which is, of course, outrageous; PZ, like any sane, rational and decent person, was outraged.
Posted by: mjk | July 10, 2008 8:51 PM
Done, what I'd also like is Donohue's email so I can send him a note of my displeasure...
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 8:54 PM
That's exactly our point. Doing something to a wafer is just a cheap trick with no real significance.
Posted by: George S Brundage | July 10, 2008 8:54 PM
Our letter (slightly plagiarized from the fine folks on this blog):
As you are aware, Mr. William "Bill" Donohue is running a hate-mail campaign to oust, or at least censor, Prof. Paul Myers a Professor of Biology at UMM. This e-mail is in response to that hate-mail campaign.
In case you are unaware of Mr. William Donohue, he is the president of the hate group known the "Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights" and is well known for his bellicose hate-speech and making a living over being outraged at imagined or trivial slights. One of Mr. Donahue's tools is hateful rhetoric in which he routinely engages in bashing gays, liberals, colleges, during his over two dozen television appearances during the past five years. He has specifically referred to the "gay death style," remarked, "God forbid we'd run out of little gay kids," claimed that Senator John Kerry "never found an abortion he couldn't justify," and claimed that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular ... Hollywood likes anal sex." These quotes are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his anti-gay/anti-liberal agenda.
My wife, Dr. Diane Sepich (who went to graduate school with Dr. Myers), and I support Dr. Myers in his irreverent and sarcastic rebuttal to the insanity which certain over-heated individuals within the Catholic faith have demonstrated over a trivial incident that occurs on a recurrent basis within the Catholic faith. Especially in light of death threats this student was subjected to over this trivial incident.
Mr. Donohue will no doubt claim that this talk of cracker abuse is Catholic defamation and is not in the realm of free speech. The very fact that anyone could consider the treatment of a cracker (no matter what's been done to it) to be "one of the most vile things imaginable" is very troubling. It is a modern version of the "Host Desecration" incidents in which Jews were burned or otherwise killed and tortured because it was believed that they had desecrated a Eucharist. Clearly the people that are at risk here are not Catholic but each and every American and institution that depends on the free-flow of knowledge and the ability of people to think and live as they see fit within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.
Sincerely,
George S. Brundage, CPA
Dr. Diane S. Sepich
Posted by: paul | July 10, 2008 8:55 PM
Letter of support sent. Voices of reason unite.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 8:55 PM
Brad J, #413, wrote:
How exactly does one 'physically assault' a belief? Would one start by punching it in the face, or working the body for a while first?
Posted by: Troy | July 10, 2008 8:55 PM
Sam Harris said in The End of Faith:
"After this incredible dogma [of transubstantiation] had been established [in 1215], by mere reiteration, to the satisfaction of everyone, Christians began to worry that these living wafers might be subjected to all manner of mistreatment, and even physical torture, at the ends of heretics of Jews. (One might wonder why eating the body of Jesus would be any less of a torment to him."
Jesus is coming and he doesn't pull out.
Posted by: CDV | July 10, 2008 8:56 PM
"The comment trolls apparently need to be reminded that this all got started because a bunch of Catholic fanatics were quite literally terrorizing some poor college kid who stole a cookie, and kept at it even after he gave it back."
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, FUCKERS????
The kid in FL was harassed by one or two jerks - probably classmates.
There is no FATWA! Catholics are not out to get the kid.
This incident was used by this douche-bag, no-name professor to try to drum up anti-Catholic hatred (and a bit of an bad boy atheist rep) and, judging by this blog, it has worked.
Congrats on being IGNORANT ASSHOLES, gang!
PS - your letter SUCK...the university president will be able to see right through the anti-religious tirades that you have sent in.
I guess the art of persuasion is lost on assholes on here...
Posted by: Janice | July 10, 2008 8:57 PM
#155: No, actually, the Dominicans derive their name from that of their founder, Dominic de Guzman. Domini Canes is a fun pun that circulated throughout the Middle Ages about the order but it wasn't the source of their name.
PZ, of course I'll be sending off that letter of support tomorrow in hard copy as well. I figure that emails will not get quite as much notice so it's best to duplicate that virtual communication with the tangible kind. And I'll pass on the word to my sister who took her Ph.D. in the Twin Cities. We rationalists have to fight the good fight!
Posted by: Barry | July 10, 2008 8:57 PM
Subject: P.Z. Meyers is a Credit to Your Institution
Dear President Bruininks,
As an avid follower of new science, I cannot express enough how important the work of P.Z. Meyers is to me. Several times each day, I benefit from his dedication to the public understanding of science. The controversy stemming from his comments on the Catholic Eucharist is bizarre, and to some extent proves his point. I hope you will remain strong in the face of religious zealotry and refuse to let this incident harm his standing at the University of Minnesota in any way.
Thank you for your time,
Barry K
Posted by: --PatF in Madison | July 10, 2008 8:57 PM
@396
" An ex-catholic myself, I'm trying to get excommunicated."
How do you do that? I would like to get excommunicated, too. I have not been to church - except for marriages and funerals - for 40 years. I wouldn't care about this except that I am sure the church is still carrying me on the books as a Catholic and they use the enormous numbers of Catholics as leverage whenever they want something from the government. Decreasing the number by one may not be much, but it is something.
Alternatively, maybe we can set up a business in autoexcommunication kits. We could sell these mail order and they would contain a bell, book, candle and instructions.
let me know what you find out.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 8:58 PM
"WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, FUCKERS????
I guess the art of persuasion is lost on assholes on here...
Well... um... thanks for the lesson.
Posted by: BMurray | July 10, 2008 8:59 PM
"If Jesus came back, and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
-- Frederick from "Hannah and her Sisters" (played by Max von Sydow)
My only concern here is that perhaps one ought not make too light of religious nuts threatening death. They have a history.
Posted by: mandrake | July 10, 2008 9:00 PM
Okay, got out the box of good stationary (which had dust on on it) & sent the following via real paper letter:
Good luck to you, PZ.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 9:00 PM
CDV, #427
Read. Think. Post a comment.
Try it in that order next time.
Posted by: Neil | July 10, 2008 9:02 PM
Mark Dixon #407-
Please, show me where you see any real intolerance on this blog. Go ahead! Show me the death threats toward believers, the physical assaults, the calls for shunning or punishing those who have done no harm to anyone.
Find any yet? Didn't think so.
It seems to me that in your twisted dictionary, "tolerance" means sitting down and shutting up about any issue that could possibly offend someone, no matter how ridiculous that issue might be; or showing extra deference to those whose very stock-in trade is intolerance! Sorry man, no dice. If Catholics want to act like lunatics and spoiled children in public, then they can be called on it, preferably in a loud and mocking voice. No intolerance required.
You're just upset that these shitheads aren't getting extra, unearned respect for their superstitions and overly dramatic behavior. Once again, sorry, but I feel no need to give extra respect to magic spells and immature tantrums.
Feel free to grow up and deal with it, or keep on whining about intolerance. You will be tolerated either way...criticized heavily, but tolerated. There is a difference, if you're adult enough to accept it.
Posted by: Billy | July 10, 2008 9:02 PM
e-mail sent.
I think when he sees the pubescent nature of your blog, he will realized what a catch he has working at his university.
Posted by: Dagger | July 10, 2008 9:03 PM
Not sure how much effect "out of country" emails will have, but I've sent one in stating my full support for your right to freedom of speech.
Posted by: Stephen Majewski | July 10, 2008 9:03 PM
PZ Myers wrote: "Mr Majewski, you obviously don't know me at all well. You have just convinced me that I must commit sacrilege, since I oppose the whole nonsensical notion of a 'profoundly held religious belief'."
If you do, I can only hope that some day you will have a change of heart. Luckily, God is merciful, forgives all who seek His forgiveness, and doesn't hold our past transgressions against us. I'm pulling for you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 10, 2008 9:05 PM
Why?
Seriously, you're an adult. You have the intelligence necessary to use a computer.
Why do you, personally, believe something so absurd that a piece of baked dough can magically become part of the alleged creator of the universe? Why do you believe that the alleged creator of the universe wants you to think that he's inside a cracker? Why do you believe that the alleged creator of the universe wants you to eat this cracker? Why do you believe that the alleged creator of the universe thinks that not eating the cracker is a bad thing? Why do you believe that the alleged creator of the universe could in any way, shape, or form, be harmed as a result of the cracker being damaged?
Posted by: Dick Marti | July 10, 2008 9:05 PM
PZ,
I am willing to support you by sending a note to your president. However, I must first ask this: do you write this blog on University time or your own?
You will be much easier to support if you write the blog on your own time. If you would stick to science/evolution and not get into militant atheism/politics/religion, then you would have a stronger position on university time. But this wafer/cracker incident is so absurd that by itself it makes no difference on whose time you wrote about it.
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 9:07 PM
Mark Dixon #407 wrote:
It depends on what you mean by "tolerance." There's more than one meaning, and not all should be given:
Tolerance:
1.) A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
2.) The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
3.) Sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.
4.) Lack of opposition for beliefs or practices differing from one's own.
5.) The act or capacity of enduring; endurance.
6.) The act of allowing something.
We allow others to disagree. We endure it. In fact, we even encourage it. We permit the beliefs of others not like ourselves. We are fair and objective towards them, considering them seriously, putting them under analysis. We value disagreement. It's what drives science, and progress.
So what part of "tolerance" is missing? Sympathy, indulgence, approval, esteem, and admiration. We do not humor religious belief. We don't cater to it, or yield to it, or leave it alone with a smile and a wink and a sigh. We don't say "how wonderful that works for you!"
You don't want tolerance. You want deference. Lack of opposition. And no criticism.
No can do.
Posted by: akshelby | July 10, 2008 9:07 PM
I just sent a snail mail letter of support for you with my real name and address on it. I enjoy your blog, and have learned more about biology and evolution than anybody else. Plus, you helped turn me into an atheist! I hope the Catholic League finds a different way to untwist their panties soon.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 9:07 PM
Stephen Majewski, #431, wrote:
Doesn't your god frown on that sort of thing? Sin of Onan and all that?
Posted by: Dagger | July 10, 2008 9:09 PM
@427
"I guess the art of persuasion is lost on assholes on here..."
Well, I think I'd rather be considered a persuasive lost asshole than to open my sphincter and remove all doubt...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 9:11 PM
Well I'll be cleaning that beer off the monitor for a little bit.
Posted by: DS | July 10, 2008 9:14 PM
Mark B (#314):
Did you even read my post? Where did you see me supporting any attempts to curtail PZ's speech? But I guess it's just so much more fun to anonymously attack people on teh internets than to actually read and think.
Damian (#404):
Feel better now? Did I say anything about "respecting" or "revering" beliefs you don't agree with? Did I express solidarity with the people who beat up that kid? And yes, I was saying exactly that I would only hurt someone if I thought it was necessary (sorry, should I ask you first?).
Anyway, I don't think a notoriously thick-skinned blogger is going to be hurt by being called a jerk in one of several hundred comments. But if he was, then I guess I do think it was justified. I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite. What I did say, however, is that I would not desecrate a host. I explained why. I explained why I wouldn't write a letter for PZ. I said I thought his reaction was extreme and, well, jerky. I didn't tell him what he could or could not do, nor did I attack his motivation or anything else. But again, I suspect you (like Paul B) post anonymously on blogs because you like to feel important when you dish out that self-righteous indignation, not to actually read or think.
Have a nice evening.
DS
Posted by: CDV | July 10, 2008 9:15 PM
Owl screeches:
"Why do you believe that the alleged creator of the universe could in any way, shape, or form, be harmed as a result of the cracker being damaged?"
What don't you understand about the freedom of religion and the right to the pursuit of happiness?
What don't you understand about respect for other citizens within the community?
The kid in FL has not be actively harassed - it was one or two of his classmates. As for the anti-Catholic bile on here....you people are sadly ignorant and indoctrinated in hate.
As for knowledge of the universe - there is much more that we DON'T know than we do, so why the arrogance? Do you know more than Pascal? Or Mozart? Newton?
Posted by: Theo | July 10, 2008 9:15 PM
Do you seriously need to worry about your job? If so, I'd be looking for a new employer anyway. Do you really want to work for people who humour a mob of irrational loons?
To Mark Dixon and others having a go at PZ regarding "tolerance".
Are we required to tolerate the intolerant? Where do you draw the line? Do we ask the people issuing death threats over some baked flour to "be nice"? (I suppose "What would Jesus do?" might work better.)
Moreover, have you actually stopped to consider the disingenuous and condescending nature of "tolerance"?
"I tolerate you."
"Gee, thanks... So you're not going to stone me then?"
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 9:15 PM
Just sent:
Mr. Bruininks,
This is another message in support of Dr. Myers.
No one has the right to not be offended. I'm not even sure it is possible to bring harm to a cracker. In any case, kowtowing to the bluster of empty authority would only embolden those who would foist their irrational, pre-enlightenment world-view, onto the rest of us. A scary thought indeed.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Posted by: Anand | July 10, 2008 9:17 PM
You, Professor Myers are a damned fool. You are publicly advocating what one of the major world religions considers an act of sacrilege. All that a creationist need now do is point to these abysmally juvenile antics as evidence that adherence to evolutionary science is not based on cool, objective reasons, but on the fact that its most vocal adherents are deeply irrational, bigoted, raving atheists. Looking at all of these comments, I begin to wonder, myself. Thanks for setting back the cause, jerkwad.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 10, 2008 9:18 PM
Here's what I sent to Bruiniks. I hope this additional post to this thread doesn't cause the servers to overheat and crash, but I guess that's the risk PZ pays for having such fervent supporters.
Dear Robert Bruiniks,
I'm sure by now, you've received hundreds of e-mails telling you how wrong it would be to listen to Bill Donohue, and his cohorts. I guess one more e-mail wouldn't hurt the cause. I honestly believe that PZ Myers is a unique and irreplaceable individual on your faculty, and any thought or consideration of his removal would signify a lack of far sightedness and irresponsibility reserved only for the most deporable of human beings; those that lie, cheat, and generally obfuscate the truth for their ignorant belief system. We all have views that can come across as offensive, but when individuals like Donahue stir up witch hunts remeniscent of c1690 Salem, Massachusetts, then we have a duty as citizens of an open and honest Democratic Republic to persuasively crush such ravid idiocy the moment it's presented. Our future as people who embrace liberty, freedom, and the open and honest pursuit of our goals and aspirations depends on allowing the freedom of expression, including such "sacreligious" acts such as using communion wafers for target practice if need be. We are not tramping on anyone's liberty, and there are actual hate crimes committed on a daily basis that go unreported while self-righteous hypocritic idiots inflame and conflagrate other weak willed self-righteous hypocritic idiots into a frenzy. Ultimately, I hope you will continue supporting PZ Myers as you obviously have so far in his tenure. He's more valuable to your university and community than these racist and hate filled idiots who oppose him.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 10, 2008 9:18 PM
Ok, this thread needs more Jesus and Mo.
Posted by: Evan White | July 10, 2008 9:18 PM
Here's what I wrote (true story):
Dear Mr. Bruininks,
I am hoping that you will support PZ Myers in the face of the hate mail he has been receiving, and allow him to keep his job at the university.
I myself took hostage of a holy tasteless snack cracker during a service. The prospect of cannibalizing a two-thousand year-old guy turned me off to the ritual, so I pocketed it instead, fully intending to relinquish it at the door. However, the pastor then proclaimed "May the piece of the Lord go with you", so I took it under a direct order from the pastor. I hope you realize that I meant no harm to the body of Christ, as I was protecting it from being thrown away, and I even cleaned his crispy-crunchy earthly vessel by letting it inadvertently go through the washing machine in my pants pocket.
All the best,
Posted by: rod-the-farmer | July 10, 2008 9:20 PM
The folks over at the Richard Dawkins web site seem to be sending in lots of supportive mail of both kinds. I am sure we will ALL be interested to hear if a count is done when the dust settles.
Posted by: God | July 10, 2008 9:20 PM
Hi there.
I'm God.
I do know, for a fact, that the silly crackers have nothing to do with Me.
And I'm arrogant because I'm God.
What's your excuse?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 10, 2008 9:20 PM
"Bill Donohue has a loud, braying voice"
Oy, tell me about it. I watched that video someone linked to on the other thread of him and Hitchens. GAH. And that "An Englishmen has to be quiet when an Irishman talks" crap. Go sit on a potato, Bill.
Starbuck the Crazy Death Cultist:
"Idiots, all of you."
HATE SPEECH!
"Do Judges send criminals to prison? No the prisoners send themselves, for doing the crime."
Nnnnooo [speaking slowly, as if to a child], judges do send criminals to prison. If it weren't for the judicial system, there wouldn't even be prisons. Just like how God supposedly does send people to Hell. He may give the speech about how it hurts him more than it hurts them, but he does it. I wouldn't be able to find Hell even if I wanted to go there.
Mark Dixon:
"For all your talk of tolerance and free thinking, I can find no evidence that you or anyone else on this blog is capable of tolerating those who disagree."
You keep using that word, "Tolerance". You use it as if it were some sort of magic talisman against liberals (which, in many cases, it can be, I suppose). I don't think you know what it means. Furthermore, I think you're incapable of separating a belief from a person. Funny how that sort of thing always comes from those in the group that bandies about the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
Stephen Majewski
"Such a sacrilege would not only be deeply offensive to Catholics, but also to people of all faiths for such a blatant disrespect of a profoundly held religious belief."
Yet I notice you don't seem to have any concern for the fellow who's flesh is apparently manifested on Earth. Is he harmed by supposed desecration of the Host? Does he even truly care? No, from you, all I hear is about how it will offend someone. So ask yourself, does it really matter? Are you going to be offended merely because someone said you should be? Or because other people you ally yourself with are going to be offended? Do you really believe in transubstantiation at all? Do you merely believe in ritual and ceremony? Do you merely believe...in belief?
They're trying to control your mind, Stephen. They're telling you how to think about what is, in all physical properties, a wafer. They're telling you what should offend you. Don't let them control your mind. Set your mind free.
Posted by: MikeG | July 10, 2008 9:21 PM
Message sent:
President Bruininks,
I am sure you have received a large number of email messages regarding the incident surrounding Dr. PZ Myers' posts about the UCF student's removal from the church of the consecrated communion wafer, so I shall be brief.
I am writing to express my support for Dr. Myers, and I wish to commend him. Through his site, Pharyngula, I have learned a huge amount about biology, skepticism, and much else about the world in which I live. His blog is a treasure. Were I once again a student, I would only hope to have professors with his wit, knowledge and ability to make me think. This includes his talk about religion and advocacy of atheism. I understand that the views posted on his Seed hosted blog do not represent the views of anyone but Dr. Myers, but I hope you understand that you have one hell of an educator in Dr. Myers. He taught me a lot, without ever having ever seen my face; that is a rare thing.
Thank you for your time,
Michael (redacted for teh intertoobs)
St. Petersburg, Florida
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 9:22 PM
Personally, if I were a Catholic, I'd be angry at O'Donohue.
No official position with nor endorsement for the church, he's just hijacked the name of the church for his organization which he uses to self promote, get on TV looking like a jackass, act like a loud-mouth jerk, and generally make Catholics look like a bunch of angry hypocrites, if he's supposed to represent them.
A good move, honestly, would be for Catholics to disassociate themselves from this self-appointed scold.
Posted by: Dave UH | July 10, 2008 9:22 PM
Sent an email to your pres. PZ, keep up the good work.
Posted by: TheBlackCat | July 10, 2008 9:22 PM
Or really? How did you measure that? How do you know how much we don't know if we don't know it?
Immeasurably more. Anybody who has ever studied middle school science knows more than Netwon (at least that was when I covered basic mechanics). Mozart was a composer, I don't have any reason to think he knew much of anything. Pascal was even before Newton. Or are you honestly saying our knowledge has not progressed in the last 400 years?
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 9:23 PM
What about Owlmirror's question infringed on freedom of religion or the pursuit of happiness? What about it was disrespectful? Is asking questions disrespectful?
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 9:25 PM
CDV,
Go to the websites PZ posted in the original thread. To save you effort I'll post it here for you:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
Then come back and talk to us about overreaction.
Posted by: Damian | July 10, 2008 9:26 PM
Mark Dixon said:
Nonsense. Where is the evidence that PZ, or anyone else that reads this blog for that matter, does not tolerate people with opposing ideas? Or, did you really mean that we don't tell you how wonderful your beliefs are? If that is how you define tolerance, I don't want anything to do with it, thank you very much.
It is far more offensive to me that people are told that they cannot express themselves freely, as someone, somewhere, might not be intellectually and emotionally developed enough to recognize that criticism of ideas and beliefs is not the same as criticizing an individual.
And tolerance works both ways, does it not? The sooner that we can reach the point where there is an understanding that we would be far better off if people weren't so damn offended all of the time -- except, you know, when there are death threats involved -- the better it will be for all of humanity, in my opinion.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 9:26 PM
Well, given that science has moved on since Newton's time, I certainly know about a great many things which Newton never even imagined, from quarks to quasars! Ditto for Pascal: he's famous for probability theory, but probability and statistics — not to mention the rest of mathematics — have continued their march ever upwards.
See, that's the thing about looking at religious scientists of centuries past: whether science has quarrels with religion today depends on what we know now, not what they knew then.
Besides, the real act of breathtaking vanity is to stare into the unknown and assert that it's all explained in a Bronze Age folk tale, or in some mysterious inner motion of one's spirit. (That's like pointing at a light in the sky, calling it a UFO and proclaiming, "The aliens are here!" Remember what the U in UFO stands for.) Imposing the fables of our ancestors on the Cosmos is not an act of humility.
Posted by: DrBadger | July 10, 2008 9:27 PM
@#450... you're claiming that athiests are irrational??? and how could you be a raving nonbeliever? There are more muslims than catholics, so do you believe that all women should cover their faces because a major world religion believes so? There are almost as many hindus as catholics, do you believe that no one in the world should advocate eating cows because it's against their religion?
Posted by: RWHouchin | July 10, 2008 9:28 PM
I think it's really funny how so many people keep using phrases like, "Meyers is *physically* assaulting the *beliefs..."
Physically assaulting _beliefs_ ?
These people commit war crimes against language =/
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 10, 2008 9:29 PM
I'm sorry, does trying to understand how beliefs arise in any way infringe on freedom of religion and pursuit of happiness?
Is asking questions about religion actually disrespectful?
That appears to be a false statement. Why are you lying when the the report itself states that the Catholic League became involved?
There has mostly been anti-religious sentiment, not specifically anti-Catholic, which is to be expected. And the ignorance and hate that you and the other anti-atheists project is rather unpleasant.
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 9:29 PM
I hope you mean Mozart didn't know much of anything about the universe. I assure you he knew quite a bit about music theory with regard to European music.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 9:29 PM
I'm allergic to egg yolks. What's worse, is that it's a late-adulthood food allergy and I was ever so fond of DEVILED EGGS and even won some ribbons for my wonderful deviled eggs.
You mean like Seung-Hui Cho?
You're mixing your religions. Catholics don't do "fatwas." They send out the Dominicans. For big jobs they call crusades.
Bill Donahue, President and spokesman for the Hate Group "The Catholic League..." demanded punishment, including EXPLUSION. Plus the kid received Death THREATS (note plural).
Seems that Catholics ARE out to get him.
No name! No name! Dude this blog has had over TWENTY-FIVE MILLION HITS just since it came to Seed. He gets more hits in an hour than probably 90% of the fucking Internet gets in a day, if not a week.
Way to live the Sermon on the Mount there, Sparky! Turn the other cheek. All that "love and forgiveness" stuff there that gives you the "moral high-ground." LMAO.
Considering the character of your post... Eh, I think those letters are just fine...
Oh, the IRONY. The IRONY.
Posted by: lovable liberal | July 10, 2008 9:31 PM
From Angela's Ashes, Frank McCourt's first communion:
We arrived at the church just in time to see the last of the boys leaving the altar rail where the priest stood with the chalice and the host, glaring at me. Then he placed on my tongue the wafer, the body and blood of Jesus. At last, at last.
It's on my tongue. I draw it back.
It stuck.
I had God glued to the roof of my mouth. I could hear the master's voice, Don't let that host touch your teeth for if you bite God in two you'll roast in hell for eternity.
I tried to get God down with my tongue but the priest hissed at me, Stop that clucking and get back to your seat.
God was good. He melted and I swallowed Him and now, at last, I was a member of the True Church, an official sinner.
...
It gets even better from there.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 10, 2008 9:32 PM
@ #438
"Luckily, God is merciful, forgives all who seek His forgiveness, and doesn't hold our past transgressions against us."
Yeah, I think that's the loophole the paedophile priests use. Talk about a get out of jail free card.
Posted by: TheBlackCat | July 10, 2008 9:32 PM
Yes, that was what I meant, I just couldn't think of a good way to phrase it. Although today we know a lot more about the physiological and mathematical bases for western (and eastern) music as well.
Posted by: mandrake | July 10, 2008 9:32 PM
"The kid in FL has not be actively harassed - it was one or two of his classmates."
So he is being harassed, but not actively, by one or two of his classmates?
Apparently "one or two" people threatening to kill you is okay, as long as they're not active about it.
Posted by: Ken McKnight | July 10, 2008 9:33 PM
PZ-I wouldn't sweat the Catholic League too much. When Kathy Griffin told Jesus to "suck it" at the Emmys, Donohue also began his Pavlovian frothing and as far as I can tell, her career hasn't suffered as a result. By the way, in her act she said, "Do you know who the Catholic League is? It's one guy with a typewriter."
Posted by: PsiWavefunction | July 10, 2008 9:35 PM
People, this is so simple:
Human beings have rights. We have all agreed upon this, at least in our society. You can logically justify the basic human rights with little opposition [from the rational].
Ideas, on the other hand, do NOT. No matter how much a human loves their idea/belief, no matter how many people share said idea... the idea does NOT have any rights. You can ridicule and mock an idea, rip it to shreds in an argument, write it down on a piece of paper and wipe your ass with it, piss on it, fling it against the wall, burn it... perhaps in some cases it may be a suboptimal move socially, but it is still perfectly legal and ethically right. Ideas, which are mere neurological patterns in brain(s), do not have any rights. End of story.
Therefore, I'll say this loud and clear:
I respect the religious as human beings, but I DO NOT feel obligated under any circumstances to respect the beliefs they hold. The vast majority of the Christian beliefs and ideas are COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT, and I feel sorry for those of you who fall for it.
The Catholic belief in Transubstantiation is also a wad of unimaginative fairytale bullshit. That's my honest opinion.
I could privately provide you with the email of the president of my university/dean of my faculty if you would like, along with my full name so you can complain to the administration about my vile opinions.
And by the way, I'm using a university computer to type this. And my wages are paid for by Canadian and American taxpayers, so you should contact both government to inform them of this sacriligious misuse of tax money.
Enjoy =P
PZ, you have my support; although I'm not sure any more spam is needed in your president's inbox...
Posted by: Dean Barnett RN BS | July 10, 2008 9:36 PM
Speaking as a former Trappist novice, Bill Donohue can kiss my ass. Never give up, PZ. Pharyngula is my daily sanity check.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 9:36 PM
To put this politely:
Bollocks. I've said it before, but for those joining our program already in progress, I'll say it again.
News flash: if everybody here said only things with which I agreed exactly and could have said myself, the place would be boring. One of the important things which makes people here congenial is their willingness to roll up the sleeves and have a frank, evidence-based discussion of important questions to which the answers are not clear. We like to argue, and we're good at it. Sometimes, I even think we do good by doing it.
I've said before, on multiple occasions, that I have my disagreements with the people whom, if I were really a "fundamentalist atheist", I would have to follow slavishly. I disagree with Richard Dawkins about the reason why physicists are not gung-ho for Smolin's hypothesis of evolutionary selection of universes, about the role "Bible studies" should play in cultural education, and about the relative rhetorical strengths of the Ultimate 747 and the Problem of Evil. I disagree with Hector Avalos about the merit of Baudrillard and the religious content of The Simpsons. I disagree with Michael Shermer about most everything concerning economics, particularly when he yokes libertarianism to evolutionary psychology, and about the origins of religion.
See?
Posted by: Brian W. | July 10, 2008 9:37 PM
Does Bill Donahue where a silly hat? I thought Catholics only listened to people in silly hats.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 10, 2008 9:38 PM
and my AXE!
Message of support sent from real-name email.
PZ has given me a greater understanding of Evo-Devo over the past year than all my previous education and private reading had ever achieved.
The man is education personified.
And rationality demonstrated.
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 9:39 PM
Tolerance: In 1995, the Vatican declared that people who can't digest gluten would no longer be allowed to eat Jeebus in his cracker form.
Posted by: qedpro | July 10, 2008 9:40 PM
Is is me or do desecrated crackers taste better?
Only two things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Posted by: Theo | July 10, 2008 9:40 PM
Another idea might be to leave feedback at the Catholic League: http://www.catholicleague.org/feedback.php
As with PZ's request, keep it clear, concise and rational.
I sent them the following:
Regarding PZ Meyers - http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459
Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:
"The Myers blog can be accessed from the university's website.
Accordingly, we are contacting the President and the Board of Regents to see what they are going to do about this matter. Because the university is a state institution, we are also contacting the Minnesota legislature.
It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ. We look to those who have oversight responsibility to act quickly and decisively."
Yes, it's good to see you have your priorities right. Let's harass somebody, rather than engage them in a constructive dialogue. Almost as useful as this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3142511.ece
Even if Myers was truly offensive, he has the right to free speech. By harassing him, you embarrass thinking Catholics everywhere.
Posted by: efrique | July 10, 2008 9:41 PM
Yet again, Donohue shows that no matter what bad things PZed says about him, he can always not only immediately confirm them, but actually be far worse than described.
Over a silly little cracker. Theistards like Donohue must think that god fellow must be *such* a emo wimp, if that actually bothers skydaddy. Oh wait, that's exactly as described, isn't it?
PZed, you're far too forgiving.
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 9:44 PM
CDV #447 wrote:
This is a very odd response to the question. If you want to call it a response. I'd call it a non sequitur.
I'd also call it nonsense.
How does asking a religious person to justify a claim that, quite frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense become a violation of the "freedom of religion and the right to pursue happiness?" Nobody is trying to put you in jail or take away your Bible or you RIGHT to believe.
You're hysterical that they're trying to persuade you to believe something else. Well, that's not a form of force. Even if it doesn't make you happy, it's not taking away your "right to pursue happiness." You don't have a right to BE happy, so that if someone makes you unhappy you're being unjustly oppressed.
You don't have a right to be free of critique. Not even in religion. Especially in religion. "Having faith" is just a way of ducking your responsibility to make reasonable sense.
Really now. Do you do this with politics, too?
"You shouldn't vote for Senator X, he's incompetent."
"I have the right to vote for whoever I want! You're taking away my political freedom! You're intolerant! And against democracy!"
Posted by: mandrake | July 10, 2008 9:45 PM
This is all starting get a little... weird...
I think agreeing with a lot of people and doing the same thing as they are doing is starting to freak me out. If you see what I mean.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 9:45 PM
You don't mean tolerance. You mean capitulation. You mean that your beliefs remain respected and unchallenged without question. And that you, by your beliefs, occupy a privileged place in the hierarchy of society.
No can do.
The funny thing is though, while I'm an atheist, I do go to church nearly every Sunday. I am, despite my hotheadedness, a Unitarian-Universalist dedicated to social justice.
I am welcomed there, despite my beliefs. Which makes sense as the most recent survey of my Church indicated that NINETEEN PERCENT of us were Atheists/Agnostics. Nineteen percent of us, who are going to Church, tolerate the 81% who believe in some sort of supernatural being.
JUST AS THEY TOLERATE US.
I'm friends with many, many of them. I tolerate all of their lifestyles and the right for them to have and hold whatever beliefs that get them through the day. As long as they don't use their beliefs, however wacky, to hurt or control others.
They give me that same respect for my beliefs. Including my, often, hardcore atheism and though historical/archaeological rebutment of their cherished beliefs back to the origins of Judaism (or whatever).
So don't play that game. Not here. Not with me. Not with the rest of us on this blog.
We're not so blind that we cannot see what you really mean. Because we know that if you meant tolerance, instead of capitulation and privileged, you'd be on our side.
Posted by: Steven | July 10, 2008 9:46 PM
E-MAIL SENT.
Posted by: sailor | July 10, 2008 9:46 PM
"Luckily, God is merciful, forgives all who seek His forgiveness, and doesn't hold our past transgressions against us. I'm pulling for you."
Sure Stephen, that is why he has this hot place where he can show his love by burning people in perpetuity.
Posted by: Anon | July 10, 2008 9:48 PM
I hope your pres. is ok with getting these email messages. I worried that this would do more harm than good, but ultimately sent a message:
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing to tell you how much I respect UM's support of Prof. PZ Myers.
As you know, Prof. Myers writes a blog called Pharyngula that sometimes upsets people who disagree with him. Apparently, a recent blog post about communion wafers drew the ire of Bill Donohue and other Catholics, and apparently they have been urged to write to you. Prof. Myers has suggested that others might like to write to you as well.
I do not agree with everything Prof. Myers writes, but I do very much respect his courage in defending values he believes in. Even more, I am impressed that UM does not attempt to squelch faculty freedom to speak. Of course it is very clear that Pharyngula is not the official voice of UM. But at some universities, some faculty are afraid to speak out, even in their personal capacity, because they are afraid their administrators will not support their first amendment rights. That PZ Myers is not afraid is a credit to UM and to your leadership.
---------
Hope this helps. I would not want my bosses getting hate mail about me, either.
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 10, 2008 9:52 PM
Sent a nice email, and pointed out that as someone with a soon-to-be college age child, UMinn is now higher on my list of "Places my child should go to college" because they have and support cranky bastards like you.
Having grown up with me, he'd be right at home with other cranky bastards.
(I left off the full title of the list: "Places my child should go to college that are too far away for him to stay at home and attend, so he'll have to learn how to survive on his own without anyone to clean up his messes.")
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | July 10, 2008 9:52 PM
#367 Posted by: Stephen Majewski | July 10, 2008 7:58 PM
Stephen, the whole point to all this is 1) no one ever considers the deeply and profoundly held philosophies of atheists - people freely insult and disrespect atheists continuously and completely, and 2) no one has a right to not be offended.
As I am offended daily by the insanity of Muslim suicide bombers and Christian Evangelicals alike, I am living proof of not having a right to not be offended.
John B. Sandlin
Posted by: cyan | July 10, 2008 9:55 PM
Email sent to the prez which both supports PZ's right to free speech on his blog and its great continuing contribution to the understanding of biology.
Posted by: Stephen Majewski | July 10, 2008 9:56 PM
Timcol wrote: "...will the Catholic church promise to stop condemning to hell everybody who doesn't agree with them?"
The Church only affirms saints in heaven. It wisely remains silent about who might have willfully chosen eternal separation from God.
____________
CJO wrote: "Yes, we get this, @sO...."
Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. - Matthew 5:11-12
____________
Owlmirror wrote: "Why do you, personally, believe....that the alleged creator of the universe could in any way, shape, or form, be harmed as a result of the cracker being damaged?"
Those are good questions. When the Spirit moves you, I have no doubt that you will use your computer to find the answers.
____________
Wowbagger wrote: "Doesn't your god frown on that sort of thing? Sin of Onan and all that?"
You guys are tough!
______________
Rey Fox wrote: "Yet I notice you don't seem to have any concern for the fellow who's flesh is apparently manifested on Earth...."
I'm sorry if I came across that way.
______________
Cheezits wrote: "Why do they believe something so truly, really, substantially ridiculous?"
Because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, said so.
I'd like to share a quote from Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), the great Italian theologian and philosopher: "To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to contemning the command of God."
Time doesn't allow for me to present the many reasonable explanations for the existence of God. Faith is a gift offered freely by God to everyone. He calls each one of us by name to cooperate with his grace. The choice whether to do so is ours. Thankfully, whether one believes in God for a lifetime or takes a lifetime to believe, the eternal reward is the same.
Lastly, I apologize for being a "concern troll." Apparently, I've violated blog etiquette.
Posted by: Theo | July 10, 2008 9:57 PM
Remind me to never go into an old Catholic church again. On the off chance it catches on fire, and I pass out (a pretty unlikely situation, to be sure), the crackers would be rescued before I am, apparently...
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 9:58 PM
From #450: You, Professor Myers are a damned fool. You are publicly advocating what one of the major world religions considers an act of sacrilege. All that a creationist need now do is point to these abysmally juvenile antics as evidence that adherence to evolutionary science is not based on cool, objective reasons, but on the fact that its most vocal adherents are deeply irrational, bigoted, raving atheists. Looking at all of these comments, I begin to wonder, myself. Thanks for setting back the cause, jerkwad. Posted by: Anand | July 10, 2008 9:17 PM
PZ set back the cause? Are you suggesting that creationists are more likely to attack science education because PZ pointed out the obvious fact that people shouldn't make death threats because somebody didn't want to eat a cracker?
Perhaps the next time Christians threaten to kill someone everybody else should just be quiet about it so the creationists aren't offended. Then the creationists will notice how nice the atheists are to be quiet about their death threats, and they will throw out magical creation and support science education.
Oh wait. That won't work. Appeasement of creationists was tried, and the creationists still passed a bill in Louisiana legalizing the teaching of magic in biology classes. The votes for the bill were 94-3 and 36-0, and the creationist governor, who may be our next Vice-president, signed the bill. Since appeasement isn't working maybe ridicule of religious insanity isn't such a bad idea.
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 10, 2008 9:58 PM
I'm in IT. I tolerate stupidity and lies on a scale that a classroom full of retarded Eddie Haskells couldn't match.
I have to, else I'm unemployed.
However, "tolerance" doesn't mean I won't point and go "HA-HA" at stupid shit. It just means I accept that I have to put up with it.
Didn't any of these morons see the South Park episode on Tolerance?
Posted by: Patricia | July 10, 2008 9:59 PM
Hopefully the poor student is OK.
Goodnight sweethearts. :)
Posted by: Dave Mueller | July 10, 2008 9:59 PM
Sam Harris said in The End of Faith:
"After this incredible dogma [of transubstantiation] had been established [in 1215], by mere reiteration, to the satisfaction of everyone, Christians began to worry that these living wafers might be subjected to all manner of mistreatment, and even physical torture, at the ends of heretics of Jews. (One might wonder why eating the body of Jesus would be any less of a torment to him."
Ah....thanks for posting that, #426. I had long suspected that Sam Harris was a simpleton. Now I know for certain.
Transubstantiation was not established in 1215. The word was coined then in order to attempt to describe more precisely the belief of Catholics, but the belief itself dates back to the time of Jesus, and this is known by anyone who knows ANYTHING about religious history.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 9:59 PM
Actually, yes. I do know more about the Universe than Pascal, Mozart and Newton. Isn't that ironic? You meant to ask a rhetorical question and called into your argument authorities from the past...
Men who, during their time, were giants. But whose great accomplishments have been surpassed by generation upon generation upon generation of scientists.
All those greats would, literally, have to go back to school to keep up with just about any graduate student in their "knowledge of the universe."
Think of all the disciplines, and how far they've advanced, since those men. We're well beyond apples falling from trees in physics. I don't think Newton could pass a high-school final in physics at this point in time. I could easily kick Newton's ass there.
Mozart was a great composer, but that has little to do with understanding the physical universe. And while I've read he was a great math talent, I've gone further in calculus than Mozart and I've gone further in subjects that barely existed when Mozart was alive.
And Pascal, well, he was a giant. But like Newton and Mozart, he was a pioneer. I've probably learned more about geometry, trigonometry and statistics than existed in his lifetime. I would expect any graduating senior in mathematics, or any other math-intensive major, to out-class Pascal.
Just as I would expect any Medical Resident to be a better doctor than Galen, or Pasteur.
Seriously, get over your ancestor worship. These men were great, but we've gone so, so, so much further than their steps. To think that these men were the end of reason and achieved heights to which we cannot aspire or surpass...
Well, it's stupid.
Posted by: abeja | July 10, 2008 10:01 PM
I'll be sending my letter of support ASAP (by 'ol fashioned snail mail).
This all makes me ashamed that I was raised Catholic. And glad I realized that religion is bullshit a long time ago.
Posted by: Donald E. Flood | July 10, 2008 10:03 PM
Yes, PZ, if you had lived during the Middle Ages, they would have burned you for having said what you said. Humanity has made some progress, hasn't it?!
Posted by: bystander | July 10, 2008 10:06 PM
As per tristero ...
My (surface mail) letter to your president begins this:
Good Luck, PZ. Hope it all amounts to a pimple on an an elephant's butt.
PS. I left off the bit about my being a non-practicing Catholic. It's really none of your president's business, is it? ;-)
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 10:06 PM
I'm very disturbed to hear about this intolerance toward Catholics. Please, tell me who is trying to get these Catholics fired from their jobs for expressing their opinions. I must know who the horrible intolerant people are who are doing this to them. Catholics should be able to freely express their thoughts without worrying about receiving death threats or having their livelihoods jeopardized.
Thanks for this information in advance.
Posted by: raven | July 10, 2008 10:07 PM
Sent. I couldn't get too serious about it.
Religious terrorists at Morris campus
Dear Dr. Bruininks:
Professor PZ Myers has been threatened with death for contemplating cracker abuse. Cracker abuse is common and I myself often buy them at stores and eat them, mostly Ritz, Cheez-it, Sociable, and soda crackers.
It is claimed by some people that crackers are really Jesus. They don't look remotely like Jesus. And it seems to me that the omnipotent creator of the universe could take care of itself even if it looked like a mundane cracker.
Ignore the good Christians that are threatening to kill Myers. They know not what they do as they haven't bothered to understand their own religion past the point of "Jesus equals crackers". In fact, you might want to increase the police security at Morris unless you want some pathetic headlines for U. of Minnesota, "Professor killed by religious terrorists over crackers."
The Catholic League is just an angry, insane old man named Bill Donohue and some lunatic fringers who like to threaten people anonymously. My organization, The Universe Catholic Justice and Truth League is much more influential even if it consists of a few people and two cats.
redacted name
The Universe Catholic Justice and Truth League
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2008 10:07 PM
Hey PZ,
I'll try to write up a letter and send it to the president later. I am currently heading out for work, so I just wanted to post my support before I left.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 10:07 PM
#493: "Time doesn't allow for me to present the many reasonable explanations for the existence of God."
Reasonable explanations for the existence of a magical fairy who hides in the clouds? Let's have just one. Make sure it's reasonable. Of course you got nothing but your wishful thinking and your total ignorance of science.
"Why do you, personally, believe....that the alleged creator of the universe could in any way, shape, or form, be harmed as a result of the cracker being damaged?"
Those are good questions.
Then why don't you answer the question, mister? Do you think your magic man is worried about a worthless cracker?
Posted by: HidariMak | July 10, 2008 10:07 PM
My e-mail has been fired off. As others have said before, why be tolerant of other faiths if faith itself can't do that? If all of the Muslims, the Jewish, the atheists, the Buddhists, etc. are all ignorant fools who are all going to burn in Hell, where is the respect towards others' religious beliefs on their end?
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 10:09 PM
No, the desire is still there. It's just that some people fought back the church, and now they can't get away with it. Looking at their behavior over the last two days, there's no doubt in my mind that they'd go right back to burning heretics if they could get away with it.Posted by: Theo | July 10, 2008 10:09 PM
Stephen M - Can you let me know how you picked the right religion?
Also, Aquinas may have said: "To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to contemning the command of God."
But can you find me an equivalent passage from the Bible?
Anyway, why are people so upset about a missing cracker? As Mathew 5.4 says: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." Is it that their comfort food is crackers?
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 10:09 PM
"Thankfully, whether one believes in God for a lifetime or takes a lifetime to believe, the eternal reward is the same."
Well, that's certainly true enough.
Posted by: Jon | July 10, 2008 10:10 PM
Four out of 39 emails containing death threats... that's strikingly high. Does that mean that just over 10% of members of the Catholic League are wannabe homicidal maniacs? Should I have not asked that question?
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 10, 2008 10:10 PM
I don't see how my computer can possibly see inside of your own mind.
If you've written about this specifically somewhere in great and painstaking detail on the web, perhaps you could have the caritas to post the link?
Posted by: Brian Macker | July 10, 2008 10:10 PM
Dear Bob Bruininks,
I betcha right about now PZ wishes he had insulted some libertarians. Apparently he believes they worship the dollar so I expect he'll be threatening to desecrate one any minute. Myers believes that libertarians believe that the dollar bill actually turns into the body of Washington when you spend it on crackers or something.
"I think the institutionalized selfishness, petty small-mindedness, and bourgeois values run amuck of the libertarians represent the worst of America"
Spoken like a true Marxist.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 10:11 PM
Wow PZ!
You have more supporters here than we had Minutemen at the battles of Concord & Lexington.
A cracker is the physical body of Christ? - Religions are deserving targets for mockery. It's just a God-Damned cracker!
Posted by: kubenzi | July 10, 2008 10:11 PM
so....Any TAM6 attendees here? LOL
PZ...to quote Steve Miller(unfortunatly not on the list of steves)....
Keep on rockin me baby
Posted by: EEguy | July 10, 2008 10:13 PM
I added my e-mail. Keep up the good work PZ. You speak for millions of us.
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2008 10:13 PM
CJO wrote: "Yes, we get this, @sO...."
Censorship! I called you an asshole.
Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. - Matthew 5:11-12
Yes, when you're spouting bat-shit insanity, I'm sure it's comforting to have a clause that says, in essence, "that most people think you're bat-shit insane is just further proof of how right you are."
Lastly, I apologize for being a "concern troll." Apparently, I've violated blog etiquette.
Nah, you're just the old-fashioned kind. You're also a godbot, which is further grounds for dungeon residency, but what with the magic-cracker dust-up, I think we're pretty much desensitized.
Posted by: Brian Roy | July 10, 2008 10:14 PM
I sent mine:
Mr. Bruininks, I'm writing to you because I am very concerned about the hate mail coming from religious groups towards scientists. PZ Myers and other like him have spent their life in search for truths and answers to life's basic questions. If it were not for people like him, we would still be living in huts with no TV's, Cell phones or computers. Science is for everyone's benefit, the hate that is coming from religion is only causing more people to question what they truly believe. Put an end to this hate, it will only turn against people like Bill Donohue.
Posted by: God | July 10, 2008 10:14 PM
I most certainly did not.
And for that matter, I am perfectly capable of being deceptive, and indeed, I am all of the time.
Posted by: Fitz Doubet | July 10, 2008 10:15 PM
To: --PatF in Madison #430
My father, also an ex-catholic and an active atheist, came up with the idea of trying to get former catholics turned non-believers to get themselves ex-communicated and bogged about it today here: http://phildoubet.blogspot.com/2008/07/excommunicated.html
I don't know if they'd really willingly let you go, but it's a funny idea and worth a shot. The key to getting anything, even getting kicked out of the church for good, is to keep trying!
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 10:16 PM
Dave Mueller, want to try for the trifecta?
Are all historians lying when they say that cracker==jeebus was first formally established as a requirement of doctrine by Pope Innocent No. 3 at the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.?
es·tab·lish [i-stab-lish]
-verb (used with object)
...
5. to bring about permanently: to establish order.
6. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
Posted by: Justin Shelby | July 10, 2008 10:16 PM
I would happily point out the the Catholic league has no official affiliation with the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Cheezits | July 10, 2008 10:18 PM
Cheezits wrote: "Why do they believe something so truly, really, substantially ridiculous?"
Because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, said so.
And you believe *that* ridiculous thing because...? Because the church says so. However, the church is full of crap. This can hardly be the first time you've heard of it.
People keep whining that Myers should pleasepleaseplease don't do this deeply terrible thing as it would deeply offend the deeply held beliefs of deeply devout Catholics as if they were two-year-olds or something. I know they had this nonsense force-fed to them when they were too young to defend themselves. But now that they are supposedly adults, freely choosing to continue believing something stupid, they have no excuse. They choose to be offended.
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 10:18 PM
CDV, in case you didn't notice, you just got PWNED by Moses. Lol!
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | July 10, 2008 10:18 PM
"PZ Myers wrote: "Mr Majewski, you obviously don't know me at all well. You have just convinced me that I must commit sacrilege, since I oppose the whole nonsensical notion of a 'profoundly held religious belief'."
If you do, I can only hope that some day you will have a change of heart. Luckily, God is merciful, forgives all who seek His forgiveness, and doesn't hold our past transgressions against us. I'm pulling for you."
PZ doesn't believe in God, hence your implied hell threats are lost on him. Spend more time worrying about your own salvation if that is hwta you believe, and less time worrying about the salvation of non-believers.
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 10, 2008 10:19 PM
All religions are ridiculous, but the Catholics have managed to raise ridiculousness to an art form.
Hostgate is just one more nail in the absurd coffin that is modern Catholicism.
The day when vast swaths of the educated public could be deceived by a bunch of loons who wear pointy hats and pretend to hold the inside scoop on a bunch of fairy tales are gone FOREVER.
This stuff is not complicated. Thank goodness PZ refuses to make it complicated and also refuses to back down when the loons feel that their precious stupidity is being threatened.
If more educators and politicians had the guts to do what PZ does, our country's intelligence-destroying religious insanity would get better a whole lot faster.
Posted by: Itchy | July 10, 2008 10:19 PM
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." --Bill Donahue http://mediamatters.org/items/200412210001
Posted by: Dave Mueller | July 10, 2008 10:20 PM
People here think that believing that God could make Himself present in a piece of bread is ridiculous. Well, it's no more ridiculous than believing that God exists. If God exists, of course He could do that.
You know what's really ridiculous? Not believing in God because you can't prove it using science! Science is the study of the physical universe. God, by definition, if He exists, is the creator of the Universe, and thus outside of the universe. It's a complete misapplication of a very valuable tool.
I will just say this. Those of you who really WANT to know if there is a God, just ask Him. Try the unbelievers prayer. "God, if you exist, make yourself known to me"
That's it. Try it, and if you really WANT to know, you will find out. Most of you, in your heart of hearts, probably don't WANT to know that God exists. The real reason for disbelief is usually involvement in moral evil; thus a motivation to disbelieve. If you REALLY want to know, and only God knows this, then He will answer. He respects our free will.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 10:20 PM
Some Catholics want to murder the student who didn't eat a cracker. Other Catholics look forward to his torture in hell for trillions of years. Not eating the cracker was a mortal sin. The punishment is torture. Eternal torture.
There's no difference at all between Catholics and Muslim terrorists. Both are equally insane and equally immoral.
Posted by: Damian | July 10, 2008 10:22 PM
I don't think that PZ cares if you call him a jerk, to be honest, and nor do I. That wasn't the point.
If you would hurt the feelings of others when you believe that it is necessary, whether you agree with PZ on this one or not, you should at least support his right to do so when he also feels that it is necessary. And I have no doubt that you do. It just didn't come across that way.
You said that you weren't going to send a letter of support -- which, of course, is your right -- but it's not meant to indicate that you support PZ's every action, it's meant to indicate that you support his right to say as he wishes -- within reason, of course.
By refusing to do so, and by saying, or at least implying, that it was precisely because he would be hurting people that are close to you, the only thing that I can reasonably conclude is that you only support his right to free speech when it is something that you approve of. And that, in my humble opinion, is hypocritical.
The whole point of being purposely offensive, at times, remembering that someone, somewhere is offended by the fact that I am even breathing, is to move the Overton window to the point where people are not offended by the most ridiculous of things. It is plainly obvious that allowing offense to be taken for the slightest oversight, and never challenging so-called sacred beliefs, is a strategy that can only lead to the kind of death threats and abuse that we have seen in this instance. That is why I support PZ Myers, not because I necessarily always agree with him.
You just can't seem to get through a post without saying something really stupid, can you? It was you, not I, that was dishing out self-righteous indignation. After all, what could be more self-righteous than essentially admitting that you can't support an individuals right to free speech because you don't agree with them on that particular issue? Honestly.
Posted by: sphex | July 10, 2008 10:24 PM
My vote for this month's Molly goes to raven #248
Letter written, will be stamped and sent tomorrow. This whole kerfluffle boggles the mind.
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 10:24 PM
The first historical mention of transubstantiation known is in the 4th century, in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem.
There is no evidence that anyone had this loonie Jeebus==cracker idea before Cyril, much less that they were crazy enough to write it down or tell anyone if they did.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 10:24 PM
Not exactly. The doctrine was invented post-facto from parts of the bible they liked and arose, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
So, while 1215 might seem like the wrong date. It's the date it became "the thing." Just like Jesus was not necessarily considered a divine being until it was approved in the 4th Century. Or the Doctrine of the Trinity that wasn't in the original scriptures, but was added into the scriptures at a later by one of the many Christian factions struggling for doctrinal supremacy. (Not that you'd even have a clue to the history of the bible and it's changes.)
The lesson I'm really teaching, however, is that when dealing with atheists, never assume they can't call you on your ignorance. And even if they don't have all the tenants of your sub-set down, they know where to get the information.
Further, many, such as myself, trained - lay or formal - for careers in our religion. We're not talking some silly Sunday bible stories from the narrow range of books actually taught and interpreted in most denominations. But the full Monty, including the errors and contradictions.
And we, frequently, come from very religious backgrounds. For example, my great-great grandfather was a bishop in an Anabaptist faith. My father a church secretary in a hybrid faith.
This environment greatly influenced me and I was ordained and working hard at moving up the hierarchy when my religious education veered, accidentally, into non-approved works because I was trying to do a "bang-up job" on a paper. It was a one-year crash-and-burn as I went from my (hardcore) sub-sect to general Christianity as I tried over a score of various sects to Judaism and then to atheism as the sweater of belief continued to unravel to the forces of reality.
You grok it? We're not all as ignorant as you.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 10:25 PM
"You know what's really ridiculous? Not believing in God because you can't prove it using science! Science is the study of the physical universe. God, by definition, if He exists, is the creator of the Universe, and thus outside of the universe."
So, Dave, I take it you believe in Zeus also, given the same "logic" used...
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 10:26 PM
From #528: Try the unbelievers prayer. "God, if you exist, make yourself known to me"
Wow. Total hopeless breathtaking stupidity.
How, Dave Mueller, is the sky fairy going to make itself known to anyone?
I'm sorry, but you're way beyond insane.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 10:26 PM
To all the religious posters here crying about how we should be more 'tolerant' of their practices, you might want to step outside your own tiny bubble for a second and just think about what it would mean if we were to avoid saying and doing things that offend beliefs.
Technically, if we're going to force everyone to 'respect' the beliefs of all the religious, we're going to have to make some serious lifestyle adjustments.
Some things that one or more religions disapprove of: pork, shellfish, meat of animals not killed in a certain way, meat of any kind, performing any sort of activity on the sabbath, swearing, alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, hallucinogenic drugs, Christmas & birthday presents, gambling, women not wearing head-to-toe clothing outside the house, reading non-religious books, women driving, women voting, women working, depicting their relgious figures in any way...
Should i go on?
Posted by: SmartLX | July 10, 2008 10:28 PM
Wrote in. Used my real name, unlike here or when I write for ATA. Dunno whether or not international support helps, and a Brisbanite staying in DC is an even trickier case. Don't care. This must be addressed.
Posted by: Vince | July 10, 2008 10:29 PM
PZ - I just sent you a copy of a letter of support I sent earlier to the university. And I'm not so creative, so I'll just 2nd the "life threat" from #151.
And Cheese Whiz? No! Put some genuine New York State Cheddar on the cracker. (I know, you don't intend to eat one - good. So put the cheddar on a triscuit.)
OK, so this retired science teacher has one more comment for PZ.
Keep up the good work
Posted by: Godless Chemist in training | July 10, 2008 10:29 PM
Long time reader, first time poster.
I've been reading Pharyngula for years, and I owe PZ at least a letter of support. So there, email sent.
Posted by: Kevin | July 10, 2008 10:33 PM
SENT...
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing to urge your continued support of Professor PZ Myers, and of academic freedom and free speech.
Professor Myers writes a controversial blog called "Pharyngula." A recent blog post about the desecration of communion wafers has gotten the attention of Bill Donohue at the Catholic league. As such, Catholics have been asked to write to the university to demand that the Professor Myers be reprimanded or fired for his post. Since the blog post, he has received numerous hate mail, and at least four death threats.
Although I do not agree with everything that Professor Myers writes, he is the voice of many who feel that they have none, including me. It is obvious that Professor Myers is not the official voice of the university, yet the fact that he has been allowed to express his personal beliefs openly and honestly is a credit to the university, and something which is rare on today's college campuses.
To close, I wish to reiterate a part of the university's mission statement which I hope will not be forgotten in this situation. It reads, "In all of its activities, the University strives to sustain an open exchange of ideas in an environment that embodies the values of academic freedom..."
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Mus | July 10, 2008 10:33 PM
I'm glad I could do something to show my support for PZ. Here's what I sent. I guess it's a bit dramatic, but I think it gets the point across (darn, I should have triple-checked it):
President Bruininks,
It has been brought to my attention that a few, but loud, people have been conspiring to silence Mr. PZ Myers by attempting to persuade you to exert your influence. I am sure you are very well aware of the events that led to this, so I will not waste your time describing them to you. Instead, I simply wish to express my full support for Mr. Myers, as well as my hope that you will publicly and decidedly defend his right to express his opinions on his blog. I am a very strong believer in free speech and academic freedom, and I am appalled by the primitive and dishonest tactics used by his opponents to silence him. I believe that such schemes should have no place in a free and fair society dedicated to the betterment of humanity.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(me)
Posted by: William Bishop | July 10, 2008 10:34 PM
To all who have been offended by PZ Myers:
Why would the desecration of the "Body of Christ" offend you? Should it not be a greater insult and offence to your God/Lord? Why would you not sit back silently with glee and revel with the thought of your imaginary friend burning those who would desecrate the "Body of Christ"? Maybe your imaginary friend is not so powerful; hence, requires you to do his bidding? Maybe your imaginary friend is actually in your head? Maybe?
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 10:36 PM
"The doctrine was invented post-facto from parts of the bible they liked and arose..."
Wait... wait... so you're saying that something in a religion is actually crap made up by PEOPLE?
;)
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 10, 2008 10:37 PM
"Those of you who really WANT to know if there is a God, just ask Him."
I wonder if god exists. I think I'll go ask him!
What's wrong with this picture?
Posted by: melior | July 10, 2008 10:38 PM
I always thought the unbelievers' prayer was, "Save me from the people who would save us from ourselves."
Posted by: Adrian Burd | July 10, 2008 10:39 PM
So I was wondering, how many of these wafers are being consumed at any one time? According to the venerable fount of all arcane wisdom (Wikipedia) there were approximately 77 million people in the US who professed a Catholic faith in 2003. Some of these don't get to church every Sunday, so let's say on any Sunday, 60 million get to church and celebrate communion. There are three time zones in the US, so within any single time zone, 20 million catholics are celebrating communion at roughly the same time. According to
http://www.churchpartner.com/store/customer/product-1024.html
500 communion wafer weigh 1 lb. So 40,000 lb of communion wafers are being consumed at any one time. If all of these represent the body of Christ, then may I respectfully suggest, Christ has a severe weight problem and should go on a diet as soon as possible. That blood the Catholics are drinking cannot be very healthy and must contain all sorts of nasty things associated with the grossly overweight. Of course, this calculation provides a lower bound on the mass of Christ since it neglects the Catholics in South America.
Posted by: FO | July 10, 2008 10:39 PM
When Jerry Falwell kicked the bucket, Hitchens said "If you gave Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox." I guess if you gave Bill Donohue an enema, you'd wind up with a cracker.
Just like Jeebus.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 10:40 PM
I EAT YOUR JESUS! (slurps) I eat him up!
/Daniel Plainview>
Posted by: Dean | July 10, 2008 10:42 PM
I noted this from a snippet of an article posted above.
"The Catholic League, a civil rights group..."
Civil rights group? How can they be considered any more than a collection of unprincipled liars?
Posted by: Sam L. | July 10, 2008 10:42 PM
Supportive email sent to Mr. Bruininks. Way to marshal the forces of darkness on your behalf, PZ!
Posted by: God | July 10, 2008 10:43 PM
I would not.
One of the few things you got right. But note that this conflicts with your point about Me making Myself a piece of bread.
In point of fact, I am not capable of performing the logically impossible, and corporeality logically conflicts with My transcendent nature.
Maybe I will, maybe I won't. I'm not that predictable.
I don't respect anything about humans at all. You're all weak, foolish, and terribly, terribly gullible.
Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 10, 2008 10:45 PM
Email sent
Posted by: NickG | July 10, 2008 10:48 PM
Sent it with my real name several hours before you even posted this request.
Posted by: Dave Mueller | July 10, 2008 10:48 PM
#521, it is true that Eucharistic teaching was not defined by a council until 1215, but that's simply because it was never doubted by anyone within the Church up until that point. Councils tend to center on issues that are under dispute. Issues that no one disputes tend not to be addressed. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if it has never been defined dogmatically that God exists.
But if you read Christian writings for the first 1000 years, you will find the Eucharist universally attested to. Here are just a few examples:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html
Posted by: Super | July 10, 2008 10:48 PM
Maybe you shouldn't have been an attention whoring cunt? I'm an atheist and you took their communion wafer to cause this exact situation. So fuck off and get fired for being a whiny little bitch.
Posted by: Moody834 | July 10, 2008 10:49 PM
I have no time to read all the comments here, so I don;t know if anyone has made this observation or not. What I find most curious here is that these outraged Catholics are so bonkers over the perceived 'crime of hate' committed against their wafer-thin Christ by unbelievers, yet I have not seen anything like the outrage over the idea that convicted child molester priests continue to ingest the supposed flesh of their "savior". Where is their Papa's wrath? Why are these priests shuttled about, often sub rosa, and sheltered from consequences more dire than a tch-tch-tch? Why are we not hearing, en masse, an outcry too loud to be ignored from these people? Surely it is a hell of a lot more offensive to their deity, right: a sanctified representative of their "Holy Church" raping an innocent child vs. a few non-Catholics spoiling an ostensibly transubstantiated communion wafer?
I laff. Of course it's not. As a survivor of severe (though non-sexual) abuse by several priests at a well-respected bastion of Catholic mis-education, Damien High School, I can tell you what side their host is buttered on. The Catholics have a long tradition, much like the Protestants do, much like the Muslims do, of going after the "infidels" they find threatening. They never seem to get the gist or hear the call to self-reflection of strong criticism (with delivery as churlish as an ogre's or meek as a church mouse's); "Burn the heretic/witch/infidel/Auslander!" is their automatic refrain, and only merely fortunate are we who live in an age when they are restrained by secular laws from so doing.
Those Catholics (and other religionists) who feel that the treatment here is too harsh or unwarranted ought to consider the sickening actions committed by their own leaders--done in secret, hidden from the watchful eyes of those who would not stand for it, and blazoned with a frightful, inhuman disregard for the mental health of those abused in whatever fashion--before the roughneck shenanigans committed (in the open and mostly in print, you'll notice) by those who don't share their beliefs.
Until you are ready to genuinely purge yourselves of those who would prey on kids, please understand that I, for one, am going to continue to consider you sick, ignorant, shrill, stupid fucks not worthy of my respect.
Go worry your beads, the lot of you, if, that is, you're not too busy writing death threats or apoplectic screeds or offended comments against those who don't pretend once a week to be meek and mild, forgiving and full of love.
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 10:50 PM
I tried that when I was in third grade. That's also when I decided he was fake.Posted by: Damian | July 10, 2008 10:50 PM
Dave Mueller said:
Er, if God is present inside of the cracker, which is obviously part of this universe, is that not available to be investigated by science?
You really shouldn't have said that, should you? You've just destroyed your whole argument.
So, how do you propose that God interacts with the universe if, by definition, He is outside of it, and therefore, not able to be investigated? You haven't thought this through, have you? And if there is no way for us to ever be able to detect God, is that not even slightly suggestive that He either doesn't exist, or that He doesn't give a rats ass about us and is off doing other things? Hmmn.
Dave Mueller said:
What happens if Allah responds as the billion and a half Muslims believe? And how do you know that you aren't talking to Allah?
And you think that we are involved in moral evil? Well, fuck you very much!
Anyway, you're in exactly the same position as we are concerning morality. Plato showed more than 2000 years ago that a morality based on the "divine command theory" is fatally flawed, and it has troubled philosophers and theologians ever since.
The Euthyphro dilemma:
In other words, you're screwed if you think that it's possible to derive morality from God!
Also, how do you objectively decide between all of the competing accounts of morality, not just between all of the various religions, but also within the same religion? By doing so, aren't you essentially just choosing which account that you would like to follow?
And what do you do about the thousands of modern moral dilemma's that are not not mentioned in the bible?
Not easy is it, Mr Mueller?
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 10:51 PM
I tried that several times earlier in my life. I never got an answer.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 10, 2008 10:51 PM
Does the violence proposed against PZ approach the level for prosecution under RICO (Racketeering) or even "terrorism" as formally defined by Homelland Security?
Posted by: JoJo | July 10, 2008 10:52 PM
Dave Mueller wrote:
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 10:53 PM
They shriek at them, pretend they know what God has said about them, and then pass laws banning the behavior which offends them.Posted by: Dave Mueller | July 10, 2008 10:53 PM
#534, no I don't believe in Zeus. My point was that science is not the correct tool to use to determine whether God exists.
#535, so Bob, you think that God, if He exists, would be unable to make Himself known to anyone? Not much of a God if He can't even do that much. Even I can do that.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 10:54 PM
Super, you're a moron.
Go back to the beginning of the thread and read the comments. PZ has taken nothing; all he does done is, at worse, incite people to take crackers under false pretences.
Posted by: Mark B. | July 10, 2008 10:56 PM
I'll be sending out a letter via snail mail tomorrow.
Posted by: mothwentbad | July 10, 2008 10:57 PM
"Because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, said so."
For a hypothetical God just like the one you believe in, with the one difference that he likes deception, deceiving would be total child's play. In fact, he's deceiving you right now. That feeling? The one that makes you think I'm just being a sophist? That's God, deceiving you, but leaving just a little bit of doubt so he can watch you squirm. He's a weird dude. Boy, it's a good thing I don't have to corroborate this just-so story with anything any more than you do.
"Time doesn't allow for me to present the many reasonable explanations for the existence of God."
Fermat tried to pull that once. The only difference is that what he was proposing was true and in principle falsifiable, and partial results were demonstrated to that effect up until the general proof 300-some years later.
But if you really have - not just the first ever, but the first several ever - demonstration of the existence of God in the history of humanity, you should tell us, because to do otherwise would be to damn billions to Hell through inaction, and I know you're too compassionate for that. Unless you're bluffing.
"Faith is a gift offered freely by God to everyone."
So is the little plastic roach poison bin thingy on the floor in my bathroom. And it gets a lot of takers!
"He calls each one of us by name to cooperate with his grace. The choice whether to do so is ours. Thankfully, whether one believes in God for a lifetime or takes a lifetime to believe, the eternal reward is the same."
Actually, only Christians go to Hell, and everyone else goes to Heaven, and there's no way anyone could ever disprove that. God is just like what you think, with that one exception. He's a trickster! Where does this put the status of Pascal's Wager now?
Posted by: Seth | July 10, 2008 11:01 PM
Heh. I actually did this before I saw the post because Bill Donahue is big screaming idiot and its time he gets put in his place before he dies and never gets to meet his child-raping skydaddy.
Also when did the post name change? Fracking cracker?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
Posted by: God | July 10, 2008 11:02 PM
That's kinda the point, isn't it?
Look, if I made Myself known to everyone, in the exact same way, being very clear and direct and unambiguous, there would be no religious disputes whatsoever.
Obviously, I love disputes, so I only speak directly to you humans at very rare intervals, and I say conflicting things, and then shut up when asked to explain or clarify.
That's because My greatest joy is watching you scream at each other and hit each other with sticks and rocks. It's very funny.
Posted by: Eric | July 10, 2008 11:04 PM
My letter, which I will send via snail mail tomorrow:
"Dear President Bruininks:
"I write on behalf of PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at your university, who also maintains the popular science blog Pharyngula. He has become the target of criticism from the religious right because he wrote a short blog post pointing out that pieces of unleavened bread, consecrated by Catholic priests, in fact remain pieces of unleavened bread. I understand that the Catholic League is sponsoring an email campaign to pressure your office to take action against him. Naturally, I trust that the tenure system in place at your university will work in defending his position against these unreasonable attacks.
"Nevertheless, I want to express my solidarity. As an aspiring academic, I understand that scholarship is anchored in dissent. Every thesis, every paper, every monograph worth reading, is a calculated rebellion against standard assumptions and prevailing orthodoxy. I see no reason to confine this basic skepticisim to scholarly journals. In promulgating the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Catholic Church makes a claim about reality that is subject to scrutiny, as are all other claims about reality. Unfortunately, evidence does not favor the theory of transubstantiation, and its advocates have had to advance their ideas through coercion, complaint, and email campaigns. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit of academic inquiry.
"Pharyngula has become an important part of academic culture. Myers's witty and irreverent posts are widely cited and discussed, and can only bring greater credit and regard to your university. I would love to hear you say as much in public."
Posted by: joeyess | July 10, 2008 11:05 PM
Here's my email:
Dear Sir,
Just a short note. No threats. No outrage. No vitriol.
P.Z. Meyers is a wonderful teacher.
I'm 48 years old. I was unable to attend college. In high school I gave science about as much thought as I did to my parents. In short; Bad Student.
However, just by visiting Dr. Meyers' website, I've learned more about biology these last few months than I did my entire middle-school thru high school career.
I am also an atheist and have come to hold this brave educator in high regard for the ridicule and derision that he holds towards bigoted hypocrites.
If you read any of his posts, and I'm sure you have, you can safely say that P.Z. has never once threatened the lives of these peaceful warriors for god. (although HE has been threatened with his life and lively hood)
He has merely pointed out the hypocritical positions that they hold and the fraud in which they participate every time they ask for money in the name of their delusional world-view and in then in the next breath foment hatred, advocate exclusion and deny people of all religions, color, creed and beliefs (including non-believers) their civil rights.
So, if Bill Donohue is upset and you are receiving threats like Dr. Meyers is - and I suggest you see these vile musings - why don't we do what is best in situations like this............ ignore these idiots. They will just fade away. The moment you give these people any quarter, they will crank up the phones, raise that cash, pray for you in public, all the usual amusements. However, if you ignore them, well, you're no longer a money maker for them and they will peddle their wares with a new outrage next week.
Let them try to get legislation passed. The stupid law would be thrown. out. at. once. the moment it hits any court in the land. Trust me, they can't codify protection for themselves from RIDICULE!! The first amendment is very clear. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Just ignore these buffoons. They'll tire and move on. Their god is a loving god that will see to you burn in hell for all eternity if you don't fall on your knees and worship him. Oh, and he NEEEEEEDS MONEY!!!! Lot's of it.
Thank you.
Joseph T. Sampson
Overland Park, Kansas.
P. S.
I was born and raised in Northern Iowa............ Just in case you thought I was some eastern establishment know it all. I'm not.
Posted by: Wade Nichols | July 10, 2008 11:05 PM
Keep on fighting PZ!!!
You're doing one HELL of a job!!!
We all know you're definitely the VICTIM here in the battle against Donohue and those pesky CATHOLICS!!!
I can't wait until you write your book giving us the juicy details on this whole episode!!! When does your book tour start???? When are you going on your media PR campaign????
When can we expect you to collaborate with Cornell West on a RAP CD????? When will you actually TEACH some classes instead of grand standing and SHOW BOATING?????
You are obviously the GALILEO of our age!!! I don't use the word genius lightly, but you are a GENIUS!!!!! I haven't seen such witty satire since LENNY BRUCE!!!!
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 11:07 PM
I just sent this email to bruin001@umn.edu
Dear President Robert H. Bruininks
PZ Myers has requested that the readers of his blog write to you to show their support for him, because you have been receiving lots of mail that's critical of PZ Myers, because of some cracker or something.
I've been a big fan of PZ and his Pharyngula blog for many years. Virtually everything I know about biology I learned from reading his blog. He is one of America's strongest defenders of science education. I bet he's the best biology professor in the history of your university. His students are incredibly lucky.
I noticed that a link to PZ's Pharyngula blog was removed from your university's website, probably because of some controversy about a worthless tasteless cracker. I hope you realize that crackers are really not that important, certainly not as important as the most visited science blog in America, and probably the most visited science blog in the world. I respectfully ask you to restore the link to Pharyngula on your university's website. Also, whatever PZ Myers is getting paid to work there, it couldn't possibly be enough. He should get a large salary increase as soon as possible.
Thanks very much.
(My name, address, email address)
Posted by: Manduca | July 10, 2008 11:08 PM
Email sent.
Hope it helps.
Posted by: Michael Glenn | July 10, 2008 11:10 PM
Dave Mueller (#528),
"If you REALLY want to know, and only God knows this, then He will answer."
Yea verily, if you really, truly want to subjectively experience something badly enough, you will certainly experience it.
"He respects our free will."
Some deity somewhere may respect human free will, but 'taint the Christian one: Ephesians 1:4-7, for example.
Keep up the good work, PZ.
Posted by: Davey | July 10, 2008 11:10 PM
Bill Donahue said, "It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
I can - how about a Catholic priest sucking on the body of a little boy?
Dumb cracker.
Posted by: stumpy | July 10, 2008 11:11 PM
Here is the email I sent to the University President (I'm an occasional reader of your blog, and I say, keep up the good work):
Dear President Bruininks,
I'm writing in support of PZ Myers, whose blog -- tho understandably offensive to some -- nevertheless serves an important twofold purpose. That purpose is, one, the fearless, humorous, and articulate repudiation of bigotry and idolatry (in the guise of religious dogma), and, two, the rational and logical defense of enlightened scientific inquiry, specifically in regards to defense of Darwinian evolutionary theory. I sincerely hope that you, and the University, take no action, formal or otherwise, to censure Prof. Myers.
Sincerely,
Greg Sidell MD
Bloomington IN
Posted by: Anand | July 10, 2008 11:11 PM
Again, you guys are showing monumentally poor judgment. Committing what many of the taxpayers--whose dollars are, after all, the ultimate support for the majority of scientific and academic institutions--would consider an open act of desecration is a move that should appeal only to the socially autistic, or the emotionally disturbed. Therefore, I can understand why it would be a popular idea on this blog. However, it angers me that you all care so little for the prestige of science that you would contemplate and support such a move. But go ahead and pile up ammo for use by the enemy. I feel little but disgrace to be associated with the likes of you in the public mind. You are, indeed, a pack of slavering, wretched fools.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 11:13 PM
"Maybe you shouldn't have been an attention whoring cunt? I'm an atheist and you took their communion wafer to cause this exact situation. So fuck off and get fired for being a whiny little bitch."
Wow, you're truly an idiot.
Posted by: joeyess | July 10, 2008 11:14 PM
Eric, I wish I were as smart as you. Nice letter. That'll do it. Well done.
Posted by: Wolfhound | July 10, 2008 11:15 PM
Then please do feel free to fuck off, Anand. See how easy that is?
Posted by: joeyess | July 10, 2008 11:18 PM
When is he gong to TEACH instead of SHOW BOATING?????
P.Z. can multi-task. WIthout the caps-lock.
Posted by: Dennis R | July 10, 2008 11:21 PM
Paul,
I have no threats to make, because that is childish and excessive. I do think, however, that your comments were totally sophmoric and that you are a disgrace to the academy, where you are entrusted at a pretty darn good salary to nourish and cultivate young minds, not pollute them.
Respectfully,
Dennis
Posted by: John Lewandowski | July 10, 2008 11:22 PM
Professor Myers, there is a flaw in your logic. You have taken it upon yourself to viciously attack the deeply held - and completely harmless - beliefs of millions of Catholics because a handful of Catholics have behaved in a way you found to be distasteful. And death threats are absolutely disgusting as well as morally wrong by Catholic standards.
You have thus committed the fallacy of assuming that "all of those people are the same", or that all people of a particular group deserve to be mocked and attacked because some members of that group have acted wrongly.
This may seem like a minor mistake on your part, but keep in mind that such errors in rationality have resulted in some of the worst atrocities in history - segregation, slavery, the Holocaust, and every form of bigotry.
If you have a problem with Bill Donohue or a handful of Catholics, take it up with them. Do not involve every other Catholic by blasting us with what can only accurately be described as hate speech. That is not going to help matters any. Think about it. You will not gain converts with such hate. Neither will you end the controversy surrounding the mistreatment of the Eucharist; rather, you are exacerbating a bad situation.
I did indeed write a letter to President Bruininks, but it was not to say that you should be fired or punished. I simply suggested that his University conduct a study on hate speech and bigotry, to see if some forms of bigotry are socially acceptable while others are not, and learn exactly why that is.
We Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of God. Obviously we don't expect non-Catholics to believe that, but it's really very simple - if you aren't Catholic, don't attend the Catholic Mass. I wouldn't dream of attending a Muslim religious service and disrupting it, and neither is is appropriate for non-Catholics to disrupt Catholic services. It is clearly not conducive to mutual respect and brotherhood, and will only result in more anger, bitterness and hatred.
Posted by: micketymoc | July 10, 2008 11:22 PM
That's a new one, Anand. Enforcing compliance by hanging the sword of tax dollars over PZ's head? The fact that you're a concern troll just makes me laugh harder.
Science can survive this, the criticism of nonbelievers against a tiny but shrill and violent minority of Catholic fundamentalists. Let's keep things in perspective: we're not the guys sending death threats over the mistreatment of a cracker.
Posted by: dinkum | July 10, 2008 11:22 PM
Anand, for someone so concerned with "the prestige of science," you are showing a remarkable disregard for the concept of "research." PZ didn't pull this whole fracas out of his ass; he was reacting to the actions of a certain group of people. I'll give you a search phrase to start with: "catholic death threat"
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 11:23 PM
Dave Mueller asked: "so Bob, you think that God, if He exists, would be unable to make Himself known to anyone? Not much of a God if He can't even do that much. Even I can do that."
Never in history did your sky fairy make itself known to anyone. The idiots who claim God talked to them are called idiots for a good reason. They're batshit crazy, and it's pretty darn obvious you're crazy.
Why doesn't the Magic Man make its existence known? Because there isn't any magic man, you bloody moron. There's no Easter Bunny either, and your God has no more evidence than any magical rabbit.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 10, 2008 11:24 PM
Anand, Dopelganger, CDV, J, Super
....hhhmmmmmm, I've got the distinctly tainty smell of sockpuppetry in my nostrils.
Posted by: rmp | July 10, 2008 11:24 PM
William Bishop, you make the same point I would. As a recovering Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, I find it amazing the fact that they need to spend so much time protecting God and the gates of heaven. I'm figuring that God really is capable of defending his own body and gates. If he want's to smite someone for blasphemous behavior, I don't think he needs the help of zealots.
Posted by: Ktesibios | July 10, 2008 11:26 PM
Okay, I realize it's a typo, but what could be a better name for a death cult's favorite cracker than Death Treats?
Death Treats- 100% dead Jesus and now gluten-free! (part of this nutritious breakfast).
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 11:27 PM
"I feel little but disgrace to be associated with the likes of you in the public mind."
Well, then go fuck yourself Anand.
Posted by: Boosterz | July 10, 2008 11:29 PM
I can't believe that these whiny ass jesus trolls are STILL crying over their damn cracker. It's really a twofer if you think about it. They get exposed as violent zealots with the whole "cracker gate" thing, then the various rank and file zealots go and expose their idiocy by the boat load. It takes a pretty brain damaged person to make half veiled death threats while calling other people "cunts" and then cry about the "vile and violent atheists". lol
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 11:29 PM
To the asshole Anand, how many names have you been using on this thread?
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 11:29 PM
John Lewandoski wrote:
Emphasis mine. I suspect those who've died because of sectarian violence, witch-burnings, forced conversions and from preventable diseases from methods opposed by Catholicism would disagree with you.
Posted by: ngong | July 10, 2008 11:30 PM
I'd be curious if, out of all the e-mails, PZ has received any words of encouragement from Baptist fundamentalist types.
Posted by: nietzschesbulldog | July 10, 2008 11:30 PM
It occurred to me (As I compose my email to President Robert Bruininks) that there must be more that we can do to in support of PZ. At the most I would like to propose a counter campaign, an email barrage sent to the Catholic League from supporters of PZ. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have an email address on their web site . . . they do have a fax number though: Fax: (212) 371-3394
It seems unfair that the forum for this skirmish should be fought in the inbox of a university president and not in the inbox of the Catholic League. We should convince them of our support for PZ.
If anyone has any suggestions on this that would be great!
any way,
kick ass, PZ!!!
Posted by: Friendo | July 10, 2008 11:31 PM
Well one downside of all this mischief is the unfortunate corruption of the great oracle Wikipedia. Starts out:
What made me guffaw though was the italicized note above:Good times.
Posted by: JimC | July 10, 2008 11:32 PM
#583
The only reason there is any situation is because a bunch of alleged adults are upset about a cracker they think has something magical done to it. If catholics had a shred of decency in regards to their alleged beliefs they would put people first but it is rather obvious that is not happening.
Look it's simple, if it's real it's real no matter who is there. If this cracker makessome transformation one need not believe in it to see the occurrence. Rendering it to the land of belief shows in essense your cracker remains just a cracker and you like to play make believe.
That being said why should such a thing be respected. Do yourespect scientologists beliefs? Why should such bizarre and obviously untrue beliefs be respected just because?
You free to have the belief but it is also more than allowable to say it's baloney and treat it as such. Unless you live in a bubble I don't see alot of respect for other beliefs coming from the RCC.
Posted by: Roman | July 10, 2008 11:33 PM
There are actualy websites where you can order these crackers in bulk. Apperently, they have white or wheat depending on how you'd like to taste the lord. What might be fun for everyone is getting those saucer waffers with the little candy beads on the inside.
Posted by: rmp | July 10, 2008 11:33 PM
Anand, if PZ had mocked a different religion (let's go with the one that says earth is resting on an elephant named Maha-pudma (which is resting on a tortoise named Chukwa) would you have been as upset? What if he claimed he was going to steal all of the elephant and tortoise food causing calamities of extreme proportions?
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 11:33 PM
Accepting a wafer disrupts the service?
Posted by: Julian | July 10, 2008 11:34 PM
Mueller: HAHA! Are you serious?!? Your arguement boils down to "other people believed in god before you lived, so why are you too good for it?" Let me ask you this, genius; Do you think you're smarter than Confucius? He believed in the ancient Chinese pantheon and that showing proper respect to ones parents and peers was more important than worship; why don't you?
Do you think you're smarter than Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle? They all worshiped members of the Greek Pantheon, but obviously you're stuck in some extended adolescence because you worship this fancy-schmancy Dionysus rip-off.
Do you think you're smarter than Newton? He believed in Alchemy, but I guess you're TOO GOOD for transmutation, aren't you, you arrogant ass, even though smarter people than you believed in it.
Arguing any point from the general authority of other, dead, people, is probably the most pathetic, laughable, and worthless rhetorical bulwark a person can fall back on. If such arguments carried even a farthing of merit, then we citizens over here in the U.S. would just have to throw up our hands and abandon democracy because I doubt many of us understood the practicalities and theory of politics better than Cardinal Richelieu, and he believed in absolute monarchy!
I could go on pulling every single historical figure you don't agree with out of my rear end as examples, but someone of your limited ability really isn't worth anymore of my time.
Posted by: kubenzi | July 10, 2008 11:35 PM
Isnt the catholic league just donohue?
yeah i thought so.
welcome to pharyngula Mr donohue,you and all your sock puppets:)
Posted by: mothwentbad | July 10, 2008 11:35 PM
Mueller @ 528 -
"People here think that believing that God could make Himself present in a piece of bread is ridiculous."
More like "would." It's not so much that it would be HARD (for an omnipotent sky God), so much that it would be SILLY.
"Well, it's no more ridiculous than believing that God exists."
Correct again.
"You know what's really ridiculous? Not believing in God because you can't prove it using science!"
Ockham's Razor. Russell's Teapot. You act suspiciously like you've never thought about this before. You probably weren't a very mature atheist, were you? But if you would only THINK about it, you could be mature like us grownups. See, I can do what you do, too.
"He respects our free will."
Abject devotion or torture - now THERE'S a guy who respects free will! I hope if I ever have a daughter, she marries someone just like that!
Posted by: Joeyess | July 10, 2008 11:35 PM
P.Z.!!! The cookies are on the way!!!
Posted by: dinkum | July 10, 2008 11:37 PM
John Lewandowski:
Could you point out where, exactly, PZ has specifically attacked Catholicism as a whole? I just re-read his posts on this affair and I'm buggered if I can find what you're referring to. Seems to me he's attacking and intentionally provoking the fanatical "handful" you refer to.
Unless, of course, you're taking offense at his less-than-reverential attitude towards transubstantiation, which makes it rather difficult to accept your assertion that, "Obviously we don't expect non-Catholics to believe that."
Posted by: breakerslion | July 10, 2008 11:37 PM
bruin001@umn.edu
Subject: Bill Donohue and the rest of the nattering superstitious fools
Dear Sir,
I'll be brief. I'm sure you will get a number of these e-mails in defense of P.Z. Myers.
Please keep in mind that these godstruck folks (of any denomination) are infected with a socially-engineered delusion. They are insane. It's not their fault. It's a friggin' cracker, and so are they all. The world will not descend into The Lord of the Flies without their lying hierarchy, no matter what they have convinced themselves or others.
Thank you for your time.
Forgive me for not posting my real name here. I have seen too many hate-spewing religious assholes for my liking and have no desire to be "love bombed" by any one of them. My continuing question: If they really believe their god is real, why am I a threat?
Posted by: Janine ID | July 10, 2008 11:37 PM
John Lewandowski, all of that blathering about bigotry and hate speech. Yet you fail to talk about the death threats that were directed at Webster Cook and at PZ.
But I am oh so sorry that your delicate feelings were hurt.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 11:38 PM
"not pollute them."
Yeah. That's the Church's job.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 11:40 PM
John Lewandoski, I have been viciously attacking the deeply held beliefs of millions of Catholics ever since I escaped from that brain-dead religion 41 years ago. Every single Catholic in the world, who isn't a brainwashed child, is insane. And there's nothing harmless about their idiotic beliefs. The Catholic church has a very bloody history. The recent cracker incident proves beyond any doubt the Catholics are no better than Muslim terrorists. At least the Muslims don't molest little boys like the Catholic priests love to do.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 10, 2008 11:40 PM
#595
Waaaayyy back at #320 I posted the email address for the Catholic League. Its cl@catholicleague.org
Enjoy.
Posted by: Julian | July 10, 2008 11:40 PM
Lewandowski: He didn't do any of those things, he just asked his fans to right positive letters to his boss in the hopes that they'd out number the negative and, as he stated far above, he'd hear from him about that instead of the hate mail.
His problem with Catholicism stem from him finding nothing logical or rational in its doctrines and dogmas. Before you go off bandying about big works in an attempt to both make your self sound intelligent and attack someone else for being illogical, why don't you take the time to actually read what they've written and understand their argument. Having a understanding of your interlocutor's suppositions and conclusions might even help you out with that whole logic thing you seem to think you have a grasp of.
*smirk*
Posted by: rmp | July 10, 2008 11:40 PM
Any side bets on when the IT support people at SEED say, damn-it PZ, quit breaking our site with these threads?
Posted by: scott | July 10, 2008 11:41 PM
I myself am a "lapsed" Catholic.My feeling is that everyone should be accorded respect in a civilized society.Yes Donahue is a huge bore,but taking actions like these simply detract from any reasoned argument one might make concerning the over reaction surrounding the ..er.."abduction" of the Host.Unfortunately many Atheists--whom I might now otherwise side with-- come off looking pretty arrogant indulging in this kind of aggressive nonsense.
Posted by: SteveC | July 10, 2008 11:41 PM
Stephen Majewski wrote (#493)
"Because God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, said so."
Oh?
2nd Thessalonians 2:11
"For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie."
The Bible claims God can lie. And the Bible is from God. If God says God can lie, either God can lie, or God can't lie (in which case, God is lying in this verse) so clearly God *can* lie, either way, according to the Bible.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 10, 2008 11:42 PM
The kvetching parade continues.
"Again, you guys are showing monumentally poor judgment. Committing what many of the taxpayers--whose dollars are, after all, the ultimate support for the majority of scientific and academic institutions--would consider an open act of desecration is a move that should appeal only to the socially autistic, or the emotionally disturbed."
Dear Mr. President,
I consider the invasion of Iraq a horrible desecration, and therefore, I must demand the immediate return of my tax monies.
"However, it angers me that you all care so little for the prestige of science that you would contemplate and support such a move."
You know what I think hurts The Cause and The Prestige more? Worrying incessantly about every little god damned thing anyone remotely connected with science says on whatever forum they say it on.
"This may seem like a minor mistake on your part, but keep in mind that such errors in rationality have resulted in some of the worst atrocities in history - segregation, slavery, the Holocaust, and every form of bigotry."
Godwin, you lose.
"I have no threats to make, because that is childish and excessive. I do think, however, that your comments were totally sophmoric and that you are a disgrace to the academy, where you are entrusted at a pretty darn good salary to nourish and cultivate young minds, not pollute them."
THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Or in this case, the legally adult!
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 11:43 PM
Trolling the Catholics for great win.
Posted by: rmp | July 10, 2008 11:43 PM
scott, I don't think anyone thinks that PZ's 'style' is going to win over everyone. We all know that it offends many. That being said, it doesn't justify death threats and attempts to get him fired. If he can't speak his mind, what has our country come to?
Posted by: Eric | July 10, 2008 11:44 PM
So this is my idea, similar to others in the original thread, but adapted to the current situation.
We all go to Mass and get the consecrated cracker, if we haven't done so already.
We go twice between now and whenever, which should be easy enough (just look up the daily Mass schedule and see if you can't make it before work/class/whatever). We get TWO consecrated crackers.
We post videos to YouTube, in which we desecrate ONE of the crackers (I plan to dip mine in gin and set it on fire for for visual effect). We tell Donahue to shut the fuck up by next week, or we'll do the same to cracker #2. We email links pointing to our videos to Donahue.
Cool?
Posted by: kubenzi | July 10, 2008 11:44 PM
so yeah,im not hitchens,.and were not on hardball,but i would still love to take it outside.if youre ever in denver please do let me know.Frumfreight@aol.com
Posted by: Davey | July 10, 2008 11:47 PM
#598: they have white or wheat (crackers) depending on how you'd like to taste the lord.
ROFL! I guess the wheat crackers are for black churches. Ironic.
Posted by: nietzschesbulldog | July 10, 2008 11:48 PM
Bride of shrek
thank you very much!!!
Posted by: Julian | July 10, 2008 11:48 PM
oops, that's write.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 10, 2008 11:50 PM
There is plenty of support from all quarters PZ, check this out:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL8h4fhGj78
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 11:51 PM
scott said "My feeling is that everyone should be accorded respect in a civilized society."
What is civilized about threatening murder because somebody didn't want to eat a cracker? And why should anyone respect idiots?
Posted by: scott | July 10, 2008 11:53 PM
"scott, I don't think anyone thinks that PZ's 'style' is going to win over everyone. We all know that it offends many. That being said, it doesn't justify death threats and attempts to get him fired. If he can't speak his mind, what has our country come to?"
Agreed-by all means everyone should continue to speak their minds.That said, judging from the number of actual death threats PZ has received perhaps another tact is preferable to the one he has chosen,which in and of itself strikes me as an over reaction as well.This kind of frenzied dialogue seems pretty pointless and ultimately fruitless in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by: rmp | July 10, 2008 11:56 PM
scott, we're all different but as for me, sometimes you've just got to pop that zit.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 11:58 PM
"judging from the number of actual death threats PZ has received perhaps another tact is preferable to the one he has chosen,which in and of itself strikes me as an over reaction as well."
So, scott, to avoid death threats from Catholic lunatics, you recommend PZ keep his mouth shut about religious insanity? Is that your suggestion? How about if people just say whatever they want, and wouldn't it be nice if so many Catholics weren't homicidal maniacs.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | July 10, 2008 11:59 PM
This is for Bill Donahue: I have just kidnapped a Catholic wafer. I will step on it, unless you send me one million dollars. Scratch that, unless you send me 100 billion dollars. Bwoohahaaha...
I, Bubba Sixpack, am a master terrorist. You will concede to my demands. You must admit it is a masterful strategy. Just the thought sends shivers down your spine.
Posted by: John B. Sandlin | July 10, 2008 11:59 PM
#555 Posted by: Super | July 10, 2008 10:48 PM
I believe you've addressed your message to the wrong person. You should have addressed it to Bill Donohue. He's the real attention whore.
John B. Sandlin
Posted by: Andy | July 11, 2008 12:01 AM
Eric #618 - no, this type of hateful and aggressive action is NOT cool!
You know what most Catholics will do if anything happens? Pray for you...
Show some decency and levelheadedness, already.
Posted by: Ignignockt | July 11, 2008 12:01 AM
Letter away, with full info and affiliations... I have to wonder what percentage of Catholics would do more than shrug at this whole brouhaha? My wife, who is one, did not seem especially interested or concerned for the wafer; only for the student's safety. After all, what kind of god would it be if any of this actually posed a problem for it?
Posted by: freelancer | July 11, 2008 12:02 AM
There's a (relatively) new thread about this on
Digby
Few comments, responding to an offended Catholic commenter named "wtf"'s shared outrage, I began a quick response, which turned into a little bit more. (I'm a tad verbose when presenting an argument, I'm of the school that it needs to be HAMMERED home).
While I was composing, a dude named "American" posted this:
Here's my response:
I love the internet, when one's response can apply to arguments not even posted yet. BTW, We are now officially assholes!
Keep Firing, Assholes!
Peace,
Nick
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 12:04 AM
Super in #555 has probably been using several names on this thread. He's obviously a lunatic, and he's definitely not an atheist.
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 12:05 AM
Actually, I've changed my mind. I don't want Donohue shut the fuck up. I want him to keep plodding onward.
Instead, if he wishes me to spare the second cracker, I'll demand that he issue a public statement, on the following Friday, that he is an octopus. This will amuse me, it will not conflict with any of his ridiculous beliefs, and it will permit PZ Myers to post his picture for the next 'Friday Cephalopod' (with appropriate apologies to all cephalopods of course).
If he does that, I'll spare the second cracker.
Posted by: KKKAthiest | July 11, 2008 12:06 AM
After this what is the next act of aggression against, atheists?
Perhaps rounding up the priests and nuns like Hitler and Stalin did?
Anyone who dares to believe something you do not?
You people are sick.....
Posted by: Nick Kanellos | July 11, 2008 12:07 AM
Well, guess I'm kinda late to the party, but here's mine. Sent via snail mail.
Hope this helps, PZ.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 12:07 AM
this was taking too long to explain on my lj, so I came up with a Very Short Summary:
Stupid college kid: Nyah, nyah, stole your wafer!
some crazy people: this is an outrage! we're going to kill you!
stupid college kid: Oh shit.
PZ Myers: I beg your pardon! you can't kill someone for kidnapping a cracker!
more crazy people: well, we're going to kill you too.
PZ Myers: I *fucking* beg your pardon?
slightly more sane people: why do you hate catholics so much?
me: wait, what?
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 12:07 AM
I'm curious how you all feel about the silliness that erupted concerning the Mohammed cartoons.In that case I personally felt that if the actual depiction of Mohammed would result in decapitations,then respect for that belief trumped freedom of speech.I say this thinking about an episode from South Park where the creators wanted to depict his face.It struck me as incredibly arrogant because they deemed their show more important than human life.Its one thing to KNOW you are right,and quite another to endanger others lives to make a point.
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 12:08 AM
Andy at 630:
Setting a cracker on fire is hateful and aggressive?
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 12:09 AM
KKKAtheist,
You're not only a moron, you're an oxymoron. The KKK is a Christian organisation.
Retard.
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | July 11, 2008 12:10 AM
I emailed my letter to the President off tonight, and a paper copy will go out in the morning (all signed with my real name and university affiliation). Here's what I said:
Nothing terribly novel, I know, but hopefully every little bit will help.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 12:11 AM
scott - well, it depends on whether or not it's your own life you're risking, doesn't it?
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 12:11 AM
Anand, now you're calling yourself KKKAthiest?
Posted by: KKKAthiest | July 11, 2008 12:11 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I bet this professor (and his brown shirts) will find God real quick once in prison for hate crimes....
http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/laws/list-of-hate-crime-laws.html?state=mn
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:12 AM
Scott, again...
IDEAS are not owed respect. PZ criticized an idea. ALL ideas are open to criticism and should be criticized... and idiotic ones DESERVE to be criticized especially when they are dangerous and damaging.
PZ criticized the idea that a cookie is a dead martyr. That idea is deserving of criticism if any ever was... the idea is insane, delusional, idiotic.
The idea is deserving of criticism because it lead directly to DEATH THREATS against a person and harassment of him.
It is a DUTY of sane people to criticize such idiotic beliefs when they threaten real people.
Furthermore, those threats came not from thin air but from PEOPLE. People threating the life of others for criticizing their ideas ARE NOT DESERVING OF RESPECT.
People trying to get others fired for the exercise of their right to free speech in their own personal space - in criticizing others' beliefs are DUE NO RESPECT.
PZ threatened no person, he tried to get nobody fired. The people he criticized, the ideas he criticized did.
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON? There is a right one and a wrong one in this case.
Posted by: David Hunter | July 11, 2008 12:12 AM
I'm sure this'll get lost in the swamp of comments here, but a friend gave me a box of communion wafers for my birthday a few years ago. It was a wonderfully funny gift and I started munching on them with my gin and tonic immediately.
But they were dry, and horrible, and so they sat in my room for quite a while. Then my brother and I started thinking about a photo-blog cookbook for the wafers; maybe pizza Jesus-bagels or Chicken a la Lord.
Alas, we never did anything with them and I think they got thrown out. Looks like I missed my opportunity to publicly deface the cracker. Oh well.
Email sent, anyway.
Thanks PZ for everything!
Posted by: kubenzi | July 11, 2008 12:14 AM
"After this what is the next act of aggression against, atheists?
Perhaps rounding up the priests and nuns like Hitler and Stalin did?
Anyone who dares to believe something you do not?
You people are sick....."
as i have already referenced here,the first act of agression between you cathowits and an atheist was made by your sub-pope chester,Mr Donohue on hard ball towards hitchens.do you remember that take it outside comment on hardball you ignorant sexually repressed saltine savior eating douchebags?
Here is the deal.bring it.read above as i have left an email to better organize this.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 12:14 AM
brownshirt?
nope. browncoat.
Posted by: rmp | July 11, 2008 12:14 AM
OK, will one of the Christians please educate me on this. If I think someones religious beliefs are silly and that their actions are offensive, how should I respond? What should I say?
Posted by: mothwentbad | July 11, 2008 12:14 AM
635 -
"After this what is the next act of aggression against, atheists?
Perhaps rounding up the priests and nuns like Hitler and Stalin did?
Anyone who dares to believe something you do not?
You people are sick....."
First, they came for the transubstantiated crackers. And I did not speak up, because I was not a transubstantiated cracker...
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 12:14 AM
KKKAtheist = sock puppet.
Sockpuppetry: Like morphing, but with a specific intent: creating multiple identities supporting a position to create a false impression of popularity.
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 12:15 AM
"scott - well, it depends on whether or not it's your own life you're risking, doesn't it?"
Yes I think it does.
I would probably applaud an individual forfeiting his own life to protect FOS but in the case of South Park it just struck me as arrogant and irresponsible in the extreme.
Posted by: BMurray | July 11, 2008 12:16 AM
I bet this professor (and his brown shirts) will find God real quick once in prison for hate crimes....
http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/laws/list-of-hate-crime-laws.html?state=mn
Did you notice that only two of those laws specify crimes and that one of those is about assault while the other is about property damage? I am certain that the full value of any stolen cracker will be happily reimbursed -- perhaps triply! -- in the event of a conviction.
Maybe it's assault against the cracker that you were pondering though.
Posted by: k8 | July 11, 2008 12:18 AM
I wonder if the FBI can monitor this site for ISP addresses for Eric - who is essentially proposing a hate crime against a the Catholic religious population...
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm
Watch your ass, Eric - I am contacting the Minn office as we speak...
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:20 AM
KKKatheist...
The "attack" was to use words to criticize people who were threatening VIOLENCE.
Catholics threatened VIOLENCE.
Atheists criticized them for it.
If that is what you meant by an attack, YES, we will continue.
Every time you sick delusional maniacs threaten the lives of people, threaten to physically attack them, and try to get them fired for expressing themselves... all because your insanity has been insulted, YES, we will criticize you.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 12:20 AM
KKK not an atheist wrote:
Considering the far massive proportion of religious believers in the US prison population, he'd be amongst friends...
Fucking moron.
Mandrake: props for the Firefly reference!
Posted by: Steve | July 11, 2008 12:20 AM
I'm not sure if inside emails are any more useful than the rest, but I'm a grad student at the Twin Cities campus of the U of M, and I just sent off a letter of support. I actually hadn't read Pharyngula much recently (though I've been an avid reader at times), and I was tipped off to this recent controversy by Tristero over at Digby's blog (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/support-pz-myers-by-tristero-pz-myers.html). Nice to see it's being spread around a bit to other supporters.
Posted by: Janine ID | July 11, 2008 12:21 AM
Mandrake, geek out much?
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:22 AM
Scott, so what you're saying is - you should never criticize an ideology that threatens to kill people in response?
Doesn't sound like a very good plan to me.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | July 11, 2008 12:22 AM
PZ, this letter-writing campaign seems unnecessary. I think it should suffice to let Bob hold the wafer while you desecrate it.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 12:24 AM
k8, If you have been using more than one name here you are very likely going to be thrown out.
k8, I'm sure the FBI would be very interested in Eric's YouTube video where he's going to set a cracker on fire.
k8, why don't you go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Zarquon | July 11, 2008 12:24 AM
At midnight? You are a loony.
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 12:26 AM
"OK, will one of the Christians please educate me on this. If I think someones religious beliefs are silly and that their actions are offensive, how should I respond? What should I say?"
Well again,answering only as a lapsed Catholic,I would hope you would respond in a non-silly,inoffensive manner.As an example I would abstain from the gratuitous offensive use of the term "cracker" to describe what believers think of as the body of Christ.I understand how gratifying this kind of slur can be in the face of a tyrant like Donahue,but it is also needlessly hurtful to millions of others who regardless of their Church's controversial history have not personally caused me harm.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:27 AM
K8, what utter bullshit.
Think what you will of Eric's idea - think it rude, ill-advised, counter-productive, whatever... fine.
But you have to be out of your freaking mind if you think the FBI is going to give a shit about someone threatening to do harm to a small baked good.
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 12:27 AM
k8 at 654:
I suspect you of irony, but nevertheless, I thought I'd put in a standard "Ooh, I'm sooo scared..."
Posted by: KKKAthiest | July 11, 2008 12:28 AM
Hey, dumbass craig...
You take one or two "threats" (by his college peers) against this kid for a "universal" call for death from the Vatican.
You have been reading too much Dan Brown, numbnuts.
As for the call for aggression against Catholics by this "professor" - this is a public the incitement of hate and, if anything happens, hate crimes.
Catholics reprimand a kid for disrespect (one extremist threatens him) and the response has been a universal call to arms and theft from nutjob atheists.
What drama queens to drum this up...
You are showing your true colors and...have fun in prision!
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 12:29 AM
Another thought:
How could the FBI tell I was actually setting fire to a CONSECRATED host? Is there some forensic test?
Posted by: Janine ID | July 11, 2008 12:29 AM
It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ. We look to those who have oversight responsibility to act quickly and decisively.
k8, it is very strange you think burning a wafer is a hate crime. It seems you are following in the no so great blow hole's footstep.
But please report to the FBI. I am sure there are agents who will have a great time tracking your insanity.
Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 12:29 AM
scott said:
I disagree. Name more than a few societal revolutions (for want of a better word) that haven't offended the vast majority of people in a country, at one time or another?
PZ's actions were, first and foremost, to show solidarity with the young man that had been treated so badly for what can only be described as a childish prank.
But they also serve another purpose. How are we ever going to get along in an ever more socially diverse and globalized world if everyone has to tip-toe around just in case they receive death threats and attempts to have them fired?
What many of us are attempting to do here is bring about some long overdue accountability to religion. Many of us believe that for far too long it has been acceptable to hide behind faith, for all sorts of, often entirely disingenuous, reasons. And it has been used to justify some truly disgusting and damaging beliefs, and still is today. I'm sure that I need say no more than "Homosexuals" and "condoms in Africa" for you to understand where I am coming from.
So, the idea is that we really need to base decisions around modes of thought that are available to everyone, everywhere, and at all times -- like science and specifically evidence based reasoning, for instance. This obviously places a great strain on religion, but, and I don't mean to sound too dismissive, that's hard luck. Why should I believe what a Christian has to say (when it is entirely derived using faith), when I don't believe (and nor do most people, including the religious) what someone who claims to have been told that we all must live in mud huts by an alien? You see the problem, here?
And while I am generally very respectful of all people, I shouldn't have to respect their ideas, just because they say so. That has to be a recipe for disaster, does it not? I have no intention of preventing people from believing as they wish. I just believe that I should be allowed to criticize those beliefs, as we are in all other areas of life. And the problems and offense usually arises when people know that what they believe is not defensible.
If people are allowed to go through life without ever being offended, is it any wonder that we live in such a reactionary and irrational world?
Posted by: SteveC | July 11, 2008 12:29 AM
@#638, scott
My conclusion is that you are a coward.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:29 AM
but scott... it IS A CRACKER.
If you think your Honda Civic is a magic carpet, do we all have to start calling Hondas Magic Carpets?
There is such a thing as reality.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 12:30 AM
scott, I want to be needlessly hurtful to millions of religious assholes. Please tell me what else offends Catholic idiots so I can use that also.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:31 AM
Scott, I just thought of a possible compromise.
When they stop preaching every week that I am immoral, wicked, and deserving of eternal torture for not believing their stuff, then I'll stop calling it a cracker.
Deal?
Posted by: Janine ID | July 11, 2008 12:32 AM
You are showing your true colors and...have fun in prision!
Posted by: KKKAthiest
And thank you for posting the twisted dream of a twisted asshole.
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 12:33 AM
"Scott, so what you're saying is - you should never criticize an ideology that threatens to kill people in response?
Doesn't sound like a very good plan to me."
No what I'm saying is that the creators of S Park weren't risking their own skins to depict an image of Mohammed,just OTHER peoples.Reckless and arrogant.
Posted by: Kel | July 11, 2008 12:33 AM
Woah! I can't believed I missed this. Catholics should know as well as anyone that you can't desecrate the body of Christ any more because the body escaped from the tomb and ascended into heaven. That's in the bible, a communion cracker being Jesus is not.Posted by: k8 | July 11, 2008 12:34 AM
I wonder what they give for hate crimes, Eric?
20 years + (you thought the hazing you got in freshman dorms was rough, buddy?)
If caught, this would definitely be prosecuted....exp considering the level of interest now.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 12:34 AM
. . . and when we're done arguing about transubstantiation, let's go after the filioque, the Comma Johanneum and the Pericope Adulteræ and really put people to sleep!
Incidentally, according to Sitemeter's page view counter, Pharyngula broke the 100K mark today (109,843 views and 83,236 visits, to be more exact). So, to all you raging exemplars of Christian love out there, I'd just like to thank you for pouring ad revenue into the Evil Atheist Conspiracy's coffers! Have a pleasant evening.
Posted by: Terry | July 11, 2008 12:34 AM
Myers is in good company. As I understand it (since I don't read French), Diderot in his Encyclopedia cross-referenced the articles on cannibalism and transubstantiation.
Posted by: Alan r. | July 11, 2008 12:35 AM
If some thief had stolen the bread from Jesus' plate at the last supper, what would he have done? My guess is he would have offered the thief more bread.
Also:
Once the holy spirit has been released into the wafer, is it stuck there? You would think that a priest that could Exercise the demons out a possessed person And consecrate a cracker, would also be able to De-consecrate a cracker. I guess there are some things that just can't be done.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 12:35 AM
Very late, but I did at least want to stress ONE post before this entire thing either flames out, or turns into a real bonfire:
WAY back up there, at #85, Josh said:
and that, ladies and gents, is the real value of what PZ has done, and all the energy poured into these threads.
that little bit of doubt and hesitation, when faced with the actual reality of what "belief" can drive people to do.
I for one, am in awe of someone willing to take the kind of flak PZ KNEW he would take for posting that original thread, for the sole purpose, in the end, of just adding a small bit of doubt to the faithful.
...Of his continuing, likely wearying, efforts to don the firesuit nearly every day, just in order to move the Overton Window a little bit further.
If you think he does this for publicity, think again.
It's a nasty job, but someone's gotta do it.
...and hattip to Josh for demonstrating that there are still people who know how to properly deal with something like this, regardless of who agrees/disagrees with their beliefs.
I did note the overall scarcity of posts like Josh's in this thread, and the previous, from people claiming themselves Catholics.
Posted by: skyblue | July 11, 2008 12:36 AM
sent my "Pro on PZ" note to the good president.
Posted by: BMurray | July 11, 2008 12:37 AM
Well yeah, but Jesus had a magic trick that gave him access to near infinite amounts of bread. By contrast, communion wafers are in short supply.
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 12:37 AM
k8 at 677:
But if I do it to two crackers, do I get 40?
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 12:37 AM
Kel, The Catholics believe Jesus is inserted into wafers whenever a priest says the magic words. Using their logic pissing on a wafer is the same as pissing on god.
Posted by: NYTs | July 11, 2008 12:37 AM
Eric: "How could the FBI tell I was actually setting fire to a CONSECRATED host? Is there some forensic test?"
It would not matter, bud - it is called intent....
Are you writing from your home computer? Or on the school's network?
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:37 AM
"No what I'm saying is that the creators of S Park weren't risking their own skins to depict an image of Mohammed,just OTHER peoples.Reckless and arrogant."
And what is said in churches (and mosques) every week about non-believers and what fate they deserve is NOT reckless and arrogant?
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 11, 2008 12:38 AM
Ah yes, Bill Donohue... Here are just a sample of his "wisdom:"
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the Messiah.... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost."
-Bill Donohue,
Scarborough Country,
12/4/2004
"Well, no. I'm saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights that is to cooperate in evil."
-Bill Donohue,
Hardball
10/21/2004
"This same guy [Dean Hamer] came up with this idea of the gay gene. I remember when that conversation was going on. Gays were all of a sudden worrying if people would start aborting kids when they found out the DNA suggested the kid might be gay or God forbid, we'd run out of little gay kids, so all of a sudden, they became pro-life."
-Bill Donohue,
Scarborough Country,
12/4/2004
"To defend the institution of marriage is pro-civil society. This traditional institution cannot be defended if all alternative lifestyles are treated as its equal."
-Bill Donohue, in defense of former Senator Rick Santorum's 2003 remarks equating homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery.
"Well, first they said it [The Passion of the Christ] was anti-Semitic. That didn't work. Then they said it was too violent. That didn't work. Then they said it was S & M. That didn't work. Then they said it was pornography. That didn't work. Now they're saying it's fascistic queer-bashing. That kind of language would ordinarily get somebody taken away in a straitjacket and -- put you in the asylum. I don't know what about -- the queer-bashing is all about. I'm pretty good about picking out who queers are and I didn't see any in the movie. I'm usually pretty good at that."
-Bill Donohue
Scarborough Country
3/12/2004
"Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style. There are certain things that the left won't tolerate. They are censorial at heart. Indeed, the signature appetite of the left has always been power. Now, they are running up against the American people."
-Bill Donohue,
Scarborough Country
2/27/2004
"Let this be a lesson to militant atheists like Pullman: keep your hollow beliefs to yourself. And ease up on demonizing Catholicism-no other religion has done more to promote human rights, science and goodwill."
--Bill Donohue, in a report from a Christian news site regarding the about the "poor" opening of the film version of "The Golden Compass" of which he led a boycott against.
www.LifeSiteNews.net,
12/10/2007
And you Catholics have the temerity to lecture us about "tolerance!" You, and this repugnant little troll you've rallied around, have the gall to demand that we respect your supersticions, all the while you piss all over those who fail to met your ridiculous spiritual ideals and those who question your Medieval notions of morality!
Where the FUCK do you get off?
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 12:38 AM
Janine ID
As much as I can without being arrested.
I felt "brownshirts" was so ridiculous that it needed a joke.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 12:40 AM
NYTs is definitely a sock puppet.
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 12:40 AM
@#638, scott
"My conclusion is that you are a coward."
You are in a room surrounded by "terrorists" lets call them.
They give you a pencil a pad of paper and a stark choice:depict the image of Mohammed,stand up for FOS and DIE.
Or not so much.The choice is yours-you decide.
My POINT is this-S Park were NOT risking anything.
What would you do?
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:41 AM
OK, K8,NYT and KKK are clearly all the same idiot.
Posted by: rmp | July 11, 2008 12:41 AM
scott, since it seems insensitive to call a communion wafer a 'cracker', I will do an end run around this.
I simply think this whole thing is stupid. Being raised in the Lutheran Church brought me close to suicide as a teenager. I don't mean to be melodramatic here as I realize many teenagers go through this for what ever reason. But for me, it was due to my religious upbringing. Paradoxically, I have to admit that my fear of suicide leading to hell did keep me from plunging the scissors into my gut.
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 12:44 AM
"No what I'm saying is that the creators of S Park weren't risking their own skins to depict an image of Mohammed,just OTHER peoples.Reckless and arrogant."
"And what is said in churches (and mosques) every week about non-believers and what fate they deserve is NOT reckless and arrogant?"
So your point is what?
My point is they're all wrong.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 12:45 AM
Scott does have a point. You can risk your own life for whatever you wish, but you shouldn't risk that of others without their consent.
That said, innocent people in bookstores all over the world were put in danger when they released "The Satanic Verses", and I'd have trouble arguing against that. Well, except that I think it's his most poorly written book, but that's neither here nor there.
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 12:45 AM
Scott, we seem to agree that religion is dangerous.
What you seem to be saying though is that the proper reaction to that danger is to hunker down, keep our heads low, and let them run rampant? Hope we won't be noticed?
I understand your point about not putting the lives of others at risk, but I honestly don't see how that applies.
Is PZ somehow putting others at risk because of his actions? Seems to me he's the one taking the heat (pathetic heat that it is).
I dunno, your attitude pretty much seems like an "give in to the terrorists" tactic.
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 12:48 AM
k8/NYTs:
(I still believe you're a satirist, but I can't restrain myself.)
Intent to do what? Set a chunk of Our Lord on fire? I admit, that would be an interesting exercise, but as I see no compelling evidence that the cracker is a deity, and cannot in fact bring myself to believe such a thing.... Well you see how intent breaks down.
I suppose, in a more fascist country than the one I inhabit, the police could imprison me for intending to insult the faithful. There are worse things to be imprisoned for, I suppose, and so I'll take my chances.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 12:48 AM
Odd that someone who signs himself KKKAtheist is calling other people drama queens...
Posted by: Caffeineisahelluvadrug | July 11, 2008 12:48 AM
Totally off-topic, apologies. I gave blood today (live in UK so didn't earn a thin dime donating blood to the socialised National Health Service) was a bit light-headed when I came home and read the blog. In a fit of pique at the ongoing idiocy, I wiped my arse on Teh Bibble. Can I go to hell now, please?
Posted by: Pat | July 11, 2008 12:50 AM
Please, it is not, I repeat not cannibalism.
It is deiphagia.
Posted by: Kel | July 11, 2008 12:51 AM
Well duh. Thought it was pretty obvious I was making a joke.Posted by: JoshH | July 11, 2008 12:51 AM
This whole thing is nothing but nonsensical jackassery. Bill Donahue is a big, blubbering vagina...nothing more.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:52 AM
My point is they're all wrong."
My point is you're wrong.
You seem to be saying that pointing out the existence of dangerous insane threats is the same as making dangerous insane threats.
A preacher preaching fire and brimstone and divisiveness and hatred and sexism and homophobia and delusional dangerous thought is NOT the same as someone pointing OUT that what the preacher is preaching is dangerous.
If a violent psychopath is going to kill people unless everyone gives up their right to free expression... and the people refuse to give up that right, and the psycho kills people - he alone is responsible for his actions.
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 12:52 AM
My Thompson Chain Reference KJV has my own blood splattered all over two pages (the part about the Tower of Babel). I got a really bad bloody nose while reading it, and sneezed.
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 12:54 AM
I fixed it for you.Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 12:55 AM
Kel, Oh. Never mind.
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 12:56 AM
Scott, we seem to agree that religion is dangerous.
What you seem to be saying though is that the proper reaction to that danger is to hunker down, keep our heads low, and let them run rampant? Hope we won't be noticed?
I understand your point about not putting the lives of others at risk, but I honestly don't see how that applies.
Is PZ somehow putting others at risk because of his actions? Seems to me he's the one taking the heat (pathetic heat that it is).
I dunno, your attitude pretty much seems like an "give in to the terrorists" tactic.
Actually the S Park stuff doesn't directly apply in this case,its just something I felt like bringing up out of curiosity.As for PZ,I abhor the idea of anyone issuing death threats against him,and simply question his modus operandi in light of said threats.I don't think we should bow down to threats,but in extreme cases like the Mohammed affair,it struck me as ridiculous to risk decapitation by offending what amounts to intractable fanaticism-certainly by answering back in yet another display of immovable ideology.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:57 AM
Ok, bed time, so I will reiterate my proposed compromise.
When the Catholics stop preaching every week that I and others like me are immoral, wicked, and deserving of eternal torture for not sharing their beliefs, then I'll stop calling it a cracker.
And I won't even wait hundreds of years just to catch up and make things even.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 12:58 AM
craig,
I think (I could be wrong) what scott intends to say is that if someone, say the producers of South Park, want to publish a picture of Mohammad, and a group of people say "if you do that, we're going to run into crowded grocery stores strapped with dynamite", that the producers of South Park might consider that in their decision.
I don't know what a right or wrong decision would be, but it does make sense that they'd think about it.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 12:58 AM
Ok scott, I guess we were both going off on different tangents. Nevermind.
Posted by: JoshH | July 11, 2008 12:59 AM
#705
Oops. Thanks for the correction.
It may have already been posted, but in case it hasn't yet...
Kyle kills Jesus. Jesus kills Bill Donahue (South Park classic): http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104422/?tag=outside+South+Park
Posted by: rmp | July 11, 2008 12:59 AM
I'm with craig, it's bedtime. Not that we're sleeping together or anything. Not that there would be anything wrong with that.
Posted by: Autumn | July 11, 2008 1:01 AM
I've been meaning to say this since yesterday, but felt a need to read the comments, and found myself overdue for bedtime.
To all of the rather polite people, including many Roman Catholics, who have simply pointed out that desecration of the host would be offensive to many, and have asked that it not happen: had the initial responses been overwhelmingly of this sort, there would never have been a story to begin with, and the hosts would be safe from the horrors now falling upon them.
Try to get all your co-religionists into the mind-set you have, it tends to prevent escalation.
And no, it is not hypocritical for me to ask them to be polite while giggling with anticipation, because all us evil ones are merely having a good laugh at truely insane overreaction to a totally harmless act (the crackers are given away-there is no theft or disruption).
I have a cross in my bottom right now.
Posted by: mothwentbad | July 11, 2008 1:03 AM
mandrake @ 695 -
The thing about The Satanic Verses is this, though:
1 - Don't offend Muslims by publishing a giggly little irreverent book which they won't even read anyway.
2 - ????
3 - Free, open, non-violent society for all
That said, I agree that it's a deeply unpleasant thing to use bookstore employees as human shields. I just wonder what the alternatives are and if they work and at what cost. I really don't know.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 11, 2008 1:03 AM
No worries Eric, I'll defend you, we'll win, kick some arse along the way and it will all become legendarily known as "The Great Cracker Case of '08". Pharyngulites can fill the gallery in court and cat call anti-religious slogans at appropriate times. It'll be a hoot.
Fuck, if K8 ( or whatever his/her name is for THIS hour)gets its panties bunched about some gin and a bic lighter going near its precious wafer then its gonna go ballistic when it hears about my plans for the a wafer and my baby's full nappy.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 11, 2008 1:03 AM
Re: 688.
Ugh! That could have gone better. Sorry for the formatting. I was so pissed off that I neglected to copy edit and format my last post properly. I hope you guys can sort out the Donohue quotes. They really do show what a bigoted piece of shit he is.
Posted by: BMurray | July 11, 2008 1:04 AM
That is an uncanny coincidence....
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 1:04 AM
"My point is you're wrong."
"You seem to be saying that pointing out the existence of dangerous insane threats is the same as making dangerous insane threats."
Believe it or not I side with science.
That said I can't help but feel a kind of irritation and impatience with this aggressive tact popularized by people like R Dawkins.Its a kind of fanaticism in itself-another belief set in stone.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 1:07 AM
oddly enough, I owned a bookstore at the time "Satanic Verses" came out in paperback. I explained to all my employees that I was planning on carrying it, & no one balked. Of course, that was in San Francisco, not generally known as hotbed of fundamentalist Islam.
Posted by: Aegis | July 11, 2008 1:08 AM
My Letter:
Dear President Bruininks,
I hope the day finds you well. I also hope that you are in no way swayed by the ridiculous attempt at a new inquisition started by the Catholic League's modern Torquemada, Bill Donohue.
Rather than shame, I believe your University should be proud to have a professor who is unafraid to show these bullying thugs for what they are. One of the most important things society needs is level-headed people like Professor Meyers who are willing to showcase the ridiculous intentions of the uneducated, uninformed, and willfully ignorant.
Professor Meyers is a much needed voice - occasionally abrasive, but rarely incorrect, it shouts out this message: There is a growing part of the population steadfastly resisting the desires of some to slide human progress back to the dark ages... over a piece of deified pastry.
Any calls for Dr. Meyers' resignation should be met with the derision they deserve. Odds are that you won't be missing anything, as the types who would kill for a cracker are not the types who would likely have the intelligence required to gain admission to your University anyway.
However, by holding the line against this folly, you'll send a message to those who could gain admission; the University of Minnesota doesn't hire and fire based on expedient religious correctness, but rather on ability and in full support of an individuals right to free speech. Last time I looked, it was protected regardless of the content. Help keep it that way.
Posted by: SteveC | July 11, 2008 1:09 AM
@696
"Scott, we seem to agree that religion is dangerous.
What you seem to be saying though is that the proper reaction to that danger is to hunker down, keep our heads low, and let them run rampant? Hope we won't be noticed?"
Exactly why I called Scott a coward.
Crazy people making wild threats if anybody says anything against their crazy beliefs. So everybody should just shut up and go along with the crazies? That is what scott suggests, because he's afraid the crazies will carry out their threats.
Fuck that. Maybe the crazies do carry out their threats, maybe even against me. Better to fight them than simply surrender.
It is irresponsible to appease the crazies and let the craziness spread by pretending it isn't crazy because you're afraid the crazies will go crazy and kill somebody.
Posted by: scott | July 11, 2008 1:09 AM
"Craig,
I think (I could be wrong) what scott intends to say is that if someone, say the producers of South Park, want to publish a picture of Mohammad, and a group of people say "if you do that, we're going to run into crowded grocery stores strapped with dynamite", that the producers of South Park might consider that in their decision.
I don't know what a right or wrong decision would be, but it does make sense that they'd think about it."
Very succinctly put-although for myself I don't have any problem siding with NOT publishing the pictures.Again in extreme cases where extreme violence is the promised outcome,human life must take precedence.
Posted by: Jimbo | July 11, 2008 1:10 AM
Wow. Three posts. Over 1900 comments. That's some cracker.
Posted by: Jasper | July 11, 2008 1:11 AM
Liberals/atheists generally hate all religions (except for Islam, post 9/11)
Posted by: Aegis | July 11, 2008 1:12 AM
#57, Cathy
"My friends and I debate theology all the time. We learned early on that if you actually want to convince somebody of something, you have to respect thier opinions first, and keep the argument on the level of the intellectual, not personal.
Please respect my beliefs."
Beliefs either demand respect based on their merits, or deserve none. Seriously, while you seem like a nice enough person you should not ask for your beliefs to be respected. If they are respectable, they will be respected. Otherwise, they are not especially respectable simply because you believe them.
Posted by: Marc Jagoe | July 11, 2008 1:13 AM
President Bruininks,
It has come to the attention of the readers of Dr. PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog that Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has chosen his next target for outrage. As I'm sure you're fully aware, Dr. Myers posted an entry on his personal blog in reference to a news story about a UCF student who smuggled a wafer out of a Catholic church. The entry was critical of the Catholic belief in transubstantiation as well as the furor over the incident.
As a former Catholic I am well aware of the sacredness of the Eucharist in the view of the Catholic Church. However, Dr. Myers was hired by your institution as a scientist and functions as one in his daily life as well as his professional life. He was hired to teach young minds at your institution of learning how to think scientifically. Accepted science views and appreciates the scientific method as the only current way to understand the universe and how it functions. The Catholic Church's teachings on the Eucharist don't meet the criteria for scientific acceptance by any measure.
The outrage expressed to you by many Catholics, including Bill Donohue, is unfortunate but isn't relevant to reasonable discussion in an institution of learning. Dr. Myers' comments reflect a worldview that is consistent with all that we know and understand, as of now, in regards to a testable reality. His views simply reflect the scientific consensus and until proven otherwise are consistent with the science curriculum at your institution.
Respectfully,
Marc Jagoe
Posted by: Broshiesq | July 11, 2008 1:13 AM
Normal people do not go around pissing in the faces of total strangers and explaining that they do it because they are mad at somebody who is not there. - Mark P. Shea
I just pissed in someone's face, I think he was saying something about god. No, really. That's wrong?
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 1:13 AM
Jasper, you are obviously paying no attention to this thread at all.
Posted by: Dahan | July 11, 2008 1:14 AM
Re: 699,
Ya know we here in the US don't get cash for giving blood either, right? As you obviously know, it's just what you do as a good citizen. Thanks for giving. All the rest of ya, follow the lead...
Posted by: Liane | July 11, 2008 1:15 AM
Wow, I didn't check Pharyngula for a day and ... the last couple threads ... just ... wow. The concentration of stupid is mind-boggling. Oh, the great minds that make up the CL ... this must be that subtle, non-literal theology thing I keep hearing about. I must have gone through at least a dozen irony meters by now.
I don't believe I've ever laughed this hard in a loooong time. I concur with the poster who said you should publish the really over-the-top death-threat hatemail (and the choice selections from these threads) in a separate webpage. Xtian love & peace at work! lolol.
And I know lots of posters have said this already, but great job nevertheless! One blog post was apparently all it took to unmask the crazies, and the best part is, it's Donohue and his fellow CL-types who tore off the mask themselves. Brilliant. (Vox Day calling you a sociopath is particularly precious - wasn't he the guy who said he would go around killing children if his God told him to do so? Oh la la, my brand-new irony meter, there she goes again.)
Posted by: Dahan | July 11, 2008 1:17 AM
Re: 699,
Ya know we here in the US don't get cash for giving blood either, right? As you obviously know, it's just what you do as a good citizen. Thanks for giving. All the rest of ya, follow the lead...
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 11, 2008 1:18 AM
Starbuck, that is awesome.
Absolutely awesome.
On so many levels.
Goodness, can I just take you home and keep you in a cupboard to pull out at dinner parties? You are just precious.
"If you liked the coffee table book about wax fruit, you'll absolutely love my pet racist-moron-in-a-cupboard!"
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 1:21 AM
Bride of Shrek, that's wonderful to hear. Sounds like great fun, and I do hope k8 or whoever can manage to get me arrested now. I'm also hoping that they can arrest me after a stand-off with some sort of tactical weapons team. I could hold Christ over the toilet or something while the hostage negotiator pleads with me on the phone.
Posted by: Janine ID | July 11, 2008 1:23 AM
I cannot help but to think that this cracker is a MacGuffin.
Posted by: Rick T | July 11, 2008 1:24 AM
Dear President Bruininks:
I am writing in support of Dr. Myers. I will not burden you further with the recounting of what is behind this brouhaha but simply wish to commend Dr. Myers for his efforts in promoting intellectual and educational freedom. From time to time, those lacking in good grace and integrity will do what they can to diminish the positive effect of his efforts. He is fighting a good and necessary fight at the right time in our country.
I'm sure you realize that he is an asset to your institution and will continue to be. Please know that I appreciate your patience in dealing with the negative correspondence that you may be receiving and also know that far more of us support the fight for reason, freedom of thought and advancement of science that Dr Myers believes in and is working to achieve.
Thank you for your time,
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 1:25 AM
@scott
"Again in extreme cases where extreme violence is the promised outcome,human life must take precedence."
Yeah, and that is exactly what they want. Shut up, sit down, or we'll kill some innocents. I don't know about you, but I always thought that we should fight against such threats, not give into them.
Posted by: Janine ID | July 11, 2008 1:26 AM
Eric, I want k8 to report you so that the FBI can start their files on the rather unhinged k8.
Posted by: shane | July 11, 2008 1:26 AM
We could write a letter of support or the UM could put up a poll...
A. Yay PZ, you rock and you are right.
B. Bill Catholic person, you suck and you are wrong.
C. Who the hell names there child Sunday Rose?
D. Sqwaaark, Polly wants a cracker, Sqwaaark.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 1:27 AM
This is assuming the FBI doesn't already *have* a file on the rather unhinged k8.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 1:31 AM
"That said I can't help but feel a kind of irritation and impatience with this aggressive tact popularized by people like R Dawkins.Its a kind of fanaticism in itself-another belief set in stone."
This is what I don't get. How on earth are atheists being the aggressive ones?
We're not erecting big pointy buildings on every street corner to call attention to ourselves, we don't get together in said buildings and drill into the heads of others and their children than anyone who doesn't think like us is a bad person.
We don't go knocking on people's doors to give them talks about atheism, we don't leave atheist tracts in laundromats, we don't try to get slogans put into flag oaths and on money, we don't try to silence people who aren't atheists, or start wars against them, or try to prevent them from immigrating to this country.
All we do is, when confronted with all of the above, express clearly and succinctly that we find these beliefs and actions to be nonsense.
That's it. We don't push anything on anyone... we "new" atheists merely express our opinions. We simply do not HIDE any longer.
We simply no longer DEFER to religion.
We're the aggressive ones?
Posted by: Richard | July 11, 2008 1:32 AM
My support letter has been sent!! Go PZ!
As for the brainwashed religious nutters like k8: Get a life, please. Seriously. Please. Pull your head out of your holy book and take a good long look at life and realize just how ridiculous you sound.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 1:35 AM
craig, I think scott meant that our arguments are mean.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 1:35 AM
This is what I don't get. How on earth are atheists being the aggressive ones?
It's just projection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 11, 2008 1:36 AM
Starbuck:
HAAAAAA ha ha ha HAAAAA!
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 11, 2008 1:36 AM
Email of support sent, cc'ed; formal letter copy in mail at some more civilized hour.
'What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.' (attributed to Rushdie)
Posted by: wnelson | July 11, 2008 1:36 AM
Here's my letter, it will go out in tomorrow's mail:
--------------------
Hello:
I wouldn't worry too much about the current controversy surrounding Dr. Myers. I _would_ consider whether his increasingly provocative antics are worth the brand name of your university.
Dr. Myers seems to be more and more consumed with dabbling in something outside his trained occupation: philosophy and religion. He seems to be increasingly preoccupied with ridiculing those outside his philosophical school, which is puzzling. The points he makes are far flung, not cogent in many ways, and for those trained either philosophy and apologetics, sound either jejune or as outright ranting. He may be "scoring points" with an uneducated "crowd," but I can hardly expect that your university prides itself in it's ability to rabble rouse.
In every real, argumentative sense, Dr. Myers is harmless -- except in how he represents your institution. If he is involved in hard science, what business does he have in insulting a particular religion, or religions? How is this constructive in any sense?
The root of this controversy may be more straightforward: I _am_ curious if he receives revenue from the ads on his scienceblogs.com website, and would question whether some of his recent, more flamboyant, antics are related to generating buzz or designed to drive web traffic to his site (this is just a guess.) If the later were the case, it would be reasonable to consider whether many people are wasting their time viewing a site that is, as they say, "not designed to catch the fish, but to catch the fisherman."
Regards,
[real name, etc.]
-------
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 1:37 AM
craig,
it probably does seem to them like we're aggressive, since religions are used to being able to say whatever they want without being challenged. They take their authority for granted and when someone questions their completely bizarre ideas about reality, it's shocking I tell you, shocking!
In other words, when the playing field has been tipped in one teams favor for a long time, they're going to cry foul when it's made level.
Posted by: Dahan | July 11, 2008 1:37 AM
Hmmm, sorry for the double post all. A first for me.
Jasper, you state that:
"Liberals/atheists generally hate all religions (except for Islam, post 9/11)"
I say "All religions hate humans and wish us to fuck our children, kill puppies, drown women, spit on short people and burn Maple trees."
OK, we've now both declared things without evidence. Great. We should probably back these statements up with some facts and statistics, etc.
I'll give you the advantage of going first. When you've shown evidence that your statement is true, I'll show you mine. Until that point we'll both agree that the other is correct, shall we?
What? You don't like the evidence game? WELL I FUCKING DO! OUT WITH IT BITCH! Give your proof. Or is this just something you "feel" or has been told to you? Maybe something you hope is true?
Show the evidence. While you're at it, show us the evidence for whichever god you believe in. Do that, and you'll go down in history for ever as a truly great man. Don't, and you're just another in a chorus of millions of pathetic voices throughout time with nothing to backup their ludicrous claims. Which is it?
Don't bother to reply, I already know...
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 1:40 AM
"In other words, when the playing field has been tipped in one teams favor for a long time, they're going to cry foul when it's made level."
It's not even close to level. I could only imagine the sweet sight of heads exploding when the playing field is actually level.
Posted by: Asylum Seeker | July 11, 2008 1:40 AM
Yo, kkk8: the operative word in "hate crime" is "crime," not "hate". That is, a hate crime, is a crime that has hatred as its motivation. Criticism, cussing, or outright mockery is not a crime. Death threats, however, are. If you see one of those coming from an atheist directed at a Catholic, because they are Catholics, then it is a hate crime. Otherwise, it is just free speech that you disagree with.
Get a new buzzword.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 1:42 AM
wnelson @ 746 has been kind enough to provide an example for my statement at 747.
Posted by: akshelby | July 11, 2008 1:43 AM
"First, they came for the transubstantiated crackers. And I did not speak up, because I was not a transubstantiated cracker..."
That comment deserves the Molly!
To all the fundamentalist Catholics here preaching tolerance:
How tolerant would you be if a gay bar opened up next to one of your churches? Chances are, all they would be doing was minding their own business and not desecrating anything. For some reason I don't think you would be too tolerant and would most likely be picketing and sending death threats to the owners and attendees.
Fuck off. If you all didn't try to pass legislation restricting the lives of people who live and believe differently than you, people wouldn't resent you so much. I don't see atheists trying to outlaw attendance at Sunday services.
And to all those trying to argue with the likes of Mueller and other Catholics most likely from Franciscan University - they have all been brainwashed into believing in "the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist" that they really would probably give their lives rather than having it defaced. Sad really. There is so much more to live for than a cracker.
And in my previous post in support of PZ - what I mean was that I have learned more from him about biology and evolution than anybody else. I attended Catholic schools for most of my life and so my biology lessons were primarily concerned with trying to convince me that abortion was such an evil sin that Planned Parenthood clinics deserved to be blown up and abortion doctors killed. Yes, I attended Franciscan University. I'm glad I managed to escape the brainwashing.
Posted by: Kel | July 11, 2008 1:45 AM
Exactly. Therein lies the double standard of religion when it comes to non-beliefs. If you don't have a belief you are expected to sit down and shut up about it, and if you do dare speak out you are branded a fanatic, a militant. Considering all the deceptive ways believers make a case for their beliefs: pushing obvious falsehoods, appealing to emotion, targeting the vulnerable, preaching to the ignorant, tying belief to community; somehow openly denying that these beliefs that are based on faith have any credulity is an equivalent to the fanatical and pushy behaviour that is done under the name of religon?
When atheists start running TV shows where donation is a prerequisite for salvation, then maybe they are. But until such time...
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 1:45 AM
wnelson, in his letter to the University, wrote:
Er, why can't he have an opinion on religion? Science is his job - slagging off the inane rantings of credulous fools and their irrational belief systems is his hobby.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 1:46 AM
btw, I'm sure this has already been pointed out to "K8", but to qualify as a "hate crime" for prosecution, it has to also qualify as a crime to begin with. the "hate" issue is tacked on afterwards.
sorry, but not eating a cracker, or threatening to not eat a cracker, or threatening to put a cracker in a plastic bag, rather fails to qualify as a crime.
Now, if someone burned your church, and also stated they hate your religion, or killed a paritioner, because they were of a specific denomination, that could be considered to fall under various states' hate crime statutes.
do you even see the difference?
meh, who cares.
K8 belongs to those nutters that would prefer the CC have an active branch of the inquisition (with medieval torture devices) in every town, and be funded publicly, like the fire department.
The CC still does still have an inquisitorial dept., btw.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1251677.stm
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 1:47 AM
gdlchmst :
you're right (sigh), it's still pretty tilted. I'm too much of an optimist. After reading this thread, I really should know better.
Posted by: lago | July 11, 2008 1:50 AM
""If you liked the coffee table book about wax fruit, you'll absolutely love my pet racist-moron-in-a-cupboard!""
Hahahhahhahahha..
Freakin' Brilliant
Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 1:51 AM
"and for those trained either philosophy and apologetics" - wnelson
And just who would that be, wnelson, because it certainly isn't you. Last time you were here, I wasn't even sure that you had read, "Philosophy: An Introduction", such were your piss-poor arguments.
You are nothing but a pseudo-intellectual, with delusions of philosophical grandeur. Come to think of it, there is another person that comments here would fit that description, as well. What is it about philosophy, I wonder?
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 1:52 AM
wnelson @ 746 :
I wont be repeating any of your incoherent rant,just 2 things that kindof stood out of the general dumbness of the post :
1.What is PZ's philosophical school again,I seem to have missed that bit in the last few years,did he found one,did he join one? And yes,I guess you could say he scores points with those of us "untrained in apologetics".
2.In what way is the fact of being involved in "hard science"(whatever that is) to do with one's stance on issues like religion or philosophy in your private life? So your point is,that,say I as a Physician cant have a stance on philosophical questions or religion? He doesnt represent his University in his private life,neither do I represent my Hospital once Im done for the day.
What utter nonsense.
Posted by: wnelson | July 11, 2008 1:56 AM
Actually, no -- harmless means "harmless". He simply has nothing cogent to say -- unless heckling and bickering is cogent.
In terms of rabble rousing and driving web traffic -- granted -- Myers is going great guns. But I don't see him either making strides in research, or paying any attention to the rules of philosophy or apologetics -- he can't even manage civility.
What is there to _really_ see here?
??
Posted by: Rystefn | July 11, 2008 1:57 AM
Sent. Keep up the good work. What you do needs to be done.
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 2:00 AM
I think the sophisticated training of a sophisticated apologist must go like this:
1) Craft easily rebutted nonsense arguments laden with appeals to solipsism.
2) When the easily rebutted nonsense is rebutted, accuse your opponent of not having understood the subtleties of your argument. In no circumstances should you be specific, or cite sources or evidence. Then drop Aquinas' name.
3) Goto 1.
Now that's settled, and everyone here has Sophisticated Theological Training (TM).
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 2:01 AM
If there's nothing here for you to see, wnelson, why are you here?
paying any attention to the rules of philosophy or apologetics? What are you talking about?
Only Christian idiots use the word apologetics. Why don't you go read your bible, asshole.
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 2:02 AM
You. Acting like a jackass.Posted by: wingerx | July 11, 2008 2:02 AM
The following will be the body of a letter I send out tomorrow morning:
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing this letter to offer my support for a member of the UM faculty, PZ Myers.
Recently, Mr. Myers has become the focal point of some scrutiny due to his unabashed criticism of certain aspects of our society, namely concerning certain practices of those professing to follow the Catholic faith.
This scrutiny was not accidental, nor was it coincidental; One William Donahue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has championed this attack. Mr. Donahue has publicly called, on his own website, for people to contact yourself in order to file complaints about Mr. Myers.
I care not that Mr. Donahue personally takes issue with Mr. Myers. I think such a disagreement would, in an ideal situation, be hardly worth mentioning.
However, this is far from an ideal situation, and I would offer that I find Mr. Donahue's actions deplorable. What worries me is that the nominal head of such a large, obviously biased group would call upon his 'flock' to baselessly assail the livelihood of a man whose only affront (and I use that term lightly) has been a public disagreement.
Thus, I felt compelled to write in support of Mr. Myers, and I would urge you to do your best to eschew the ignorant cries for his professional head.
Regards,
Thomas Winger
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 2:06 AM
"Dr. Myers seems to be more and more consumed with dabbling in something outside his trained occupation: philosophy and religion."
Not any more outside of his field than people who are religious trying to decree reality.
"The points he makes are far flung, not cogent in many ways, and for those trained either philosophy and apologetics, sound either jejune or as outright ranting"
in response to the brilliant rhetoric spouted by his religious opponents, like "the sun goes around the earth" and "god says you're a fool if you don't believe in him, therefore god exists."
"I _am_ curious if he receives revenue from the ads on his scienceblogs.com website, and would question whether some of his recent, more flamboyant, antics are related to generating buzz or designed to drive web traffic to his site (this is just a guess.)"
I see. And the Catholic Church would never be so mercenary.
My point? Subject religion to the same criteria as everything else. What you're doing is holding religion up as something that can't be looked at rationally. When rational arguments are given on both sides - that is, the playing field is more even - religion doesn't have anything to stand on. It's built on a mountain of sand and only held upright by a bunch of apologists with toy shovels.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 2:07 AM
What is there to _really_ see here?
funny, I've been wondering just that about you since you first made your appearance.
But I don't see him either making strides in research
one, I rather doubt you have the slightest clue about what he's working on at the moment, and two, his primary interest is in teaching and writing, not research. As such, you can easily go read some of his essays on various topics in science, and readily see why he so often gets invited to speak at various public and private science meetings.
How many speaking engagements have you been invited to over the last year?
hmm?
as to "driving web traffic", do you understand what that means when you say it?
here, let me provide an analogy for you:
If a writer can single-handedly improve the readership of a newspaper, it must mean what he is saying has an impact.
You can disagree with Paul, but you're a complete moron to suggest there is nothing there.
It's truly strange you choose to exhibit jealously in this fashion, but that being the only remarkable thing about you worth noting...
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 11, 2008 2:08 AM
heres me :
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing to you in support of Professor PZ Myers whose witty, caustic and occasionally irreverent blog has been a source of much enjoyment and education over the course of the last 2 years. I have learnt an enormous amount about evolution through his blog, and were I an american citizen I would probably consider moving to Morris and enroling my daughter in your institution to ensure she gets a suitably sustained and comprehensive exposure to critical thinking. As it happens we live in Sweden, and her entire education will be fully paid for by the godless state (and a small stipend provided during her studies), but hopefully the thought counts for something:-)
As you are all too painfully aware, the forces of unreason and regression have recently (although I suspect this is not the first time) turned their beady eyes on PZ, and are focusing on you and your faculty as well. Hang in there, you have our prayers ... no wait thats not right ... you have my actual real world and should things get genuinely nasty, financial support.
So while there are pros and cons to having a celebrity on your staff, you can rest assured that in this instance, the pros outweigh the cons quite considerably.
Regards,
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 2:10 AM
@wnelson
Do you even know what it takes to get tenure? In any case, being articulate and crafting rational literature is still something I want to see. I guess it's not your cup of tea.
Posted by: Big Tex | July 11, 2008 2:12 AM
I wish I was as smart as PZ.
Posted by: Nothing Sacred | July 11, 2008 2:16 AM
Re: #127, "You know what the worst thing is? Communion wafers aren't very tasty. They're cheap and cardboardy."
I grew up Jewish, so I've never tried them, but Catholic friends who had tried Matzoh told me it tasted a little like the Eucharist. Matzoh is tasteless and so dry that it sucks all the moisture out of your mouth. It's completely bland unless you pile a bunch of (most likely non-Kosher for Passover) stuff on top of it.
If communion wafers really do taste like that, it's a whole other theological mystery. I mean, why would god want to taste like that and not like, say, chocolate?
(Oh, right, because Catholics like making people miserable.)
Posted by: wnelson | July 11, 2008 2:17 AM
Um, guys...
... it doesn't take either much Plato, Kant, Hume, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Wittgenstein or Barth, Augustine, Calvin, Plantinga, or Aquinas to note that Dr. Myers has no clue as regards philosophy.
No one, who has broken their head on Heidegger, would ever show the carelessness that Myers shows. He is simply either in this for the buzz, or he is completely out of his depth.
"Keep neither a blunt knife, nor an ill-disciplined looseness of tongue."
-Epictetus
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 2:21 AM
... it doesn't take either much Plato, Kant, Hume, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Wittgenstein or Barth, Augustine, Calvin, Plantinga, or Aquinas to note that Dr. Myers has no clue as regards philosophy
it takes far less than that to note that you simply have no clue, period.
However, thanks for another example, if ever so slightly tangential, of the Courtier's reply.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 2:23 AM
"But I don't see him either making strides in research, or paying any attention to the rules of philosophy or apologetics"
Rule of Apologetics #1: If you have to apologize for something, sop doing it.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 2:23 AM
I really haven't noticed PZ getting into philosophy. It's usually only brought up in the comments by pretentious jackasses who like to name drop.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 2:24 AM
Really, wnelson, do us all a favor and learn proper grammer before trotting out all the big names.
Yes, yes, I know you know these people were philosophers. You get a cracker, happy?
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | July 11, 2008 2:24 AM
Ah yes, Bill Donohue... Here are just a sample of his "wisdom:"
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the Messiah.... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost."
Silly.
Actually the problem there is that Jews don't like snuff films.
Posted by: AndyD | July 11, 2008 2:28 AM
I don't get it. Jesus was dragged off and nailed to a cross and we're told his father arranged this crucifixion for our benefit (he gave his only son - who died for our sins - didn't he?). He then was miraculously resurrected.
Given this, how can he possibly be even remotely bothered by someone taking a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of him away from a church? Why is anyone offended by this given how minor it is compared to what God put Jesus through? And if, for some reason, it really is as offensive as we're lead to believe, then why wasn't the culprit turned into a pillar of salt or something? Why do humans have to threaten sin in order to set things straight?
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 2:29 AM
PZ is an absolute fool!
Have people actually read his hyperbolic - semi-hysteric - replies on here?
In case you don't realize, calls for hate crimes against religious groups does not fly for a public uni employee...even in the U.K.
Keep digging that hole, Myers, I highly doubt your academic career ever comes up after the heads of the university read the vile bull on here!
So long, you wanker -- call it survival of the fittest ;)
Posted by: Ryan | July 11, 2008 2:31 AM
Not only did you hurt a cracker's feelings, I understand the communion wafer was somewhat put off as well.
THANK YOU, I'll be here all week, try the veal, etc.
And apologies if someone's said it already, this thread is WAY too damn long for me to comb through looking for an asinine joke.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 2:32 AM
"it doesn't take either much Plato, Kant, Hume, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Wittgenstein or Barth, Augustine, Calvin, Plantinga, or Aquinas to note that Dr. Myers has no clue as regards philosophy."
Maybe he doesn't give a shit about Plato, Kant, Hume, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Wittgenstein or Barth, Augustine, Calvin, Plantinga, or Aquinas.
This isn't a philosophy blog, it's a science blog. Did I mention that you're an asshole?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 2:34 AM
Dobbs, I thought you people invented English. Why is it that you do not know what "hate crime" means?
Posted by: DGS | July 11, 2008 2:34 AM
There is still hope for you Mr. Myers. You refer to the Body of Christ in the Eucharist as both "consecrated" and a "goddamn cracker." Putting aside for the moment the logical inconsistency of an item being both consecrated and damned by the same God at the same time, you at least concede that there is a God to damn or consecrate. You apparently have no more regard for his wrath than you do for Catholics and our sensibilities, but at least you admit his reality. I dread the thought of what you will think of your current desires if that hope ever comes to fruition. (Is that literate and logical enough for you, sir? And from a Catholic no less.)
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 2:35 AM
Dobbs = sock puppet.
Posted by: charfles | July 11, 2008 2:37 AM
I hate all religions INCLUDING Islam. If you read anything on this site and others like it you would see that. They are all irrational and evoke sick responses such as the one against the UCF student.
I just desecrated a whole box of CONSECRATED cheez-its (I had my friend bless it with his magic). I must have just committed genocide because I think I'm going to throw up. Or maybe that's just the massive amount of cheese. I dunno, I can't decide. What's the rational explanation?
PZ will not lose his job over this. Nor will he be subject to any hate crime laws. Honestly, what would the prosecution say? I'd like to see them argue the properties of the "host" in court. Or maybe they will argue that multitudes of Christians were offended and threatened by visiting his PERSONAL site. Yeah, that'll work.
Get over it. Any Christian that is mad over this situation is actually frightened because people are finally speaking out against their inane beliefs and placing them in the public square for all to examine. Hurts doesn't it? To see your silly magic-man stories brought to the forefront of public discourse even though it has enjoyed hundreds of years on the fringe. No longer will you get that undeserved privilege. If you want to spout mystical garbage in a public fashion your going to have to substantiate it. Keep it in your heads or get in line.
PZ, I'll be sending my letter. A letter of recommendation for an academic medal for freedom of expression. I wish I was so lucky to have a professor like you at UNH.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 2:39 AM
DGS, a person doesn't have to be an idiot Catholic like yourself or any other kind of theist to use the expression god damn.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 2:39 AM
Dobbs wrote:
If you had even half a clue as to what was going on here you wouldn't have written what you wrote.
To incite a hate crime he has to (read this part carefully) actually incite people to commit a crime. If people do what he asks - which is take the communion wafer out of the church - they are not committing a crime.
If they were breaking into the church and damaging things - that would be a hate crime. Assaulting priests? That would be a hate crime.
Taking what someone puts in your mouth and not swallowing it? Not a crime.
Posted by: Justin | July 11, 2008 2:40 AM
Dobbs, you're a damn fool. Last I checked, desecrating a fucking cracker isn't a hate crime. That one won't fly in a court of law...a rational court, that is. And you should go back to a sociology class. You obviously have no clue as to what constitutes a hate crime.
Anyone calling for PZ's life or wanting to have him fired is a piss-poor Christian (and a hypocrite). Last I checked, Jesus never asked for any of his followers to kill anyone or to get them fired from their job. You need to stop calling yourselves Christians.
And PZ, I emailed President Bruininks. I told him how much I support you and how much of an asset you are to UMM. I also got you some help from a political message board. :)
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 2:41 AM
Putting aside for the moment the logical inconsistency of an item being both consecrated and damned by the same God at the same time
congratulations on noticing something so patently absurd, but obvious, that HE ALREADY CHANGED IT.
fecking moron.
Posted by: Dr Strangelove | July 11, 2008 2:41 AM
Some people complain about liberals not being tolerant of absolutely everything.
Just because I'm generally tolerant doesn't mean I'm tolerant of everything. Belief in magic, religion and superstition is stupid, and I will not refrain from saying so just because those who have such beliefs might be hurt.
Are Catholics are hurt by going to physics or chemistry class, learning about the nature of matter and the atmoic theory, etc., that contradicts the idea of transubstantiation?
Are Biblical literalists hurt by having to study physics, chemistry, biology and geology in school?
Perhaps. But if they are insulted to learn about reality, then why do they claim to worship the guy who created it all?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 2:41 AM
"(Is that literate and logical enough for you, sir?) "
Actually, it's completely shallow sophistry. And this sentence: "I dread the thought of what you will think of your current desires if that hope ever comes to fruition." makes absolutely no sense. But thanks for playing.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 2:41 AM
Looks like KKK has a new name... Dobbs.
Again... if you commit a crime against a person motivated by hate, its a hate crime.
If you commit a non-criminal act against a wafer, motivated by hate or love or boredom, it is not a hate crime, not any kind of crime.
Sorry about that you stupid deluded fuck, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 2:43 AM
BobC: "Maybe he doesn't give a shit about Plato, Kant, Hume, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Wittgenstein or Barth, Augustine, Calvin, Plantinga, or Aquinas.
This isn't a philosophy blog, it's a science blog. Did I mention that you're an asshole?"
You are a cranky cock-sucking atheist aren't you!
Yes, who cares about the top thinkers of our time....when compared to ignorant lab rats like PZ Myers?
Myers has NO CLUE about philosophy or religion and, from what I gather, neither do you...
Posted by: flashbaby | July 11, 2008 2:45 AM
letter sent from UK supporting PZ.Will ritually slaughter some matzos later as have no access to catholic wafers. I believe the same imaginary pal is involved in any event.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 2:46 AM
@DGS
Do you know what sarcasm is? And where does PZ say god is real? Learn to read. One last thing, fuck your sensibilities. They are the product of centuries of plutocratic religious domination.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 2:47 AM
Dobbs, revealing his true colours, wrote:
Dobbs, You sound a little optimistic. Are you...coming onto him?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 2:48 AM
Myers has NO CLUE about philosophy or religion
why is it poor religious apologists have nothing but the Courtier's reply to offer?
thankfully, you morons are a dying breed. Oh, it might take a few generations longer, but like racists, your kind will share the same fate.
oh, why don't you fuckwits analyze the philosophy in this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 2:49 AM
Oh, I was waiting for this one... someone saying that the use of the phrase "god-damned" means you are somehow acknowledging the existence of their favorite sky spook.
Hey, go ahead and think that, whatever gets you off.
Whoops. My use of that expression doesn't actually mean that I think that your taking delight in your stupid senseless "gotcha" over an expression will actually cause you to acheive orgasm.
Though it just might. You people are pretty freaking weird, after all.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 2:49 AM
Fuck you Dobbs. How many names have you been using on this thread, asshole.
"Myers has NO CLUE about philosophy or religion and, from what I gather, neither do you..."
I know enough about religions to know that religious people are shitheads like yourself.
What name are you going to use next time, Mr. Sock Puppet.
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | July 11, 2008 2:50 AM
You are a cranky cock-sucking atheist aren't you!
- Posted by: Dobbs
Nice mouth Dobbs! You take the eucharist with that thing?
Posted by: Justin | July 11, 2008 2:50 AM
Dobbs is obviously a Neanderthal. His only "comeback" is
"You are a cranky cock-sucking atheist aren't you!"
How pitiful. Reminds me of a small-town redneck.
Oh, and I'd like to apologise to Neanderthals. Dobbs is beneath them.
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 2:51 AM
Don't go all Freud on me, Wowbagger. (is that the nickname for your mum, btw?)
PS - you do know who Freud is, don't you? A "scientist" of great import...
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 2:54 AM
"You are a cranky cock-sucking atheist aren't you!"
Well, I know *I* am. Oh, I'm sorry, did you mean that as an insult?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 2:55 AM
"Yes, who cares about the top thinkers of our time....when compared to ignorant lab rats like PZ Myers?"
Gee, did you figure out that these were "top thinkers" all by your self or did wikipedia tell you? It struck me as strange when you decided to list Hume. And many people happen to think that Myers has a better grasp of reality than the people whose names you dropped.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 11, 2008 2:55 AM
The world has gone mad when people will threaten somebody over a symbol. For you Catholics out there, let me point out that if someone doesn't literally believe that the Host becomes the Body of Christ, then they can't really be guilty of a mortal sin, right? It becomes mortal only to those who are invested in the whole bit.
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 2:55 AM
Ah, you chaps are fun!
Got bullied on the playground a bit in school?
Lead you to embrace these harsh dogmatic, materialistic theories as a coping mechanism for the abandonment in the world?
Or for reasons of superiority to hold above peers who reject you?
Freud would have a field day with you wankers!
So long...
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 11, 2008 2:56 AM
Dobbs @ #779 (lying because the clueless bastard turns up again at #793.)
"So long, you wanker ".
..yeah see you, I'm shedding tears of sadness already, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.
Oh, and take all your other fucking ridiculous identities with you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 2:58 AM
PS - you do know who Freud is, don't you? A "scientist" of great import...
why yes, we do.
He was the one who first recognized the patterns of psychological defense mechanisms that came to be called projection and denial.
something we find associated with religionuts like yourself pretty much 100% of the time.
In fact, you can congratulate yourself, and those like you, for causing a resurgence of interest in what Freud had to say about denial and projection.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 2:59 AM
Okay, I say we all ignore Dobbs, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: JimC | July 11, 2008 3:01 AM
There are no rules it's fabricated BS top to bottom. Grow up.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 3:02 AM
Dobbs, impotent closeted homophobe, wrote:
Why doesn't it surprise me you're far too ignorant to be familiar with the works of Douglas Adams? Oh, that's right - his books don't have pictures. Well, okay, Last Chance to See does, and so does The Deeper Meaning of Liff, but that's different.
Anyway, you talk about Freud as if you're familiar with the name - if you knew anything about what he actually thought or wrote you'd realise the irony, having described someone as 'cock-sucking'.
Posted by: brandon | July 11, 2008 3:03 AM
Dobbs is aware of all philosophical traditions.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 11, 2008 3:04 AM
Dobbs
"Don't go all Freud on me, Wowbagger. (is that the nickname for your mum, btw?)"
..and with that last mature question it is utterly confirmed for me that Dobbs etc is a 15 year old, acne plagued virgin sitting at home on his parents computer trying to play with the big folk becuase he just got dissed in some role playing forum.
Fuck off teenager.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 3:04 AM
Oh, I don't know, gdlchmst. I can't remember the last time we had a good insult about someone's mum on Pharyngula.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 3:04 AM
And you'll know they are Christians by their love. By their love, yes, you'll know they are Christians by their love.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 3:04 AM
Heartening to see how just vaguely doubting or critisizing brings out the best in the religious,the veil of love and tolerance is dropped and the ugly face of intolerance,hate and sheer intellectual dishonesty and ignorance is reveiled.
Gosh,this thread has been a learning curve !! (call me naive lol)
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 3:04 AM
Still here!
Ichthyic writes: "He was the one who first recognized the patterns of psychological defense mechanisms that came to be called projection and denial."
Ah, yes - Totem and Taboo, The Future of an Illusion...
Ichthyic, you sorry sap! I was only toying with you - Freud and the vast majority of his theories were rejected decades ago.
Keep up the promotion of debunked theory, Ichthyic! Doing good work!
HA!
Atheists really are a bit pompous, aren't they? ;)
Posted by: shonny | July 11, 2008 3:04 AM
Wouldn't this address http://www.catholicleague.org/feedback.php be a good place to vent opinions about the moronic vacuity of these cat'lickers?
Btw: Is it a sacrilege to not eat chocolate Easter bunnies at Easter as well? What about Easter eggs?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:06 AM
It becomes mortal only to those who are invested in the whole bit.
the funny thing is, I always thought it was only supposed to be those who, through "training" became "invested in the whole bit" that were supposed to be allowed to have communion to begin with. In fact, back in the bad old days when I was a practicing Lutheran (yes that was over 25 years ago), all the Catholic friends I had specifically told me that while I could visit their services, I could NOT take communion.
So, was that particular church at UCF breaking with CC tradition to allow someone who really wasn't "trained" to take communion to begin with?
...and if they took it so unseriously as to allow an "untrained" individual to take communion, seems they are the ones who should be ripped by Donohue for "taking liberties" with the Eucharist.
with well over 2000 posts on the subject, I'm sure someone has raised this point already?
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 3:09 AM
So, then, Dobbs, can you explain why, as an alleged representative of Jesus Christ, aka "The Prince of Peace," you are going about insulting people and judging people based solely on a malicious and totally untruthful stereotype? I mean, didn't Our Lord, Jesus Christ, admonish His followers repeatedly to "love (their) neighbors"? Or, do you come from such a broken household that making obscene judgments is your idea of "loving (your) neighbors"?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 3:09 AM
"Atheists really are a bit pompous, aren't they?"
It only appears that way to you because you are so ignorant.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 3:10 AM
Must go now. Irony meter broke.
Posted by: CharlieFoxtrot | July 11, 2008 3:10 AM
Great - now we've only got 4 days left to think up and print some Jebus Cracker T-shirts in time to annoy the Godbots at WYD in Sydney...
hmmmm...
"mmmm, Jeesus - have you got any Salsa?"
how about...
"THIS JESUS IS MAKING ME THIRSTY!"
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 3:10 AM
Dobbs,
So you're a liar as well as an impotent, closeted homophobe?
Colour me unsurprised.
Posted by: raiko | July 11, 2008 3:11 AM
I sent my letter of support from the medical faculty of Magdeburg, Germany. It pretty much states in polite words that a "religious agenda vs. free speech"-thing shouldn't have any meaning in judging P.Z. Myer's position at the university.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 3:12 AM
Wait, you're toying with Ichthyic? Ichthyic, you hussy! I thought he was flirting with *me*!
Posted by: ProudTheist | July 11, 2008 3:13 AM
Do you atheist fools ever look in the mirror. You always rant about the right wing Christian conspiracy and religious fundamentalism in the United States just because the vast majority of Americans are not faithless, hopeless, drones like you want them to be. You atheist fundamentalists would gladly try to outlaw religion if you could in the process of creating your socialist government that would be the death of this country.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 3:14 AM
ProudTheist = Dobbs.
Posted by: info_dump | July 11, 2008 3:15 AM
So...
Has anyone else read this entire thread thus far?
Posted by: brandon | July 11, 2008 3:15 AM
Did anyone tell KKKatheist that the KKK was responsible for some of the worst persecutions of Catholics in the U.S.? Or is there some deeper 'gotcha' that I'm missing at 2:23 in the morning?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:16 AM
Ichthyic, you sorry sap! I was only toying with you - Freud and the vast majority of his theories were rejected decades ago.
You need to keep up, if you want to play the informed idiot, dobbsy, from when he first formulate the idea of projection, until today, the concept has been recognized as valid.
'76:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/1322157286-30869079/content~content=a782356885~db=all~order=page
'92
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L3GXX982m8PHMfShGtbJfsJL4PjtrgdCY0Lp5pQtZ1vnQylf5ff4!1329294186?docId=94218723
and since then, there has been MUCH interest in what Freud had to say on the issue.
what you are apparently confused about (among the many things that confuse you), is that Freud's concepts are still utilized and researched today, even if PSYCHOANALYSIS itself is no longer utilized much as a practical approach to psychology.
You'd know that, if you weren't just a fatuous moron.
the study of psychological defense mechanisms still proceeds apace. You could volunteer as a datapoint!
Posted by: Ryan | July 11, 2008 3:17 AM
Getting a bit nasty in here.
Lets all hug and hold hands, forget about this whole ordeal.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 3:19 AM
"You atheist fundamentalists would gladly try to outlaw religion if you could in the process of creating your socialist government that would be the death of this country."
I know I would, but I know that is not the majority view held by my fellow atheists. And FYI, Socialism is like crack, its addicting.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 11, 2008 3:19 AM
Hi, first post here.
Dobbs, none of the intellectual figures you cited earlier put forward any scientific evidence for the God of Abraham or any god for that matter. That's the relevant issue. You can't simply talk the claims of any given religion into existence--there must be some underlying hard evidence. Otherwise it's mere rhetoric and could be used to prop up any outlandish belief.
That's the key issue. The onus is on the believer to demonstrate why the miraculous claims of the Bible should be considered as anything more than folklore. We atheists may simply sit with our arms folded in the meantime.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 3:19 AM
ProudTheist - wow, there's a shock!
Please highlight the post where PZ or anyone else calls for the outlawing of religion or the 'creation' of a socialist government.
No, the majority of Americans are faithful, hopeless drones. That's the problem.
Posted by: andyo | July 11, 2008 3:20 AM
ProudTheist,
We've read and heard what you theist have to say. Most of us have been one of you. You clearly haven't nor want to. You will most probably ignore any argument we "atheists" tell you. You have no regard for evidence, only for authority and scripture, "loyalty" to the tribe and superstition. How the hell do you want us not to be upset that guys like you run the country?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:21 AM
Americans are not faithless, hopeless, drones like you want them to be.
that's a perfect example of projection, since it's the religious that teach people to be drones, and the atheists that teach them to think for themselves.
see?
now, typically, whenever we see the terminally deluded exhibit such remarkable projection, it is followed almost immediately by denial.
expect an obvious form of denial to issue from "Legion" any minute now.
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 3:21 AM
Stanton,
Would you have me explain faith (which you would ridicule and slander off-the-bat) ...... or, alternatively, I could have a little fun and attack you on your particular dogmatic and offensive comments on this thread (which, in turn, offends and "victimizes" you).
You would fault me either way!
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 3:23 AM
I respect the constitution, so I would leave religions alone, but I would more strongly enforce the Establishment Clause. No god stuff in any government or public school.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:23 AM
Lets all hug and hold hands, forget about this whole ordeal.
"Everyone - Back in the pile!"
Posted by: brandon | July 11, 2008 3:24 AM
Ah, so it comes out. It's not the atheism that frightens you so, it's the socialism.
Would you care to explain what the tenets of fundamentalist atheism are? You'll have to couch it in plain language, though. I fear that, as a lazy atheist, I have not reviewed the philosophical passages prerequisite for carrying on in a suitably pompous and elitist manner.
I mean, you do seem to care a great deal about precision in language, so, could you tell us precisely what defines a fundamentalist atheist?
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 3:25 AM
Dobbs, lying impotent closeted homophobe, wrote:
My money's on Stanton. With one rhetorical hand tied behind his (or her) back.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 3:26 AM
Dobbs @838
Don't just say you will explain faith and not actually do it. I can only imagine that it exceeds your verbal capacity.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 3:26 AM
Project, much?Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 3:27 AM
Hey proudtheist/kkk/k8/nyc/dobbs...
please name the Catholic that atheists are trying to get fired for expressing his opinion.
please name the Catholic that atheists are sending death threats to.
Hypocrite asshole moron.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:30 AM
Must go now. Irony meter broke.
Everyone needs to recognize what that really means:
In every instance where an irony meter has exploded because of some demented fuckwit, it has always been because of their near perfect use of projection as their only means of "safe" communication. It's most certainly not because of a deliberate use of irony on the part of creobots (hell, they don't even understand irony or satire to begin with).
seriously, think about every time you have thought about extreme irony exhibited by some fuckwit, and then apply the standard definition of psychological projection.
see?
seriously, it's the single biggest reason why there has been a huge resurgence in interest in psychology with standard psychological defense mechanisms, compartmentalization, and the old concept of "cognitive dissonance".
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 3:30 AM
"if you weren't just a fatuous moron"
Ichy, I am torn to pieces! I thought we were friends....
As for Adamant Atheist, I was not the poster who created the philosophers list; however, I would add Charles Taylor, Philip Rieff, and Alasdair Macintyre.
Don't be such a dogmatic materialist...
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 3:34 AM
What I find the funniest about this whole "body of christ" is,we are not talking about something thats been a given in xtianity throughout the millenia,from the humble beginnings of some dude walking out of Mesopotamia,but something that was decided and decreed at some point(1215 or 477 or whenever,i really dont care),by a committee !!
So here we have people that have enough belief in reality to be able to use their toaster in the morning,or a computer to write hate-mail,but they follow the decree of some medieval committee to the letter,and have been brainwashed enough to treat a piece of starch as the body of their dog !!
*shakes head*
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 3:34 AM
Dobbs, you do not appear to notice that that was my first comment on this thread. In fact, that was my first comment on this blog for several weeks. So, please tell me what previous other "dogmatic and offensive comments" you think I have made on this thread.
Please tell me why you think me, a fellow brother in Christ, would ridicule and slander faith "off-the-bat." If you wish to attack me in order to soothe your own ego, please be my guest. After all, Jesus did extort His followers to offer up the other cheek to those who would attack us.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:34 AM
I thought we were friends....
see?
denial.
and even quicker than I expected.
You need to see a therapist to deal with that huge level of dissonance you are burdened with, Legion.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 3:36 AM
"As for Adamant Atheist, I was not the poster who created the philosophers list; however, I would add Charles Taylor, Philip Rieff, and Alasdair Macintyre."
Funny how we get you guys mixed up, isn't it.
@Ichthyic
Sigh... so much analysis from one sentence. This is why I prefer the natural sciences.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 3:37 AM
I remember the story of Legion. What a horrid waste of good pork.Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 3:39 AM
Ichy,
It is called sarcasm, jackass.
Wow! How did you ever get so pedantic and humor-free? Must be a blast at cocktail parties!
As for Stanton, I was generalizing the tone of atheists on this thread and was not speaking of you directly.
OK - it's late - you guys have fun without me. (good luck!)
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 3:39 AM
I noticed the words "dogmatic" and "materialist" are used only by creationists, for example Dobbs, or whatever he's calling himself at this moment. The christian creationist organization called the Discovery Institute uses the words "dogmatic" and "materialist" in almost every paragraph they write.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 3:43 AM
@BobC
Yeah, them fundamentalists have a very short vocab indeed.
Posted by: raiko | July 11, 2008 3:44 AM
You atheist fundamentalists would gladly try to outlaw religion if you could in the process of creating your socialist government that would be the death of this country.
Wrong. We'd like to keep religion out of rational and political thinking because it isn't rational or tolerant. We'd also like to keep it from impairing other people's rights or threatening their lives, positions or freedom. In fact, a theistic government is a very likely candidate for killing your country - by denying proper research (including such concerning global warming, alternative fuel resources, food improvement, animal and environmental protection, etc.) or wasting research funds on unsubstantiated pseudoscience instead of real medical research - and suppressing the human rights of non-religious people, homosexuals, pregnant women and children. THAT is what kills a country.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 3:47 AM
Then please explain why you were addressing me directly when you were accusing the "tone of atheists on this thread" of instinctively slandering and ridiculing faith.Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 11, 2008 3:48 AM
Dobbs,
Apologies for mixing you two up then. My primary point was that it's not terribly relevant to note that intelligent individuals have devoted a lot of time to discussing religion. None of them ever went an inch towards verifying the underlying claims of any religion.
At any rate, I'm not sure how being skeptical about ancient and current rumors of miracles renders one a "dogmatic materialist." Surely we can agree upon certain parameters for separating fact from fiction. It's why we embrace vaccinations and dismiss astrology. To suggest that we somehow can't weigh in too heavily lest we seem dogmatic, well, strikes me as obfuscation. Is a claim well-supported or not?
As far as Donohue goes, I think this is a perfect example of religious craziness gone wild. He and his church consider a cracker sacred. I don't think it's dogmatic of me to point out that in all observable respects it has no extraordinary characteristics. They have no better reason to suspect otherwise than me, just their credulity and tradition.
And certainly no one deserves to be harmed over such unsubstantiated foolishness.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:49 AM
Sigh... so much analysis from one sentence
it's not just one sentence; I've been noting patterns for years now.
It's always the same with these guys.
always.
little but constant projection, followed by doses of denial.
it really only takes one sentence to recognize it, regardless of the fact that "legion" has posted huge amounts of projection for reference.
There is obviously something underlying the overutlization of psychological defense mechanisms in these people.
This is why I prefer the natural sciences.
oh, I do too, being a behavioral ecologist. doesn't mean I don't immediately recognize the utility of other disciplines. Moreover, pyschology utilizes the scientific method, just like any of the natural sciences.
I am not formulating a hypothesis in an internet thread. However, there are many that have formally addressed this issue in the journals. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass.
You should take a look yourself.
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 3:52 AM
raiko scribbles:
"In fact, a theistic government is a very likely candidate for killing your country"
Funny, I thought atheists such as Pol Pot or Castro or Mao were the perfect candidates for killing your country (literally)
I guess you "free thinkers" can "rationalize" anything...even mass murder in the name of progress.
Really, you people are so blinded by your theories, it is amazing!
Last post, really.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:55 AM
It is called sarcasm, jackass.
sarcasm used as a form of denial, you mean. You avoided addressing the issue pointed out to you.
As for Stanton, I was generalizing the tone of atheists on this thread and was not speaking of you directly.
I'm sure you didn't mean to lie, which means that this is another example of denial on your part.
classic.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 3:57 AM
Here in America we have a secular government and a capitalist economy. That's what works. Communism doesn't work and theocracies don't work.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 3:58 AM
Last post, really.
more denial.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 3:59 AM
So, why haven't you bothered to explain why you originally lumped me in with the rest of the atheists on this thread (several of whom I consider friends) if you never intended to lump me in with the rest of the atheists on this thread, or can you name any actual atheists in America who want to change the laws of the land in order commit mass murder of religious peoples?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 4:05 AM
Ichthyic,
I'm afraid that I am rather lazy and only ever read the psychology papers that generate universal attention. My daily journal reading consists of mainly chemistry. And when I feel particularly brisk, I tackle some physical chemistry.
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 4:05 AM
Listen, Ichy,
Not every one is in the field of behavior ecology / philosophy or theology; however, that does not automatically negate the attempts to point out the fallacies of your particular dogma.
Science cannot not disprove the existence of God - no matter how much you would like it too or how much jargon you throw into it.
Also, I bet you get a bit defensive when defending scientific theory from desconstructionism etc. It is not an unusual response to aggressive attacks on particular forms of knowledge.
And, why exactly are you posting on here in the middle of the night?
Posted by: Lago | July 11, 2008 4:05 AM
""I remember the story of Legion. What a horrid waste of good pork."
OK. now that was funny...
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 4:08 AM
"Funny, I thought atheists such as Pol Pot or Castro or Mao were the perfect candidates for killing your country (literally)"
If you think this, then you obviously don't know your history very well.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 11, 2008 4:13 AM
#868 "If you think this, then you obviously don't know your history very well."
This can't possibly surprise you, though.
Anyway, I guess Dobbs is just a troll. He's too blatantly a petulant asshole. Real True Christians usually try to hide that side of themselves behind self-righteousness and, when they're really irked, divinely inspired death threats.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 4:14 AM
@ No 827(names seem rather interchangeable tonight,i notice)
//You atheist fundamentalists would gladly try to outlaw religion if you could in the process of creating your socialist government that would be the death of this country.//
Im glad to tell you,demented fuckwit,that you and the likes of you will be the end of your country ! Cant wait.
Oh,and btw,what would a socialist(i guess you mean liberal) government do? Give people health insurance? God forbid !!
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 4:15 AM
Animal behavior, eh, Ichy?
It must really bug you that you cannot explain human behavior in complete scientific terms -- I mean it must be very frustrating for you...considering how we are only animals and all.
I can see you try very hard, though, esp. in chat rooms!
Keep at it, buddy, one day I am sure you will have the humans...I mean, monkeys....eating right out of your hand.
Ciao for now.
Posted by: Philip Priestley | July 11, 2008 4:17 AM
Professor Myers, I hope this is Ok, I have sent President Bruininks the below email regarding this fiasco.
I saddens me that you have been threatened so much over something so trivial and it annoys me that people like Bill Donohue persist in making it worse by adding fuel to the growing fire. I support you fully, you have done nothing wrong and this whole sad episode hopefully will show just how ridiculous the claims of the religious are getting.
All the Best!
Philip
Dear Sir
I am sending you this email in support of Professor PZ Myers as a result of the aggressive actions over the Eucharist Wafer fiasco that recently occurred in Florida.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue has called for a massive witch hunt in order to get Professor Myers fired from his position at Minnesota University and I would like to voice my opinion that Mr Donohue's unfounded views be ignored completely.
His main reason for this is "It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ." after a recent article posted by Professor Myers on his blog site in which he joked about what he would do to a wafer, making his point that it is just a wafer and not the Body of Christ as Mr Donohue claims.
Unless Mr Donohue can in fact provide irrefutable evidence that any normal wafer that has supposedly been blessed by a holy man of the Catholic religion then actually becomes the undisputed body of Jesus Christ I suggest that he call of this hunt and leave Professor Myers alone. Whilst Mr Donohue is entitled to his highly improbable claims, so is Professor Myers entitled to voice his opinion on the matter without resorting to hate speech, which I have seen no evidence of so far.
It has also come to my attention that Professor Myers has received hate mail and death threats over this, something which will only be stirred up more by the antics of Mr Donohue if he is allowed to continue provoking such needless behaviour.
I do hope this matter can be sorted out calmly and without any more need to provoke such angry reactions, there is no need for it whatsoever.
Yours Sincerely
Philip Priestley,
Maidenhead, Berkshire, England
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 11, 2008 4:18 AM
Reading Dobbs' posts, it feels like he's gunning for the "Trying WAAAAAY Too Hard" awards or something.
I keep picturing an old, battle-weary boat motor struggling to keep working, throwing up nasty plumes of smoke. It's loud, offensive and well past its usefulness, but you've got admire that stubborn persistence.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 4:18 AM
What particular "dogma" does Ichthyic hold? That "Truth is tantamount," or that "people who are belligerent and rude while demanding respect do not deserve any respect"? So then please demonstrate how Science automatically proves the existence of God if it was never about proving or disproving or even providing a statement about God in the first place. Ichthyic happens to have the habit of getting verbally belligerent when people attack scientific theories or even other people with false accusations, slander, moronic insults, and lies. Please explain why cheerfully accusing people on this thread of being "cock-suckers" is an example of "deconstructionism." Why do you presume that you have the authority to demand why Ichthyic chooses to use his own computer whenever and however he pleases?Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 4:19 AM
Listen, Ichy,
like I said in #863, your wignoff in post in 860 was denial, and you simply couldn't resist proving me correct.
that does not automatically negate the attempts to point out the fallacies of your particular dogma.
actually, yes it does. If your "fallacies" are built on nothing but projection, your arguments are De facto self-defeating, since the fallacies all lie with your own position to begin with.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 4:21 AM
"Oh,and btw,what would a socialist(i guess you mean liberal) government do? Give people health insurance? God forbid !!"
Oh, they could do more than that, redistribution of wealth, deconstruction of existing class structure, and paving the way for true communism, just a few things that socialism aims to do.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 4:25 AM
a) Do you honestly know what sort of animals Ichthyic studies the behaviors of?
b) Why do you insist on posting if you claimed in previous posts that you were going to stop posting? And isn't it rather hypocritical of you to continue posting after you demanded to know why Ichthyic continued posting at this late hour?
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 11, 2008 4:25 AM
Actually, democratic socialism is a fairly tame political philosophy. Socialist parties are basically center-left in many countries. It's definitely unfair to equate that brand of socialism with more rigid Marxist-Leninist, communistic thought.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 4:29 AM
"Actually, democratic socialism is a fairly tame political philosophy. Socialist parties are basically center-left in many countries. It's definitely unfair to equate that brand of socialism with more rigid Marxist-Leninist, communistic thought."
Perhaps, but that is why socialism originally arose.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 4:31 AM
Science cannot not disprove the existence of God
by it's very definition, the concept of God is not formulatable into a testable hypothesis (also the reason "intelligent design" fails), so not only does science not disprove the existence of your God, it does not even need to try.
nor does it need to try to disprove the existence of unicorns, Zuess, or the flying spaghetti monster.
atheism doesn't result from a scientific attempt to disprove any particular deity, but from the obvious lack of any independent evidence for any deities whatsoever, no matter how far back in history one goes.
If you wish to maintain your concept of god arises from "faith", that's fine and dandy. However, you most certainly will be called on to support any notions of an evidentiary nature for your fictional deity.
just like any rational person would do if you claimed unicorns live in your backyard.
your pathetic attempt to equate atheism with science is noted, and it is stupid.
It must really bug you that you cannot explain human behavior in complete scientific terms -- I mean it must be very frustrating for you...considering how we are only animals and all.
actually, it doesn't bug me at all. We haven't fully explained all non-human animal behavior, for that matter. Which, of course, is one of the reasons I went into the field to begin with. Since then, I've learned many wonderful and fantastic things about why animals behave the way they do, and it's taken me to many exotic locales.
some of us are actually interested in learning what is REALLY going on, instead of projecting our fantasies onto reality, like you do.
What have YOU done to try and figure out why animals behave the way they do?
read a "2000" year old book that talks about how you can breed striped animals by placing striped sticks near them when they mate?
uh huh.
what will you tell your kids (we all hope that I'm speaking hypothetically) about why any specific animal behaves the way it does, eh?
or will you assume your progeny will just be happy being as ignorant as yourself?
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 4:34 AM
Stan,
I am going to ignore you....I am not sure if this is the result of denial or projection; however, I am sure Ichy will let me know because I still have a bone to pick with them:
Ichy,
Are you a robot? Artificial intelligence? OR, have you been locked into a Gorilla cage for the past year, recently release, and are now in the process of readjusting (poorly) to human companionship?
Say something vaguely humorous or remotely human to clue me in: project!.....deny!.....anything!
PS - Thanks for the support, I think, OctoberMermaid. Just trying to lighten this dreadful thread up a bit.
Posted by: Deborah | July 11, 2008 4:34 AM
What I e-mailed:
"I read PZ Myer's blog every day. He's the only reason that I even know your institution exists. He is a treasure, and you should cherish him."
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 4:37 AM
Oh, they could do more than that, redistribution of wealth, deconstruction of existing class structure, and paving the way for true communism, just a few things that socialism aims to do.
oh please, lets do leave the rampant oversimplified historical revisionisms of a political nature for a thread more closely related to that topic, eh?
with well over 2000 posts in 3 threads, there is obviously quite enough material already to generate sufficient debate with just the topic of catholicism/religion alone.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 4:40 AM
I am going to ignore you....I am not sure if this is the result of denial or projection;
denial.
Are you a robot? Artificial intelligence? OR, have you been locked into a Gorilla cage for the past year, recently release, and are now in the process of readjusting (poorly) to human companionship?
that's projection.
Just trying to lighten this dreadful thread up a bit.
that's denial.
clear now?
Posted by: SC | July 11, 2008 4:42 AM
And, why exactly are you posting on here in the middle of the night?
Yeah. Don't you have some, y'know, serious reading to do ;)?
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 4:43 AM
"what will you tell your kids (we all hope that I'm speaking hypothetically) about why any specific animal behaves the way it does, eh?"
Hold it right there, Ichy...
I am Catholic; not a Bible-thumping, gun-toting red-neck.
I adhere to evolution et al. and will use scientific theory to explain the natural world to my future progeny (I'm only 23).
I think the scientists of the Templeton Prize do a nice job - recently Charles Taylor and Michael Heller - of exploring the confluence of social science / physical science and religion.
http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html
Posted by: Dave Child | July 11, 2008 4:43 AM
Email sent from a UK reader.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 4:43 AM
"oh please, lets do leave the rampant oversimplified historical revisionisms of a political nature for a thread more closely related to that topic, eh?"
Aw, but oversimplifying history is so much fun.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 4:44 AM
Yeah. Don't you have some, y'know, serious reading to do ;)?
nag, nag, nag.
;)
I started today, btw. why do you think I started posting so late?
Posted by: Dave Child | July 11, 2008 4:45 AM
Email sent from a UK reader.
Posted by: Darwin's Minion | July 11, 2008 4:46 AM
Dear Dave Mueller:
"I will just say this. Those of you who really WANT to know if there is a God, just ask Him. Try the unbelievers prayer. "God, if you exist, make yourself known to me" "
You know, I did that. Back when I was one of those innocent, bright-eyed little children your god and son-of-god are allegedly so fond of. I wanted to believe in God, and Jesus, and all that jazz, with all my heart. But I never got anything back. Nothing. Zero. Not even a faint warm glow. Which is why I became an atheist at a very early age - after two or three years of praying and believing and trying my best, I felt a bit stupid for trying to convince myself to believe in something that just wasn't there.
Also, dear Christian apologist, plz don't tell me that
a) I just didn't get it, because God was too subtle/mysterious/whatever - if God can't make himself known to a little girl in a way she can understand, then he just ain't all that good at his job
b) I should seek him out again now - sorry, if he wants me to belive, he can come around and smack me up my atheist head. He's supposedly frackin' omnipotent, after all. Besides, it's his turn now.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 4:48 AM
Maybe it's because I've been civil towards you, and that you fear that attacking me will somehow reveal you to be a hypocrite, as well as the fact that you are wholly incapable of responding to any of the questions I've raised.
Whereas Ichthyic presents a more tempting target for your slander and bigotry simply because he refuses to treat you civilly because you are physically incapable of earning civil treatment.
Posted by: David Weinehall | July 11, 2008 4:49 AM
Now, since transubstantiation is needed to turn the wafer into a piece of Christ, and since it's obviously not transmutation we're dealing with here (since it can easily be proven that the wafer is a 1:1 physical match with a non-consecrated wafer), it must logically (yeah, I know, logic goes out of the window when religion enters, but bear with me here...) follow that the difference between a consecrated and a non-consecrated wafer is that of a modified metaphysical attribute (or, in other words, the presence of a divine component).
Now, catholics, like so many other religious people, believe that their god is omnipotent.
Furthermore, god has to be involved in the transubstantiation, and the ceremony performed by the priest can be no more than a way to call upon god's attention (doesn't the bible say that in god's hands alone lies the divine powers? It'd be pretty weird if priests could turn things into the body of Christ without divine involvement...)
Now, since god is involved in the transubstantiation, and since god is omnipotent, and since god no doubt would be quite upset to see Christ once more desecrated (once, on the cross, was quite enough, thank you very much!), it stands to reason (ok, ok, where religion goes in, reason goes out, but still) that the wafer & wine would remain nothing but such unless consumed by a true believer, in the intended way, during the eucharism ceremony.
The wafer is just a wafer. The wine is just wine. The thing that transubstantiates it is a combination of ceremony (to summon god), belief (to prove that the person taking eucharism is deserving) and a divine act (god actually adding the divine component). Thus, no part of the holy corpus can ever be held "ransom", because it'd either take a non-believer (or a believer that for some reason decides to blaspheme on purpose) AND a mistake from god (who is supposed to be infallible) to allow this to happen.
Now I'd love to hear Donohue admit that his lord has made a mistake, yet this is what he's indirectly admitting.
Of course, I'm probably missing something; I expect that religion provides some nice means allowing god to make mistakes and still be infallible, or similar.
I can understand if the catholics are upset that people don't respect their religious ceremonies and beliefs. What I cannot understand is how they can question their own beliefs in this way. And most of all, I cannot see how they can possibly take upon themselves to make judgement, when their bible says that god alone is to pass judgement (and no matter was Donohue himself believes, I doubt that he's the god that the bible talks about...)
Posted by: SC | July 11, 2008 4:51 AM
I started today, btw. why do you think I started posting so late?
Oh, no! I was afraid that was the reason! My apologies to all involved - you're needed here :).
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 4:52 AM
So then why do you talk like a Bible-thumping, gun-toting red-neck?You think that your future progeny will be proud of a man whose greatest accomplishment is accusing atheists he never met of being cock-suckers?
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 4:54 AM
Ichy,
I am feeling a bit constrained with just projection and denial...
Do the monkeys receive a more expansive form of analysis?
Just kidding of course - you know me denial, denial, denial!
It has been fun and somewhat edifying; the Professor is jerk but you guys are OK in my book!
Adios
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 4:55 AM
I think the scientists of the Templeton Prize do a nice job
LOL
and why did you chose to highlight a well know funder of studies regarding things like the efficacy of intercessionary prayer, pray tell?
you're transparent like glass, moron.
oh, btw, did you know that the Templeton Foundation's own funded studies admittedly (by them) don't support that intercessionary prayer has any positive value whatsoever? In fact, in the latest study done on surgical patients a couple years back, it actually had a significantly NEGATIVE impact on healing time, if the patient knew they were being prayed for?
what?
you mean you haven't ever bothered to read their annual research summaries?
for shame.
here, let me help you out; go to the Templeton Foundation site, and search on:
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)
have fun.
after that, I wonder if you will still reference what the templeton foundation has to say?
I am Catholic; not a Bible-thumping, gun-toting red-neck.
what makes you think those have to be mutually exclusive?
Posted by: Jérôme ^ | July 11, 2008 4:56 AM
I suggest that, to make this more pleasant for PZ's Boss, the Pharyngulists who send paper mail actually send it on a nice postcard from wherever they are. At least, he may use those as wall decorations, and it will make him nice souvenirs that he can keep. Plus, this may become some way to show how geographically wide PZ's support base is.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 4:56 AM
Do the monkeys receive a more expansive form of analysis?
in fact, they do.
which should tell you something.
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 4:56 AM
You too, Stan!
Posted by: JG | July 11, 2008 4:57 AM
Hey PZ,
Email sent. Don't sweat it, we're all behind you on this.
And people : Don't feed the trolls! They never learn anyways, and you end up cluttering the thread with insults and such.
I presume its not quite the kind discussion you would like to see take place on Pharyngula. (Just apart from the fact its hardly worth your time composing an answer to someone as unfamiliar with civil conversation as 'Dobbs')
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 4:58 AM
Ichy - you really need to get better at picking up what I'm laying down here.
HUMOR!
Posted by: Michael | July 11, 2008 4:59 AM
You, Professor Myers are a damned fool. You are publicly advocating what one of the major world religions considers an act of sacrilege. All that a creationist need now do is point to these abysmally juvenile antics as evidence that adherence to evolutionary science is not based on cool, objective reasons, but on the fact that its most vocal adherents are deeply irrational, bigoted, raving atheists.
PZ has a pattern of "juvenile antics" which was also seen when he got Ken Ham's attention. Didn't get as much attention with that outburst as he has with this most recent one. I'm beginning to think PZ does these antics to stir up emotions in order to get more attention. The response is enormous, something he would have never gotten if he was being professional about his views. It's interesting to note, PZ loves to say "Merry Christmas" and celebrate the holiday every year. Christmas of course comes from these two words "Christ's Mass" which he has recently insulted without any biblical foundation, without any maturity, and it makes him look pretty bad to most of the world, except the choir in here.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 4:59 AM
Because he's assuming that all red-necks are either Protestants or Calvinists.Posted by: SteveN | July 11, 2008 5:00 AM
I, too, have sent an email and will send the same by snail mail, although as it's coming from Germany, the latter may take a while to arrive.
------------------------------
Dear President Bruininks
I am sure that you are being inundated with messages such as the one I am now writing and I apologize for adding to the problem. However, I feel compelled, for the first time in my life, to write a letter of support for a fellow academic and biologist with whom I have no personal acquaintance. Although I realize that Prof. Myers career is not under threat and assume that you have no intention of reprimanding him in any way, I do feel strongly that it is imperative for you and your office to be seen to clearly and absolutely support Prof. Myers in this matter.
In my opinion, the release of an 'apology over this unfortunate affair' will play directly into the hands of the irrational and anti-scientific forces that wish to impose their standards and beliefs on all others. What is at stake here is not just the public perception of your University (a perception, I may add, that has been dramatically enhanced internationally by Prof. Myers), but also the general principles of free speech and free inquiry in academia. Supporting Prof. Myers in this matter will send an unequivocal message that we will not be gagged and persecuted by those who feel their precious but unfounded beliefs have been insulted by trivial events such as that which sparked this episode.
Please take this opportunity to make a stand against the substantial forces of ignorance and irrationality. You will be loudly and publicly applauded by many thousands of fellow scientists, academics and other rational thinkers throughout the USA and the rest of the world if you do.
Yours sincerely,
-------------------------
Nothing special I know, but it might help.
SteveN
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 5:01 AM
Because he's assuming that all red-necks are either Protestants or Calvinists.
where's Heddle when you actually need him?
Posted by: bad Jim | July 11, 2008 5:03 AM
Michael, you really need to look into the origins of our Christmas celebrations. Here's a hint: the English puritans forbade them, considering them pagan. Some of us heathens even call the holiday Yule (or Jul).
I'll mail my missive on the morn.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 5:04 AM
So please explain why we are supposed to think that making obscene accusations against atheists, such as them being cock-suckers or mass-murderers, is supposed to be humorous.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 5:05 AM
Ichy - you really need to get better at picking up what I'm laying down here.
HUMOR!
there's that denial again.
unless someone else thinks anything you posted had some form of intentional humor in it?
anyone?
now let's be clear, just because you make us laugh AT you, doesn't mean that what you posted was recognizable as deliberate humor.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 11, 2008 5:05 AM
Michael,
Juvenile antics? What could be more juvenile than pretending to consume a dead legendary figure?
Actually, juvenile isn't quite right. It's utterly bizarre and creepy.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 11, 2008 5:05 AM
"You, Professor Myers are a damned fool. You are publicly advocating what one of the major world religions considers an act of sacrilege."
You mean, publishing a caricature of Muhammad in a newspaper? But we're all advocating this, right? Don't you?
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 5:06 AM
Evangelicals, actually.
Looks my brand of humor is lost on you monkey-lovers (talking to you Ichy)...
Are all atheists so dry????
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 11, 2008 5:06 AM
I wrote to the President in support, saying that "I understand that there is a campaign to silence your university's vocal critic of irrational behaviour in public life. Dr Myers was recently critical of death threats, made by Catholics, to a man over an item of religious symbolism. He has since been the subject of further death threats.
I trust that you will support freedom of expression."
Good luck, PZ.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 5:09 AM
I'm beginning to think PZ does these antics to stir up emotions in order to get more attention.
you're close, but you missed it there at the end.
He does it in order to DRAW more attention onto a subject, not to himself.
that he gets more attention because of it is actually not the issue, nor, would I think, does he actually WANT the death threats, calls from the university, constant barrages of hate mail, etc.
it's just part of the job of moving the Overton Window.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 5:10 AM
Looks my brand of humor is lost on you monkey-lovers (talking to you Ichy)...
actually, what do you think my handle refers to?
hint: it ain't monkeys, clownboy.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 5:12 AM
Dobbs' brand of humor consists mainly of whining about people not getting his brand of humor. Okay, that is funny.
It's late so I will wish you all good night.
Posted by: Dobbs | July 11, 2008 5:16 AM
A fishmonger- never would have guessed.
No wonder you are such a defender of this PZ Myers fool...you are his lab stooge!
Well, better find a new clown-fish to study as this is going to be belly up in the unemployment line pretty soon...
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 11, 2008 5:16 AM
1. It takes some level of insanity for a modern educated, otherwise free person to believe in the cracker to real Jesus thing. Not even all other devote Xians sects can buy into that one. It is a belief that merits active correction by the forces for reason (e.g. qualified science professors) for sure.
2. Knowing a lot of Catholics (at least around these parts) and having been one myself, my judgment is that most believe in the ritual as a symbol of their faith (this makes me Catholic) as opposed to "this IS the body and blood of Christ." There is a vast difference - the former a social meme, the latter a somewhat insane delusion.
3. There are many reasons people identify as Catholic (of various sorts RRC, GOC, etc.) and a lot has to do with cultural identity. It is part of "being Greek" or "being Italian", etc. We are talking "roots" for people, "roots" are important and deep in people, and one must gently manipulate roots else unintended harm can ensue.
4. Immature histrionics to show how crazy a crazy belief is are counterproductive. We are dealing with people's cultural roots. There are a host (pun intended) of ways to make the point that the belief is irrational without purposely and willfully offending people for the obvious sake of offending said people; even people that just buy into the symbol of it all and not the transformation will backlash, what is the point of making fervent people who are not. I wish PZ sometimes would be more "Englishman-like" I guess, if you get my drift.
5. HOWEVER I support PZ's right to protest; I wouldn't flag-burn - think it obscures the point and minimizes the effectiveness of the protester. But I defend with my $$'s a protester's right to flag-burn. PZ wants to flag-burn - he has the right. That as a fan I wish he'd be more professorial sometimes in his tone is immaterial.
Posted by: gleaner63 | July 11, 2008 5:18 AM
Ichthic at #914:
I diagree with you that PZ actually doesn't want the attention, either good or bad. When you talk to, or about, people or issues the way he does, why does he expect anything less than the worse verbal abuse one can imagine? To me, it reminds me of a bully or a 7 year-old. It is interesting I think, that I had never heard of PZ, and probably wouldn't have, were it not for his over the top rants. He's the reverend Wright of biology. For the record, though, I don't think he should be fired, nor do I endorse any of the hate mail he's getting; that is equally wrong.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 5:20 AM
Gee,this Dobbs fellow is a few cans short of a sixpack,isnt he,monkeys,fish,its all too confusing....
The freaks we have attracted here today,unbelievable !
Posted by: Shiva | July 11, 2008 5:20 AM
Haha, this is outrageous, yet laughable!
Since I'm in Norway, the snail mail will take forever, so I'll send an e-mail to the president in support.
peace
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 5:21 AM
"Oh, they could do more than that, redistribution of wealth, deconstruction of existing class structure"
You say that like these are bad things.
Posted by: Aatish | July 11, 2008 5:21 AM
Here's my letter:
Dear President Bruininks,
I wanted to take a moment and show my support for Prof. PZ Myers. I think that this is particularly important in light of the recent controversy between Prof. Myers and Bill Donohue, so that the university is aware of the outstanding public services performed by Prof. Myers.
I have been reading his personal blog on a regular basis for a few years now. In that time I have found it to be an invaluable resource in the following ways:
- for learning about exciting developments and peer reviewed research in the field of evolutionary biology
- for providing a tireless and well-informed voice of reason and skepticism to counter the numerous pseudo-scientific claims and propaganda put forward by various groups with political agendas that are often divorced from reality
- for providing a voice for the politically disorganized and discriminated minority of americans who are atheists, a cause which resonates deeply with me on a personal level.
Above all, I am most grateful to Prof. Myers for courageously and uncompromisingly telling the truth, and for always siding with the facts even when confronted with threats to his safety. In my opinion, we need many more such critics who are not afraid to speak the truth in the face of opponents who stoop to intimidation, slander and political aggression. He has my admiration as an honest scientist, a superb communicator and as a brave and rational human being.
By taking action against PZ Myers with regard to the content of his personal blog, the University of Minnesota would be simultaneously impinging on his right to reasonable free speech, and capitulating to irrational bigotry.
Regards,
Aatish Bhatia
Physics graduate student
Rutgers University
Posted by: SEF | July 11, 2008 5:21 AM
I.e.: Don't look at the man behind the curtain(!), the one holding the frame; look at the window and at the view through it.Posted by: Stephen Couchman | July 11, 2008 5:24 AM
Sastra @ 200 wrote,
"You are worthy of better beliefs."
That's poetry; you are SO quote-mined.
Posted by: j | July 11, 2008 5:29 AM
Dear President Bruininks
Prof. PZ Myers is a very good teacher and his blog does a lot popularize science.
While personally I shall never piss on the Koran or desecrate sacred relics, this PC thing can go way too far and soon we may be made feel guilty for eating a steak of a holy cow.
Please dont brand Prof. Myers with a white hot iron as civilized Europeans used to do in the Middle Age.
Posted by: SEF | July 11, 2008 5:31 AM
Risky - ie if their definition of cherishing treasures includes locking them up in small boxes and placing those somewhere which can only be visited by priests. ;-)Posted by: sysboy | July 11, 2008 5:34 AM
Is there not someone we can complain to on the catholic side? Can we not get this Donahue guy excommunicated for spreading violence?
There must be some channel within the catholic church for bringing the church into disrepute.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 5:35 AM
When you talk to, or about, people or issues the way he does, why does he expect anything less than the worse verbal abuse one can imagine?
have you ever considered, for even the tiniest second, that it was the verbal abuse (and physical threats) over something so patently ludicrous that he intended to call attention to?
no?
hmm, maybe SEF (#924) said it in a way that would seem clearer to you?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 5:41 AM
A fishmonger- never would have guessed.
no, you wouldn't have (since I had to tell you). Moreover, by definition a fishmonger sells fish. I study them.
No wonder you are such a defender of this PZ Myers fool...you are his lab stooge!
I see, because of course there is only one lab in the world that works on fish.
Well, better find a new clown-fish to study as this is going to be belly up in the unemployment line pretty soon...
Do you know what tenure means?
Care to place a wager on whether or not this "incident" will lead to PZ's termination?
How's 20.00 sound?
oh, wait, was this all an attempt at more humor by you, Mr. assclown?
Posted by: bad Jim | July 11, 2008 5:46 AM
Ichthyic, I'm sure you were joking about Heddle, but he's actually been hanging out at Evolution blog, arguing the impossibility of infinity. It isn't pretty.
You wouldn't think that someone with a modern education could be stuck in classical Greek ignorance ... but then you'd expect them to have moved beyond their household gods.
I have to admit that I revere my coffee-maker, though.
Posted by: Dana Hunter | July 11, 2008 5:56 AM
Of course I will, PZ!
Posted by: Mojo | July 11, 2008 5:56 AM
Chris P: "We have stood by too long suffering under the harm that religions have done interfering with the state of the planet. Believing that their god will fix everything including overpopulation."
They're working on the overpopulation thing by telling people that condoms won't prevent HIV infection.
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | July 11, 2008 6:00 AM
Perhaps a little late, but I've sent this email:
__________________________________
Dear President Bruininks,
I have watched with increasing incredulity the past few day's furore over blog comments made by a Professor at your university, Paul Z. Myers. These comments, while provocative and perhaps uncongenial to those of a religious persuasion (as the Professor's excellent blog often is), served to illustrate an important issue - the need for free speech. This is an increasing problem in a world in which religions have the rather disturbing ability to consor all criticism, citing 'offense' and in this case the bizarre accusation of a 'hate crime' on the part of Professor Myers.
The comments made by Professor Myers were in no way inciting hate or indeed any illegal action at all on the part of his blog readership. They were, as far as I understood, an attempt to characterise the absurdity of the response of some parts of the Catholic community to the 'desecration' of what is, by all accounts, a small piece of wafer. While this may be offensive to Catholics, it in no way gives them a mandate for the voluminous amount of hate mail and death threats Professor Myers has now received, or indeed a mandate to ask the University of Minnesota, Morris to take any action - for in what strange, twisted version of reality are threats made to the Professor's person less important than 'threats' made to a wafer?
By acting on, or even acknowledging, the complaint of Bill Donohue's fundamentalist 'Catholic League', you will be striking free speech a blow by interfering with the personal opinions of one of your staff; you will be encouraging religious bigots to complain all the more shrilly when their delicate sensibilities are offended; you will be succumbing to the request of an organisation (The Catholic League) which seems to live in the time of the Spanish Inquisition and is notorious for its ludicrous, hysterical and absolutely insignificant grievances; and you will be taking a stand against a Professor who, among many other things, and in addition to his work at your University, does an enormous public service by publishing witty, entertaining, and above all educational content about science on the internet. Any of these outcomes would be tragic, and could all have further unfortunate implications and consequences for free speech in America.
I therefore urge you to ignore the complaint and let this rather ridiculous and unfortunate issue end here and now.
Warm regards,
Stuart James Ritchie
Edinburgh, Scotland
__________________________________
All the best, PZ. Don't let these people get you down.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | July 11, 2008 6:01 AM
Wowbagger @656 (and others),
To save yourselves future embarrassment, and to better appreciate the spirit of the comment you referenced, you should perhaps read up on the difference between a brownCOAT and a brownSHIRT.
Surprisingly, I'm fine with the invocation of a Reductio ad Hitlerum where the CL is concerned.
Posted by: catta | July 11, 2008 6:02 AM
Funny, I don't recall Tom Lehrer receiving death threats for this.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 11, 2008 6:02 AM
There are ethical considerations we could explore here. Are we missing the broader point all this raises? I'd like a secular rationally based credentialed ethicist to look at the cracker scenarios and render an opinions. I am not qualified but as a layman I'd say that the scenarios of this can really give students of ethics a lot to work with.
- judging the value of another's property (must one consider intangibles ethically?)
- advocating something possibly unethical (e.g. stealing - when is it ethical to advocate the otherwise unethical?)
- offending people for sake of offending them (when is that ethical?)
- how do you judge these things - what is the ethical framework?
- etc.
Seriously ... this could be a broader object lesson for us all if we think about it abstractly. I am not making a value-judgment within this post; it poses questions in my head; I would like some thoughts of others (all) and experts more than welcome - on the broader ethical implications of the "cracker scenarios" (original and PZ's proposed).
Maybe it is all trivial 101 ethics and I am sadly ignorant, but I don't mind having my own ignorance eliminated even if I am made to seem unsophisticated. Thanks.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 6:02 AM
Ichthyic, I'm sure you were joking about Heddle
yes, in case that actually needed to be pointed out.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 6:07 AM
Is there not someone we can complain to on the catholic side?
Good question.
Posted by: Dr Strangelove | July 11, 2008 6:10 AM
Even after we have told them that their beliefs are ridiculous and why they are, why do theists don't understand what we're saying? Why are they the ones calling us stupid? How many times do we have to show them before they understand?
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | July 11, 2008 6:12 AM
One more thing: watch the video here to see how absolutely vile Bill Donohue is.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/31/the-daily-donohue-rantings-of-a-lunatic-bully-over-a-chocolate-jesus/
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 6:17 AM
why do theists don't understand what we're saying?
denial.
Why are they the ones calling us stupid?
projection.
How many times do we have to show them before they understand?
we don't present evidentiary argument for THEIR understanding; it's for the ones that haven't yet swallowed the kool-aid.
Without literal deprogramming, the kind of people you are referring to will never be ABLE to comprehend (or let themselves comprehend) what we are telling them.
don't get your knickers in a twist about it, just keep presenting the same arguments, publicly, for OTHERS to take note of that haven't gone so far down the rabbit hole.
every once in a while, a lurker will thank you for it.
Posted by: Vincent Carroll | July 11, 2008 6:17 AM
Dear President Bruininks,
I write to add my voice of support for Professor PZ Myers in the face of the campaign launched against him by the Catholic League in regard to his holding and strongly expressing an opinion with which they do not agree.
As you are no doubt very aware, the right to a free opinion is of major importance to western society and is to a large extent what helps separate us from a far darker period of history. Even if that opinion offends or otherwise hurts some groups feelings.
Prof Myers is an internationally renowned champion of the cause of rationality and enlightenment. Something which is of extreme value in the world these days. While I have no animosity towards the Catholic League or Christians in general (merely strong disagreement), I feel that this campaign is inappropriate and that to take punitive action against him in this regard would be a sadindictment of your institution.
Thank you for your attention.
Vincent Carroll
Johannesburg, South-Africa
Posted by: MissPrism | July 11, 2008 6:19 AM
This had to happen sooner or later. In fact, I'd bet a beer or two that the Catholc League have been following your blog for months waiting for something spicy enough to kick off about.
I've sent my email of support (real name, of course). Best wishes for you and your family - this nonsense must be extremely stressful.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | July 11, 2008 6:20 AM
Bah. Missed #648 the first time through. Sincere apologies, Wowbagger et al, for rebuking you without a full grip on the context.
Posted by: Carlie | July 11, 2008 6:21 AM
Sent mine as well!
Posted by: Rogier van Gulpen | July 11, 2008 6:31 AM
I've written in:
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing in defense of P.Z. Myers regarding the controversy with certain Catholics and others of similar persuasion in the matter of communion wafers (crackers). I'd like to make several points in this email.
The first point I'd like to make is on the nature of P.Z. Myers work itself. He is one of the most inspiring bloggers I know and he shows an incredible passion for his subject with eloquence and humour. His passion leads him to confront his adversaries in the intellectual debate with vigour and little diplomacy. It is clear though, that his adversaries commonly show a lack of will to look at themselves or their ideas critically. This way they make it difficult to have a constructive debate. The most obvious way to expose their ways is by confronting them publicly; this is not merely politics, it is taking the scientific debate outside the academic circles. P.Z. Myers is a man that wants to educate not only his students, but also the general public, and I can imagine nothing wrong with that.
The second point I'd like to make is concerned with ethics. Is it appropriate for scientists to apply their own morals to society? As a university president there should be only one answer available to you. The scientific morals of inquisitiveness, democracy, openness to criticism and the obligation to add arguments to (extraordinary) claims are values that have improved society and will continue to do so when applied. P.Z. Myers is one of the most forward exponents of this kind of morality.
My third point concerns the nature of the controversy that has motivated so many to send you an email. He confronts a dogma, accepted by a small minority of society, and has throughout history caused so much friction that it is an obligation of any rational human being to criticise and investigate the origin of this dogma. The case of accepting the consecration of the host as a representation of the body of Christ is theologically controversial, and argumentative and scientific nonsense.
My fourth point concerns the venomous attack of the Catholic League on first the culprit, probably with a student prank in mind, and later directed at his defender. Calling a prank a hate crime is absurd even when it is directed at a religious sacrament. Calling for the sacking of a biology professor for standing up for reason is past absurd, it is hateful, deceitful and despicable in every way. Not P.Z. Myers should be punished for his role in the controversy, but Bill Donahue should be publicly humiliated for his arrogance and intolerance.
My fifth point I'd like to make has to do with the most controversial part of Myers blog post. Myer's call to send him consecrated communion wafers with the intention of desecrating them is controversial, undiplomatic and definitely not a call for peace. However, should one offer peace to dogmatic bigots who viciously attack a student or is a counterattack more appropriate. This to me is an open question and easy to argue either way. A call to reason however should never be the cause for termination of employment at a university, the temple of reason.
I'd like to end by referring to an equally controversial and outspoken Dutch opinion maker, Theo van Gogh. Intellectual attempts to silence him were frequent, unsuccessful and generally unwanted. He confronted dogma unscrupulously and even more undiplomatic then P.Z. Myers. His definitive silencing has traumatised the Dutch people, but above all made people afraid to speak out publicly. If you fire professor Myers for speaking his mind you are jointly responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear among academics to speak out on controversial subjects.
I implore you to take sides in favor of your distinguished employee and speak out in favour of reason and against dogma.
Sincerely,
Rogier van Gulpen
Leiden, The Netherlands
Posted by: Firecracker! | July 11, 2008 6:32 AM
I didn't know William Donohue was a cracker. He sounds like he's a Yankee from Boston.
Thomas Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."
See the Jefferson Bible. He took a scissors to it years ago.
Here is what some of our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity (Yes, all these quotes are legit and from an article written by Dean Worbois about 15 years ago):
Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -- Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again: "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
More Jefferson: "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
John Adams: "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
Also Adams: "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Here's Thomas Paine: "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." "Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." "Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance." And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
Finally let's hear from James Madison: "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Roman Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England." -- An Essay on Toleration
These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Happy Independence Day, You Yankee Crackers!
Posted by: Vaal | July 11, 2008 6:34 AM
I should think the University email server is probably on its last legs by now! :-)
However, I think we should be addressing emails and letters to the bigoted Bill Donohue and his fascist cohorts in answer to his Salem witch hunt. Lets put the spotlight on him. How about being up as the "Worst person in the World" just as the backlash against Rep Monique Davis after her bigoted attack as a judge against an atheist in a courtroom was raised world-wide.
Another huge own goal by the deluded, although they are far too stupid to realise it.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 11, 2008 6:34 AM
So according to the Catholic beliefs, the student who didn't eat the wafer can be expected to be tortured in hell for the next several trillion years. - BobC
BLASPHEMER!!! The torment is eternal!!! After several trillion years it won't even have started!!! The God of justice and mercy will keep him screaming in unbearable agony FOR EVER!!! With all the virtuous and godly Christians looking down and laughing, rejoicing in his EXCRUCIATING PAIN!!!!!
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 6:35 AM
- offending people for sake of offending them (when is that ethical?)
When they are threatening to kill you because somebody didn't want to eat a cracker.
When they are attacking science education.
When they are lying to children about science.
When they are flying airplanes into buildings.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 6:41 AM
Right. Eternal is a lot longer than a few trillion years. The Christians never stop to think about why not eating a cracker really doesn't deserve eternal torture. Of course Christians rarely think about anything, perhaps because thinking is a mortal sin.
Posted by: Dave | July 11, 2008 6:43 AM
Hi. Longtime listener, first time caller. I just sent this e-mail to President Bruininks:
"Dear President Bruininks,
My name is Dave Flynn and I live in Ireland. I write to you in support of Professor Myers in the wake of the extremely heavy-handed tactics currently being employed by Bill Donahue, the Catholic League and others in response to a recent post on Prof. Myers' blog.
The outcry that followed both the initial incident at a church in Florida and Prof. Myers' reaction to the incident has been totally out of proportion, to the point that people have been issuing death threats against Prof. Myers and Webster Cook.
I find this ridiculous, pathetic and worrisome. However, I wish it to be known that I agree with what Prof. Myers wrote, and I find it encouraging that many others do too. I hope that the University of Minnesota will not be bullied into taking any action against him as per the wishes of a small group of narrow-minded individuals.
I am happy to be publicly identified as a supporter of Professor Myers.
Yours sincerely,
Dave Flynn."
More formal than I'm used to, but I think it does the job.
Keep up the good work, PZ!
Posted by: Kilo | July 11, 2008 6:44 AM
So, you saw someone get death threats for dessecrating a religious icon, so you decided to tell the world you wanted to do that, but worse, and now you getting death threats is somehow notable. I'd ask how, but I really don't care.
I've gotta say, you getting shot now wouldn't surprise me. I don't think it's likely, but if it happens nobody gets to claim it comes as a surprise. Clearly you intentionally pursued that outcome.
And what a noble cause you've chosen to put your life on the line for, the promotion of a blog. Outstanding work.
ps. I don't give a toss about religion, Catholics or you. This is practically the same thing I told some fat redneck blogger a couple of years ago who got a fatwah on him for using copies of the Quran for shooting practice.
I can't see a difference. Well apart from the fact that you should probably be intelligent enough to know why it's called a "Darwin Award" and what makes them funny. Yet here we are.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 6:51 AM
I can't see a difference.
because there really isn't any at the level you are looking at it.
OTOH, if someone doesn't stand up to the fucking idiots who will try to murder someone because they can't handle that their personal idiocy is ludicrous, THEN we deserve what we get, right?
IOW, you, being a fucking shortsighted chickenshit, deserve a world ruled by people who will want to shoot you for driving the wrong color car.
Yes, here we are. What are YOU doing to try to get us OUT of "here"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 6:56 AM
And what a noble cause you've chosen to put your life on the line for, the promotion of a blog. Outstanding work.
sorry, I missed that part that identifies you as a complete moron for thinking this is about a blog.
my mistake.
enough.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 6:59 AM
Please respect my beliefs.
Do you respect my belief that you're an idiot and a hypocrite?
Posted by: Polly | July 11, 2008 7:01 AM
And what a noble cause you've chosen to put your life on the line for, the promotion of a blog. Outstanding work.
Put your life on the line for a cracker!
Posted by: Stefaan Hublou | July 11, 2008 7:03 AM
Hello sir,
I have done my share after reading your letter in the Richard Dawkins website.
This is the letter I have sebt:
Leuven, Belgium, 11 July 2008
To R. Bruininks, president of University of Minnesota
Via e-mail
PZ Meyer and the need of a friendly open culture of debate
Dear Sir,
I hope you and your University are doing fine; I just read some less good news on the Richard Dawkins website.
I am Stefaan Christopher Hublou, historian living in the university town of Leuven, Belgium and I would like to offer my personal support to dr. PZ Meyers, whom I heard is being threatened by certain ideological extremists recently.
I am an amateur biologist myself fond of reading the books of Charles Darwin, and feeling very close to his Mind that was always on the outlook for deeper truths. My formation as a historian has endowed me with respect for the stance made by the philosopher A. N. Whitehead: "Faithfulness to the actual images of God is always service to Idols".
And that is my view while I pray daily, fervently, and while I am in regular contact with church leaders over the debate Science-Religion that is so topical all over the world these days. In my opinion, Evolution theory can and will help to purify the image of the Creator, the Mystery that carries everything, just as the historical-literary approach of Bible texts has done so since the sixteenth-seventeenth century.
Thank you for your attention and for your understanding of the position of PZ Meyer.
Yours truly,
Stefaan Hublou
Posted by: Father Nelson | July 11, 2008 7:06 AM
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
John Adams
The Papists and catamites should go after John Adams. Boycott HBO! Hey! How did that boycott of Maher go? He's still on the air, right?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 7:07 AM
I don't think it's likely, but if it happens nobody gets to claim it comes as a surprise.
It seems that you don't quite grasp the concepts of "likely" and "surprise". Here's a hint: likely events aren't surprising.
And then there's the rather disgusting undertone of schadenfreude here.
I can't see a difference.
Not surprising for someone dumb.
Well apart from the fact that you should probably be intelligent enough to know why it's called a "Darwin Award" and what makes them funny.
It's a misnomer, fool.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 11, 2008 7:07 AM
This whole notion that somehow he asked for it is pretty disgusting. It diverts attention from the main problem here--insane, unjustified belief in the sacredness of certain crackers. Blame the delusional nonsense, not P.Z.'s audacity in challenging it.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 7:07 AM
Jesus. This is getting out of hand, just like the Danish cartoons incident.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 11, 2008 7:08 AM
You gotta be joking !
You think you are going to find a single person in the Catholic hierarchy who is going to defend the position that desecrating the Eucharist is not a big deal ?
I wouldn't waste any time on this. The Eucharist is not an issue of fundamentalism per se, it's one of their most sacred symbol, I've known very progressive Jesuit priests professors of Physics at university and very tolerant of homosexuality who were completely nuts with the Eucharist. They'd even lick the floor if they'd drop it to make sure there was none left. It's part of this mental compartementalisation that we always talk about.
Having said this, I think what PZ is doing is great, he gets all my support, there's no way America is going to become a more progressive and open society, tolerant of non believers unless the religious folks learn to deal with this kind of things.
So don't back down, speak up, refuse to obbey to their calls to be polite and respectful, when they can't even respect your non belief.
So you don't recognize their most sacred symbol, and have no reason to, and that's all this means, and you have all the right to do so. And they have absolutely no right to force you to recognize it.
You can go on and desecrate as many Eucharists as you want, as long as it's not on their private property, and that you do not disrupt church services, you are fully in your rights, they can't do anything, they can only scream and cry, which is even better, because maybe it gets them to understand what your ordeal is.
Posted by: alphgeek | July 11, 2008 7:08 AM
Best wishes PZ, my email is on the way. Amazing how crazy the religious folk get when we poke at the cracks of their faith.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 7:10 AM
And that is my view while I pray daily, fervently, and while I am in regular contact with church leaders over the debate Science-Religion that is so topical all over the world these days. In my opinion, Evolution theory can and will help to purify the image of the Creator, the Mystery that carries everything, just as the historical-literary approach of Bible texts has done so since the sixteenth-seventeenth century.
Whoa, that's scary.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 7:10 AM
@ No 954,Kilo
//I've gotta say, you getting shot now wouldn't surprise me. I don't think it's likely, but if it happens nobody gets to claim it comes as a surprise. Clearly you intentionally pursued that outcome.//
By calling a cracker a cracker?
You know I think PZ was wrong to be putting this note on his blog to send him crackers to desecrate,it was obvious what reaction we were going to get,and that it would give the fundies easy ammunition,so I think it wasnt a great idea to start with.
But dont you give me this Darwin Award and "he asked for it" shit you asshole,go wank to some faces of death vids you sicko.
This is the 21 century,and people are getting death threads for drawing cartoons,or taking a cracker out of a church,and the inquisition in the form of demented unhinged death cultists that believe in a committee decision from the 13th century to declare a piece of starch holy come out to threaten and intimidate anyone who will dare to call their mystical nonsense what it is,nonsense.
Dont you give me this he asked for it shit,you friggin moron,what kind of a sick person are you?
Posted by: Clair | July 11, 2008 7:12 AM
I think my favorite part is when they quote the Code of Conduct. they leave out this requirement:
- speak candidly and truthfully
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 7:18 AM
And on the eighth day, He said, "Blessed be the Whole Grains."
No, seriously, what the fuck?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 11, 2008 7:21 AM
PZ, I hope you keep your job. When I consider the damage you do while employed, I'd hate to contemplate the devastation you could cause with lots of spare time.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 7:21 AM
Bah. Missed #648 the first time through. Sincere apologies, Wowbagger et al, for rebuking you without a full grip on the context.
That's not all you didn't have a full grip on.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 11, 2008 7:24 AM
No Stephen, you've got it the wrong way round: if you aspire to rationality, you never decide to believe whatever comes from a particular source of information; you decide that a particular source of information is no longer credible if it tells you something ludicrous.
Posted by: Ian | July 11, 2008 7:25 AM
Support message sent. I also composed the following for cl@catholicleague.org:
I don't see why President Bruininks should have all the fun. :-)
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 7:25 AM
"insane, unjustified belief in the sacredness of certain crackers."
They can believe whatever crazy crap they want. They can believe that a carpenter dude was killed as a political opponent, stuffed into a cave and came out again 3 days later (oh, wait...) for all I care.
It's when they get so bloody wacky that they THREATEN DEATH to people who take crackers that is unacceptable.
I'm sure these fine folks who are complaining now were perfectly tolerable, nay excited, at the prospect of the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and the idiotic reaction they evoked from the extreme Muslim community. Well, who's laughing now?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 7:30 AM
You know I think PZ was wrong to be putting this note on his blog to send him crackers to desecrate,it was obvious what reaction we were going to get,and that it would give the fundies easy ammunition,so I think it wasnt a great idea to start with.
Right. Rather, it's a great idea to cower in fear and never speak the truth about their idiocy.
Do you suppose that PZ had no idea of the "obvious reaction" to his provocative post, especially after the previous reactions to Cook? So what the fuck if it gave them "easy ammunition"? Hell, "Happy Holidays" gives them easy ammunition. But now, a whole bunch of people are writing nice letters on his behalf. So just what is this terrible thing that lily-livered yellow-striped folks like yourself are so concerned with that makes it "not a great idea"?
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 11, 2008 7:33 AM
AdamNelson,
Wacky beliefs by their nature yield wacky actions. They seldom stay confined to the believer's mind.
These people apparently really believe that this cracker is a part of their god's body. No wonder they'd wish to fiercely, maybe even violently protect it.
The root of the problem is the stupid belief and the faith that sustains it.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 11, 2008 7:37 AM
"So far today, I have received 39 pieces of personal hate mail of varying degrees of literacy, all because I was rude to a cracker."
That's pretty cheesy. I say "nuts!"
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 7:37 AM
truth machine,
//lily-livered yellow-striped folks like yourself//
I dont know what that means but I guess its not a compliment,oh and I mainly wear scrubs lol....
I have an opinion on PZ's post regarding the crackergate thing,and if that opinion doesnt match yours,just do me a favor will ya,dont go all Gordon Ramsay on me,or anyone else for that matter that ever dares to disagree with you on any given topic,its just not doing your credibility any good......hey,we disagree,so?? This is Pharyngula right,people disagree here all the time,just try to keep it civilized mate !
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 11, 2008 7:38 AM
"So far today, I have received 39 pieces of personal hate mail of varying degrees of literacy, all because I was rude to a cracker."
That's pretty cheesy. I say "nuts!"
Posted by: kryth | July 11, 2008 7:41 AM
I guess Jesus can't protect or stand up for himself, he needs Bill's help.
Posted by: kryth | July 11, 2008 7:43 AM
I guess Jesus can't protect or stand up for himself, he needs Bill's help.
Wait
Wait
Wasn't there didn't Jesus say something about turning the other cheek, I guess Bill forgot to read that part. Oh well, guess we should let him get back to picking some cherries.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 7:44 AM
kryth,no 980 :
Not only jeebus,but his dad as well ! Omnipotent,my ass lol,cant talk his way out of a zip-lock bag in his cracker form.....
Posted by: owlbear1 | July 11, 2008 7:50 AM
"YOU are going to endure ETERNAL PAIN AND TORTURE for laughing at me, how can YOU be so evil?"
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 7:50 AM
I'd like a secular rationally based credentialed ethicist to look at the cracker scenarios and render an opinions.
"credentialed ethicist"? Do need someone with credentials to confirm your preferences in colors and flavors as well?
If you don't approve of stealing consecrated crackers, don't do it.
offending people for sake of offending them
What is with you brickheads? It has nothing to do with offending people for the sake of offending them.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 7:53 AM
"YOU are going to endure ETERNAL PAIN AND TORTURE for laughing at me, how can YOU be so evil?"
Such stupidity is almost enough to drive one to eugenics.
Posted by: Katja Boysen | July 11, 2008 7:53 AM
Done and Done.
Tjek the linky....
http://katsasylum.blogspot.com/2008/07/donahue-its-only-goddamed-wafer.html
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 7:55 AM
Sitting in his puddle, marveling at how the universe made the hole just right...
Seriously, though, even his theology sucks and I don't know how much he could help. He's one of more hard-headed christian apologists I've run into; with a rock-solid certainty in his anthropic universe that is defied by the evidence across multiple scientific disciplines - archeology, biology, astronomy, physics. I've often wondered how someone can be so delusional and yet have an apparently productive career in a physical science.
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised though. Humans are capable of doing some amazing things even when severely mentally ill. For example, I've got a client who is a diagnosed schizophrenic, and hears Gods voice on occasion, that has built a very successful business.
He makes a lot of strange decisions, based on what the voices tell him, yet he's been successful.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | July 11, 2008 7:55 AM
Clinteas, my Antipodean lover.
"and I mainly wear scrubs lol...."
if you're a doctor our relationship is doomed, given I'm a lawyer and all. My father's a doctor, I'm WELL aware of what you guys think of us....not without good reason I might add.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 7:56 AM
I dont know what that means
I explained what it means in the rest of my post that you apparently ignored.
All your hypocritical boo hoo hoo doesn't impress me. You have an opinion -- well, so do I, and I expressed it.
Posted by: Joe Jones | July 11, 2008 7:57 AM
I came here via Richard Dawkins' newsletter.
I have only one point of disagreement with your posting, Prof. ...
Where you refer to "ironic cluelessness," surely you intended "moronic" ...
Best wishes - and keep up the great work,
Joe Jones
England
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 7:59 AM
And, clinteas, instead of addressing the substance of my post, you went all ad hominem with this "civilized" shit. Civilization has nothing to do with such Victorian bullshit.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 8:04 AM
Bride of Shrek,
dont say we are doomed my love,doctor and lawyer or whatever,we should at least try...:-)
truth machine,
honestly mate,the substance of your post was :
///lily-livered yellow-striped folks like yourself//
ahem,
ad hominem anyone??
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 8:04 AM
Rapists and murders always say she/he had it coming. Congratulations for swimming that gutter with them.
Posted by: Jensen | July 11, 2008 8:04 AM
Hey Myers, I just put an envelope in my mailbox to be picked up today. Here's the content of the letter:
--------------------------------
Dear President Bruininks,
PZ Myers has evidently put himself in a position that would necessitate a request for support from bloggers. It is understandable why he would be in such a position. The man deserves censure, not support.
Myers is well-known for his disrespectful, malicious and mocking postings and comments concerning Christians and Christianity. His most recent outrageous insult to all Catholics is not a mistake, bad judgment, nor even a spur of the moment outburst - it is what Myers stands for - absolute intolerance for religion. This is not in keeping with how a professor at a university should conduct himself.
If I was one of his students and I was a Christian, I would be highly offended, and more importantly, very concerned that his extreme bias would affect my grade. It is not inconceivable that Myers would note the cross I wear around my neck and hold it against me. This is not an atmosphere in which any student at an institution funded by all taxpayers, including a great many Christians, should be subjected.
As Myers has no compunction about publicly expressing his bigoted and hateful attitude, it must fall upon the institution that employs him to hold him responsible for the continual, numerous and clear violations of its policies dealing with the code of conduct.
You must be receiving many emails concerning PZ Myers and the current controversy in which he is embroiled. Many of his supporters will be those who frequent his blog and share in his intolerance for religion. A fair-minded person would not support his conduct.
----------------------------------
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Kieron W | July 11, 2008 8:06 AM
Can these stories get any more wacky? Anyway, here is my addition:
Dear Mr. Bruininks,
I would like to register my support of Paul Myers in the recent matter of his blog entry, referring to the Eucharist as a "cracker". I understand that there is a emotive attempt to threaten his position at your University, and I would like to share my surprise that people would use his beliefs to negatively affect his professional standing.
As a former Catholic, it is my impression that in countries such as here in the UK, most Catholics do not believe that the Eucharist is the literal body of Jesus Christ, but is a traditional symbolic gesture marking the occasion of the last supper.
In civilised society, critical evaluation of the beliefs of a population is very important, and so these sorts of incidents should be brought to light where they can be objectively criticised in the public sphere. Whether you believe such things or not, it is of course a matter of free speech.
People should not be chastised for exercising their rights, and I applaud Mr. Myers for the humour in which he does so.
Yours sincerely,
(name supplied)
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 8:08 AM
honestly mate,the substance of your post was :
"honestly"? And you talk about credibility, you fucking lying asshole?
Posted by: psychodiva | July 11, 2008 8:09 AM
E-mail sent- and even used my real name :) I fear it would take too long to send a real letter from the UK.
Posted by: owlbear1 | July 11, 2008 8:09 AM
Jensen, I'm LAUGHING AT YOU!!!
I'm so evil...
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 8:10 AM
Jensen,
yes indeed,a fair-minded(as opposed to brunette-minded)person would indeed not support his conduct of calling a cracker a cracker,Im with ya mate.
Go take your meds now.
Is continual a word?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 8:11 AM
ahem,
ad hominem anyone??
"ad hominem" is not a synonym for "insult", cretin. I addressed the content of your post; therefore my argument was not ad hominem. You ignored the content of my post and instead referred only to the "uncivilized" way I presented it -- that's ad hominem.
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 8:11 AM
Yes.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 11, 2008 8:13 AM
Jensen,
You lying piece of shit !
PZ has always made it absolutely clear that he would never do anything like this, that he would grade and evaluate papers purely on the merit of such papers.
You see, this is the kind of tactics the religious folks like to make use of, lies and disinformation.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 8:15 AM
So, clinteas, asshole, I asked you a question that you haven't answered: So just what is this terrible thing that lily-livered yellow-striped folks like yourself are so concerned with that makes it "not a great idea"?
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:15 AM
Jensen,
I don't think you get it. At all. Why should the university care what PZ does in his own personal time? Dr. Myers just works there, he doesn't owe them some weird oath of fealty.
Your request for a response from his university is just as ridiculous as the Muslims who asked the Danish government to shut down the newspaper that printed the Muhammad cartoons.
I hope you've learned your lesson, and can come to function in a free, 21st century society.
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 8:15 AM
If you keep a monkey in a cage long enough, it goes crazy and will attack you. I don't know about the moron-in-a-closet though, but since they're at about the same developmental/cognitive level I should be concerned if I were you.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 11, 2008 8:16 AM
wnelson@746
What a snide little creep you are.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 8:17 AM
truth machine,
mate,dont you have anything better to do than to argue with me? We seem to agree on anything other than the wisdom of attacking a few million deluded cathobots,I think it wasnt a good idea,you think it was...
Cant we just agree to disagree and move on? And i really hate it that you got number 1000 !
Posted by: sheila | July 11, 2008 8:17 AM
Here's a question. The Romans killed Jesus on the cross. What happened to them afterwards? Two days, three days, fourteen months, nine years after? Nothing. God didn't smite them or send lightning bolts across the sky or plague their first born. Nothing happened other than the usual living lives until death.
So why does Donahue and his subcult need to punish those he thinks desecrates Jesus Christ and Catholicism? Is it because he believes deep down that God's too much of a pansy to do it (smite or kill or revoke tenure to) Ye Olde Himself?
I've wiggled thoughts like this around for years. My dad's a former monk and most of his friends are monks or priests and nuns, whom I like. But this is the first time I've actually been able to put my finger on what's been bothering me.
Thanks, science!
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:20 AM
"But this is the first time I've actually been able to put my finger on what's been bothering me."
That, and the bible says that Eve screwed her kids (and most likely grandkids), killing your son in religious fervour is OK, and pi equals exactly 3. Gooo Bible!
Posted by: Nemo | July 11, 2008 8:21 AM
This is so crazy... 1000 comments on the first thread, 500 comments on the second, and now 1000 on the third. Over a frackin' cracker. I don't get it.
Posted by: Sully | July 11, 2008 8:21 AM
I chimed in to the Prez, and blogged about this whole debacle, as I also squirrelled a Jesus-cracker out of a Catholic church in Pittsburgh two years ago for a school presentation.
My blog entry: Christians? Crackers!
Posted by: Julian | July 11, 2008 8:21 AM
woot! 1000 comments and counting! Thanks for making PZ's blog so super-duper popular tonight, fundies.
So here's a question: All you religious folks accept as a given, because your church organizations call it heresy not to and you're all such good believers who would never consider any of their dictates ridiculous (otherwise why would you be here defending the wafer, am I right), that every other believer out there who isn't a part of your sect will burn in fiery perdition for all eternity (well, the Buddhists don't believe that, but thats neither here nor there). Not only do you believe this, but your pastors make a habit of reminding you of this fact, in ways sometimes subtle and sometimes not, on a regular basis. So my question is, why is someone walking out of a church hate speech to you when on at least a bimonthly basis you listen to a sermon about how everyone who thinks differently than you is going to suffer unimaginable torment for eternity?
Calling down eternal, mind-breaking, torment on someone sounds a lot more like hate speech than not eating a cracker to me. But then again, I guess I'm just an unenlightened atheist bigot who's never done or said a mean thing to anyone because of their beliefs, huh?
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:23 AM
Eating, grinding, digesting, and crapping out the body of Christ is OK, but removing it from a building... heresy!!
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2008 8:23 AM
It seems to me that this furore was catalysed by PZ's high profile.
I take it as good evidence that his approach is working to plan. Nice!
Posted by: GunOfSod | July 11, 2008 8:24 AM
And I think we should all be grateful that PZ has the guts to take the flak for this, as well as so many other issues. I really don't know if I would have the testicular fortitude to put myself in the firing line the way in which he has, and the way in which someone desperately needed to. Thanks PZ.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 8:25 AM
,dont you have anything better to do than to argue with me?
You made a statement, I criticized it and asked you a question. Rather than address my criticism and answer the question, you blathered about whether I'm "civilized", and now you blather about whether I have anything better to do. It's all ad hominem shit, and you're a cowardly shit hole who isn't willing to defend your idiotic beliefs -- just like any religious nut.
Posted by: Jensen | July 11, 2008 8:25 AM
You lying piece of shit !
PZ has always made it absolutely clear that he would never do anything like this, that he would grade and evaluate papers purely on the merit of such papers.
What a an excitable bunch of little goons you all are.
What the hell do I care what Myers claims? His attitude speaks for itself. An atheist's word has no meaning. Actually, an atheist is a grunting animal. Animals never lie - they just do whatever the hell they please, whenever they please. No morals, no standards, except those they choose for themselves - until they decide on something else. Yeah, I'm gonna trust the word of an atheist.
I'm outta here. The stink of atheist bullshit can only be tolerated for so long. Adios little goons.
Posted by: rarus.vir | July 11, 2008 8:26 AM
I also wrote the president.
President Robert H. Bruininks
I support Dr Myers efforts to continue in free discourse. Education is primarily passed through communication, whereas ignorance often relies on silence. Dr Myers has provided, and should continue to provide, ongoing education and discussion of relevant subjects to a wide range of national and international scholars and laymen alike.
Dr Myers is indeed a rare man.
Thank you
signed; full name and address.
I cant wait to see what the response will be.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 8:26 AM
OK,
I will entertain you and answer your question,although its rather irrelevant .
I assume you take me for some striped suit type,is that what this lily thing means?
Well,hate to disappoint you,but im the Jeans type(cant see how that is important in judging what someone is saying,but you seem to think it is,so there),and I think it was not a good idea to put on a popular blog that you want to desecrate the holy relic of some religious cult,because all you will achieve is to incense and drive to hate-mail at best and death threats at worst the members of said cult,and given the quality of the media in the US you will not get objective coverage but a lot of emo and lies and it all ends up being trouble and angst for PZ now,to the point of Richard Dawkins having to write a letter to PZ's Uni,with nothing achieved at all.
Now,this is my opinion,yours is different as we know,but why all the aggro mate?
Posted by: Matthew Durham | July 11, 2008 8:26 AM
President Robert H. Bruininks,
I would like to lend my voice to those supporting Professor Paul Zachary Myers with regards to his criticisms of the recent behavior of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League. I'm sure you're familiar with the situation by now. Professor Myers, in my view, is rightfully outraged by the treatment of the UCF student Webster Cook. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League are completely out of line, both in their treatment of Mr. Cook and Professor Myers. We should never be required to treat ideas with the proverbial "kid gloves" purely because they happen to fall under the umbrella of religion. I would have hoped that people living in a free country like the U.S. would be able to appreciate the value of freedom of speech. Instead, I see very similar reactions in this instance as I did in response to certain Danish cartoons or teddy bears named Mohammed.
Blasphemy is not legally a crime in this country, and for good reason. Nor is it a legitimate reason to discipline an employee of a state institution, regardless of what Bill Donohue and the Catholic League would have us believe.
Regards,
Matthew Durham
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 8:27 AM
And I think we should all be grateful that PZ has the guts to take the flak for this, as well as so many other issues. I really don't know if I would have the testicular fortitude to put myself in the firing line the way in which he has, and the way in which someone desperately needed to. Thanks PZ.
Right on. And no thanks to the cowardly concern trolls.
Posted by: shyster | July 11, 2008 8:28 AM
PZ, Get'er done, brother. Email sent.
By the way, #30, what are "eucharist print" undies, and where can I get some?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 8:30 AM
I think it was not a good idea to put on a popular blog that you want to desecrate the holy relic of some religious cult,because all you will achieve is to incense and drive to hate-mail at best and death threats at worst the members of said cult,and given the quality of the media in the US you will not get objective coverage but a lot of emo and lies and it all ends up being trouble and angst for PZ now,to the point of Richard Dawkins having to write a letter to PZ's Uni,with nothing achieved at all.
"trouble and angst for PZ now"? Apparently you can't even conceive of someone not being the sort of cowardly shithole that you are.
Posted by: SR | July 11, 2008 8:30 AM
Sent my email. I'm working in Spain right now, so regular mail is kind of out. Chin up -- you've got support!
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 11, 2008 8:31 AM
Jensen,
Actually, we atheists don't need to believe in bullshit to figure out what's right and wrong. We have reason and common sense.
How do you distinguish right from wrong? By uncritically accepting the contents of your barbaric, primitive Bible? That's not morality, that's obedience.
Good luck with your imaginary pal Jesus.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:31 AM
"It's all ad hominem shit, and you're a cowardly shit hole"
LOL, no offense buddy, and I support your points, but now I need to buy a new irony meter!
"What a an excitable bunch of little goons you all are."
"The stink of atheist bullshit can only be tolerated for so long. "
"An atheist's word has no meaning"
"Actually, an atheist is a grunting animal."
Ah, the Christian moral high ground. It's a good thing you'd NEVER stoop to the tactics of dirty atheists, given how you, being a Christian, are naturally so moral and at peace with your life. So at peace, in fact, that you anonymously come onto a blog and trash people who don't think like you. But you're a Christian, and therefore more morally robust than us heretics.
My poor irony meter.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 8:35 AM
LOL, no offense buddy, and I support your points, but now I need to buy a new irony meter!
That's not any fault of mine.
Posted by: J-Dog | July 11, 2008 8:35 AM
Dear President Bruininks,
I appreciate you taking your time to read this message of support for Dr. P.Z. Myers. I have been an avid reader of Dr. Myers's blog Pharyngula for more than 2 years, and was also born and raised a Catholic, which allows me I think, to bring a solid perspective with which to view the current kerfuffle between Dr. Myers and Catholic League President Bill Donohue.
Dr. Myers brings his usual reasoned, sensible approach - Mr. Donohue, breaking several commandments at a time, spews invective and hate. Dr. Myers, as always, attempts to shed light and knowledge about difficult subjects, Mr. Donohue, attempts to block learning and discussion. As a Catholic, I can tell you, that though he may protest, I would nominate P.Z. for Saint-hood, and Mr. Donohue for an exorcism.
I see nothing wrong with Dr. Myers assertion that Catholics eat crackers at Mass - they do! I do see quite a bit wrong with Mr. Donohue's attempt to interfere with secular activities. Perhaps a course in Constitutional Law for Mr. Donohue might be in order, as it is my understanding that in the United States there is a separation of Church and State. People like Mr. Donohue make it evident why this is a good thing.
Thanks for your attention, and thanks for your continued support of Dr. Myers.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:35 AM
"No morals, no standards, except those they choose for themselves"
Hmm, let's figure this out here...
Xtian: I'm moral because I do things somebody I've never met told me to!
Atheist: I'm moral because I arrived at a set of values derived from logic and common sense with everybody else's betterment at heart.
Xtian: you immoral animal! How DARE you think for yourself??
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 8:36 AM
Hmmm.... I'd find that hard to believe. They mass-produced in droves and nasty, mushy crackers could hardly be in demand as a foodstuff except by the starving whom the Catholic Church can't be bothered to help, beyond tokenism, anyway.
As I pointed out to my mother when she used the "there are starving children in India" guilt trip; I doubt there is a shortage of mushy, over-cooked peas in the world and if there is, they can have mine. Perhaps not the wisest words to come out of the mouth of an eight-year-old, but they got me out of eating the peas.
And the rest of diner.
Which wasn't a loss.
My mother sucked as a cook and, in response, by twelve I was fully capable of cooking a gourmet meal.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:37 AM
"That's not any fault of mine."
... What an odd response.
Posted by: tom durkin | July 11, 2008 8:38 AM
Copy of my letter to the prez:
Subject: Quick note in support of PZ Myers
Just wanted to let you know, as a trained sociologist, I often check PZ Meyer's web page. I even send students to it to demonstrate how clearly written, well thought out, empirical arguments can be constructed about social problems.
And as a former altar boy, I want to know who declared that Donahue idiot King of the Catholics?
Tom Durkin, PhD.
Northwestern University Sociology
Posted by: Aaron Bradford Starr | July 11, 2008 8:38 AM
Just sent off an e-mail to your Prez, PZ. The subject line says it all, but the body of the e-mail is all nice and coherent. I'll mail a copy, if an e-mail campaign isn't enough.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 8:39 AM
What an odd response.
Some people find the truth odd.
Posted by: Julian | July 11, 2008 8:39 AM
Stephen Majewski: Just to add on to what Gotts said, the Gospels never claim that Jesus said anything about transubstantiation. If Jesus had, or had ever clearly claimed to be the physical embodiment of Christ, do you think Christians would have spent centuries fighting over these issues? Ever heard of the Arian Controversy? The Albigensian Crusade? The Protestant Reformation? And these conflicts, of course, are only among those who accept the same gospels that you do. Millions of Christians have based their faith on different gospels which no Catholic in the world is allowed to read for non-scholarly purposes under the threat of excommunication.
It might be helpful to you to actually read up on the history of what is supposedly the most important thing in your life before you start arguing other people about it.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:41 AM
"Some people find the truth odd."
And you, being a truth machine and all, are privy to the truth eh? The truth that incest is good and pi = 3? Hallelujah!
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 8:41 AM
truth machine,
i rest my case mate,there is no point debating you now,since your drugs are clearly superior to mine....I layed out my arguments to you,and thats what I get,no point continuing is there !
Posted by: GunOfSod | July 11, 2008 8:42 AM
Hey I've got a question. If I had to take communion, but I am a coeliac (Gluten Allergy), does the church produce gluten free bodies of christ? Is this a request I can make of the Minister? Perhaps he needs to add a couple of obscure latin phrases to his necromancy ritual (migratus en glutenus???).
Personally I think it was very inconsiderate of Jesus to disambigutranssubstantiate into a food product that I am allergic to.
Maybe I just have the devil in me or something?
Please catholic coeliacs, enquiring minds want to know!!
Posted by: Bob Strand | July 11, 2008 8:43 AM
Religon: Get rid of all of it, any way, shape and/or form, and get along. All of us in this world, on this earth.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:45 AM
"Religon: Get rid of all of it, any way, shape and/or form, and get along. All of us in this world, on this earth."
Or just not be a douche and keep your cracker-initiated bloodlust to yourself.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 8:46 AM
GunofSod,
this was pointed out about 2 million posts up,the CC decreed in 1995 that if you are gluten intolerant,you can not receive the holy cracker.
Posted by: Julian | July 11, 2008 8:47 AM
Do! Ok, I'm not doing so well with the editting this morning; that should read "Clearly claimed to be the physical embodiment of god..." Obviously he never claimed to be this word "Christ" as that is just an anglicized version of a latin slang word for a Greek synonym for messiah.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:47 AM
"this was pointed out about 2 million posts up,the CC decreed in 1995 that if you are gluten intolerant,you can not receive the holy cracker."
Which means that God so cursed your body at birth with not being able to go to heaven. What a douchebag!
Posted by: Jennie Duncan | July 11, 2008 8:52 AM
This comment is for Webster Cook. Please, please, please sell the "Holy Cracker" on Ebay. I dare you. I am still laughing at the responses from ignorant, brainwashed, religious zealots. The holy cracker situation is just so humorous and entertaining.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2008 8:52 AM
All you need is hate, people.
Posted by: Jason | July 11, 2008 8:52 AM
Emailed this morning.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 8:53 AM
"All you need is hate, people.
Posted by: Anonymous"
And when intellectually cornered, anonymously post something vaguely insulting. Good show!
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 11, 2008 8:56 AM
I'll get on that letter ASAP.
And damn! Another 1k+ thread. So anything commented here will be for posterity, eh? Thanks google for search machines.
And that is the bigots problems right there. When did religions stop to observe the harm they do? They are even still sending out missionaries that spread socio-cognitive and medical diseases. At least the later has been known to wipe out communities.
Don't get me started on the sex ed or abortion business.
And I note that the only offered evidence for harm is that PZ Myers hurts christians feelings. Well, seeing people believing in imaginary friends hurts mine - I would have thought humans were better than that. Sadly, no.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 11, 2008 8:59 AM
GunOfSod,
why can't you use Google, like everyone else ?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur47.htm
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:00 AM
And you, being a truth machine and all, are privy to the truth eh? The truth that incest is good and pi = 3? Hallelujah!
You're confused.
Posted by: Carlie | July 11, 2008 9:01 AM
I really don't know if I would have the testicular fortitude to put myself in the firing line the way in which he has, and the way in which someone desperately needed to. Thanks PZ.
I personally would grant him honorary ovarian fortitude for sticking himself out there and holding his ground. Heck, in the face of death threats, he's even worthy of honorary uterian fortitude as well.
Posted by: waldteufel | July 11, 2008 9:02 AM
This has been an entertaining thread.
A guy walks out of a church without eating a cracker.
The Catholic League president bursts an aorta in outrage.
PZ points out the inanity of a priest mumbling a few Latin words over a cracker.
The religious wackaloons show up to feign outrage and to issue insults and threats, thereby showing their fear of words.
Much hilarity ensues.
Over a cracker. Mumbled over by priests. In the 21st century.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:02 AM
This comment is for Webster Cook. Please, please, please sell the "Holy Cracker" on Ebay.
Do try to keep up -- he already returned it to the church.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:03 AM
Negentropyeater, from the article:
"And thus a gluten-free wafer, in spite of its external resemblance, is no longer bread and thus is incapable of becoming the Body of Christ."
Oops. Shot yourself in the foot.
Maybe all the human meat in your diet is causing mental illness.
Posted by: unicow | July 11, 2008 9:04 AM
I sent an email in support but it bounced right back to me.
"550 5.1.1 ... User unknown"
Have all the emails broken the mail server?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 9:05 AM
Who's acting like an animal? You're the one that dropped by our lawn, shit on the grass and then left.
And the stink is not unnoticeable.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:06 AM
"You're confused."
Ok, truth machine, I'll give you a chance to defend your book. First off: justify how, in the first book of Kings 7:23, it says that pi = 3. Secondly, justify Eve's necessary incestual relationship with her children in order to propagate the species.
Posted by: unicow | July 11, 2008 9:07 AM
@1055 (me)
That error message did actually contain the President's correct email address. It was filtered out in the commenting for whatever reason.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 9:09 AM
TM is not one of them.
Posted by: ConcenedJoe | July 11, 2008 9:10 AM
Good ole truthmachine..
"credentialed ethicist"? Do need someone with credentials to confirm your preferences in colors and flavors as well?
Me: no - but I am not above listening respectfully to the thought processes and opinions of someone who objectively tackles an area of concern as a life's work. Does that make me stupid?
If you don't approve of stealing consecrated crackers, don't do it.
Me: I don't approve of stealing in general; I am sure others don't give a damn in general; I am also sure not all is black and white; I am also sure we'd all be better off in general if we all tried to determine what is ethical in a particular situation and do the ethical thing that is come by honestly. What is wrong with that?
offending people for sake of offending them What is with you brickheads? It has nothing to do with offending people for the sake of offending them.
Me: If it walks like a duck - and quacks like a duck - it may be taken as a duck. Perception trumps reality - sad but true. Watch presentation .. well meant stuff still has to be well presented - and by well I mean the instrument of delivery should not obfuscate the message intended. You disagree with that persuasive presentation suggestion?
_________________
But I know you like to keep it honest and precise and you have a style of trying to get us to do such -- somewhat aligned to PZ's :-) Peace out.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 9:10 AM
AdamNelson,
truth machine might be a dick,but hes not a true believer...
The fact that you would think that tho,just made my day !
Mwahahahahahahahaha
LOL
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:10 AM
Please, truth machine, justify the biblical weirdness I pointed out, including the obviously wrong passage in Kings.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 11, 2008 9:11 AM
Clinteas, #1043
not true
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur47.htm
Fasano called the sisters' accomplishment "very wonderful news," but added that celiac sufferers should still consult with their doctors before consuming the new hosts. "In rare cases even 0.01% is still too much," Fasano said.
Again people not doing their research properly...
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:11 AM
Oops. Shot yourself in the foot.
Maybe all the human meat in your diet is causing mental illness.
What is your problem? First you nuttily suggest that this OM believes that pi = 3, and then you accuse neg of ... something, even though all he did was cite an informative article, not make any claims about it.
Posted by: kmurray | July 11, 2008 9:12 AM
Dear Sir,
I am writing in support of Professor P.Z. Myers, who has become the target of a campaign to have your University censure him for his writings on the Internet.
On the subject of science these writings exhibit an expertise and an enthusiasm that reflect great credit on the University of Minnesota, and in fact have caused me more than once to wish I'd studied biology rather than engineering.
Naturally, different people have differing levels of discomfort with his lack of respect for religion, but allow me to say that Professor Myers is a hero to me.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Murray
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 11, 2008 9:14 AM
I'm very, very, very late to this party, and WAY WAY late to say this, but:
Donahue, like the religiotrolls around hare, is merely an attention whore. Perhaps in both cases it might be best simply to deprive them of that which they crave?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:14 AM
Please, truth machine, justify the biblical weirdness I pointed out, including the obviously wrong passage in Kings.
You're a fucking moron if you think this atheist's atheist, with an Order of Molly, goes around justifying anything in the bible. Never mind, you're just a fucking moron, period.
Posted by: Beave | July 11, 2008 9:14 AM
E-mail sent! With an apology at the end for contributing to his overstuffed inbox ;) I can't help it, I'm Canadian.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:15 AM
"What is your problem? First you nuttily suggest that this OM believes that pi = 3"
I don't suggest that anybody believes that pi = 3, I suggest that the HOLY BIBLE says pi = 3. And if the Bible says so, well then, who needs math?
"and then you accuse neg of ... something, even though all he did was cite an informative article, not make any claims about it."
He accused GunofSod of not researching his points properly, to which he linked an article refuting his own argument!
BTW, truth machine, still waiting on your answers...
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 9:16 AM
Neg,
WTF???
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:18 AM
"You're a fucking moron if you think this atheist's atheist, with an Order of Molly, goes around justifying anything in the bible. Never mind, you're just a fucking moron, period."
Someone's testy. Now that you've thrown your temper tantrum, wanna back up your claims with proof? Or did you still need to distract from the point? I can wait.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 9:19 AM
Yeah ok,after reading it,its funny LOL
Posted by: Robin | July 11, 2008 9:19 AM
Message of support sent. Good luck! Hopefully the only real outcome of this will be a bit more attention drawn to what crackpots the biscuit-lovers are.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:20 AM
If it walks like a duck - and quacks like a duck - it may be taken as a duck.
It neither walks nor quacks like a duck, fool. If you haven't already grasped what this is about beyond "offending people for the sake of offending them", it's not worth the effort to explain it to you.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 11, 2008 9:20 AM
Adamnelson
Maybe all the human meat in your diet is causing mental illness.
What a moron
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:21 AM
"What a moron"
Ooo, an argument with substance.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | July 11, 2008 9:21 AM
Wow there is some serious confusion / chaos here today.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:22 AM
Now that you've thrown your temper tantrum, wanna back up your claims with proof?
What claims are those, cretin? In any case, this is a science site, and empirical claims are not backed by proof.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:23 AM
"Wow there is some serious confusion / chaos here today."
Yeah, I think I've been arguing against the people I've been agreeing with. If so, sorry! If not, well, too bad!
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 9:24 AM
AdamNelson,
What are you trying to get from Truth Machine? He's an atheist. Heck, he's arguably (esp. if it's him doing the arguing) the most atheist poster here, if there's a spectrum such things can be measured on.
Yes, he's a bit prickly, but I think you misunderstood him somewhere along the line.
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 9:24 AM
And on this note,I retire so I can have any chance of saving some lifes tomorrow LOL,3000 posts in 2 days have left their mark,I need to get some sleep.....
Bride of Shrek,
I need to get your email addy Lady,open for suggestions !
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:24 AM
"What claims are those, cretin? In any case, this is a science site, and empirical claims are not backed by proof."
I think I'm a little confused here... what exactly are you even arguing?
Posted by: Tony Lloyd | July 11, 2008 9:24 AM
P.Z. I disagree with what you wrote and have said so:
http://liberalrationalism.blogspot.com/2008/07/theres-no-goal-like-own-goal.html
But I will fight for your right to say it. (Not "to the death, though", Voltaire was braver than I am!).
I will write the email.
Cheers
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 9:25 AM
AdamNelson #1079
Yes, you have.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 11, 2008 9:25 AM
AdamNelson, I must admit to some confusion. Do you think TM in on the side of the godbotherers?
Posted by: C Van Youngman | July 11, 2008 9:25 AM
This had to be one of the easiest tasks I have undertaken in weeks. I juxtaposed PZ's "voice of reason" as a beautiful symphony against the cacophony of ignorance of the likes of Bill Donohue.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:26 AM
Yeah, I think I've been arguing against the people I've been agreeing with. If so, sorry!
"sorry" is the word for you, all right.
Posted by: Marceau | July 11, 2008 9:26 AM
The problem isn't necessarily with Catholics, per se. I wouldn't consider Donahue and his ilk true Catholics, or even Christians, for that matter. People who respond in this way to so called "desecrations" of their icons of faith are not even true followers of their faith principles, they are mere fanaticists. To quote Santayana, "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim". His quote describes the actions of these types of people perfectly. They are so shallow in their religious beliefs that they assume any attack on their religion is a personal affront that they cannot tolerate (how does a religion that emphasizes tolerance result in intolerant followers?). Therefore, they abandon the base principles of their faith in order to defend it.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:27 AM
"What are you trying to get from Truth Machine? He's an atheist."
"Yes, you have."
Oops. Cue embarrassment. I'll have three servings of humble pie, pleez.
Posted by: Kilo | July 11, 2008 9:27 AM
Er... no. Wrong. I've read that 3 times, it makes no sense.
I'm a chickenshit ? Really. Explain how you pissweak little fuck. Any aspect of your life you wish to compare to mine... go for it.
Unless you're in the Sudan, I'd ask WTF it is you need saving from. Recall that these people threatening lives were solicited. You can do that if you like, but as I said, you don't then get to bitch about it as though that wasn't the whole point of the exercise.
Likewise, there are a lot of issues you can put your life on the line for. Say, volunteering for bomb disposal works in Laos. As opposed to, you know, one-upping religious dessecration threats to get hits on your blog.
Anyways, tell us about this chickenshit business. I'd love to know if you've caused the kind of carnage I have pal.
Posted by: JohnA | July 11, 2008 9:27 AM
"Actually, an atheist is a grunting animal. "
Wow, that's offensive, maybe even a hate crime. I haven't grunted yet today, although I have snorted a few times reading this thread. I will admit to being an animal, though.
Thanks PZ, and all of the posters for hours of entertainment.
It _was_ just a cracker, y'know.
Posted by: Daddy-O | July 11, 2008 9:29 AM
There are 1058 comments before me, but I have to wonder if anyone mentioned the obvious: That Bill Donohue and his ilk feel a bit frustrated by Christianity's orders to turn the other cheek and not judge their fellows, and more, can't help wishing and wondering what it would be like to be able to kill, maim and destroy their enemies.
Praying for them is so boring after a while.
And: They're dying to emulate their fundamentalist Muslim brethren. Holy outrage gone wild. Blood flowing in God's name. The Good Old Days.
I am still (just BARELY!) a Christian, but in these hazy crazy days of W. Bush and bringing God back to the White House, I have noticed that the people most likely to be granted entrance to Heaven by Christ are the atheists. Nobody pissed Jesus off MORE than scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites of his own religion.
You could look it up.
A hand-written thoughtful snail mail of support is on its way to your University's President, PZ. God bless you for entering the Temple and turning over the moneychangers' tables. How's THAT for some irony in these modern times?
Posted by: Escuerd | July 11, 2008 9:30 AM
Dave Mueller #156:
I used to be an atheist so I understand your science-alone tunnel vision, but some of us don't believe that everything can be explained by science.
That statement is doubly presumptuous.
So, since many people believe that the consecrated host is the very Body of Christ, why can you not be civil to us? Threatening to profane the Body of Christ is basically worse to us than threatening to kill us, so you really shouldn't be surprised to get some serious anger directed towards you.
Atheists don't hold much sacred, so it is probably hard for you to understand, but someone threatening to kill your family is probably something you'd get a bit upset and angry about, I assume? Well, that's about how we Catholics feel when you threaten to profane the Body of Christ.
I, and likely most who post here, understand quite well that the behaviors we see follow from the premises these people hold. Arguing that reprehensible behavior is the logical conclusion (or logically expected result) of widely held beliefs says more to the effect that those beliefs are not benign than that, say, the behavior is excusable.
I hope you see the error of your ways and grow out of your quite prolonged adolescence. When you realize that there are people that are just as intelligent as you (probably more, judging by your behavior) that have believed in God and Catholicism, you'll take the first step towards sanity and maturity. To think that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and not worthy of respect is itself mind-bogglingly stupid and juvenile.
Do you think you are smarter than Blaise Pascal? How about Louis Pasteur? I could go on and on, but it is probably useless.
Thinking a belief is stupid is not the same as thinking that any person who holds it is stupid. Quite intelligent people can believe quite silly things.
It seems to me that all you're doing here is presenting a straw man coupled with an argument from authority. You're shifting from a discussion about ideas and the behaviors they're coupled with to a discussion about people.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:30 AM
Sorry, TM, I guess I completely reversed your position somehow... Anyways, didn't mean to be a dick to you!
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:31 AM
I think I'm a little confused here... what exactly are you even arguing?
You're the one who's arguing, moron: "Ok, truth machine, I'll give you a chance to defend your book." -- I never made any mention of that book. But your idiocy started earlier, with talk of irony -- apparently because you don't understand what "ad hominem" means, even though I had just explained it.
Posted by: Shadowedge | July 11, 2008 9:32 AM
I'm about to snail mail this text to your president:
"Dear President Robert H. Bruininks,
As both a regular reader of Professor PZ Myers' blog "Pharyngula" and a student of library science at the University of South Florida, I am writing in regards to the recent furor over a July 8th post entitled "It's a Frackin' Cracker."
The accusations of Catholic League that Professor Myers has publicly stated his intentions to "desecrate the Eucharist" are entirely correct. However, the relevance of this accusation to Professor Myers' employment at University of Minnesota Morris is nonexistent.
The blog "Pharyngula" can be accessed from his faculty webpage, but is not hosted by the university. Neither students, nor anyone else is required to read the blog where Professor Myers regularly challenges religious beliefs of all denominations and faiths.
In this particular case, Professor Myers was responding to what he perceived as an overreaction of Bill Donohue of the Catholic League as well as officials at University of Central Florida where a student walked out of Mass with a consecrated communion wafer, allegedly "holding it hostage for several days."
The attempts of the Catholic League to affect Professor Myers' employment at your institution are an attempt to frighten the institution into limiting the dialogue that employees are allowed to use in their personal lives and communications. Myers lists his affiliation with University of Minnesota Morris on "Pharyngula" in the same way that one would when publishing an article in an academic journal: to state his institutional background and credentials.
By writing "Pharyngula," Myers is upholding the highest goals of teaching: dissemination knowledge to those who would otherwise not have encountered it. My views on religion are certainly different than Professor Myers, but this does not diminish the value of the site or the value of the scholarship which is often his focus.
It is my belief that this furor is a chance to state the free speech rights of people who speak unpopular opinions. I understand that a professor at a university holds a special position of responsibility to be unbiased in one's teaching, but this responsibility should not limit one's right to speak freely outside of the university setting.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
[my real name and stuff]"
Posted by: Arun | July 11, 2008 9:32 AM
It's a cracker like the flag is a piece of cloth, or the Constitution is a piece of paper or books are fuel for fires like wood, or Michelangelo's David is a slab of marble. There are ideas and values bound with things - PZ Myers in his purely materialistic vein tends to forget that human beings do that.
However if someone desecrated the Catholic worship, the response ought not to be violence or intimidation. Nor should the response to PZ Myers' mockery be these threats and intimidation. At some point the Eucharist does become only a cracker because of this stupid behavior. Unless you're claiming that Jesus Christ would support death threats and hate mail.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 11, 2008 9:32 AM
sorry Clinteas, I'm saying it's not true that the CC continues saying that if you are gluten intolerant, you cannot receive the holy cracker (your post#1041). They've approved very low gluten crackers (0.01%) that are ok for most celiacs.
I mean it's completely irrelevant to this discussion anyway, just someone was asking the question and it apparently keeps comming back, I don't know why.
Just the usual sidetrack I guess ;-)
But this moron Adamnelson thinks I'm a frequent consumer of holy crackers, he can't even read the comments I guess.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:33 AM
OK, TM, I take it back. You're just a dick. I apologized for barking up the wrong tree, but you won't have any of it. I don't care what your beliefs are, you're just a dork.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:35 AM
"But this moron Adamnelson thinks I'm a frequent consumer of holy crackers, he can't even read the comments I guess."
Hey, hey, settle down. I mistook your position on it, and thought you were ironically mistaken. I apologized to TM for snarking at him, but I guess I owe you one too. Can we just, y'know, put this behind us? We've sorta lost track of the thread anyway.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 11, 2008 9:36 AM
truth machine 1078: explain to me how it would be logically and intellectually impossible for someone (anyone - not just a PZ longtime player) to view PZ's challenge as intending to offend? Whether I see the broader context (which I DO!!!) or not is imaterial. I stand by my statements the gist of which: doesn't surprise me that many will see it as unnecessary roughness.
Posted by: Kilo | July 11, 2008 9:39 AM
Wrong it what sense ? You've not elaborated. It's almost as though you didn't think you needed to. As though it was so fkn obvious what it was you are referring to that it didn't need stating. And yet you go on to write this as though you're a goldfish... Suck my balls you pissant. I'm a sicko for stating the obvious ? Something you just concurred with ? Yeah, well you pretend to get all pissy about that and I'll do something else. Well for starters, unlike you, I'm the kind who's actually able to level criticism at that holiest of holies, the blog author, rather than bottle it up and nod along.Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 9:40 AM
No worries Neg,
this thread has been really great,we havent had so much fun since the Expelled thing,plenty people here have shown that theyre not able to read or comprehend today...
Nite pharyngulites....
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:41 AM
OK, TM, I take it back. You're just a dick. I apologized for barking up the wrong tree, but you won't have any of it. I don't care what your beliefs are, you're just a dork.
It's called crossposting, asshole. But you have no excuse:
Yeah, right, my pointing out that I'm an atheist's atheist in response to your demand that I defend the bible was a distraction. Despite my telling you I'm an atheist, you still couldn't figure out that I'm an atheist.
Fucking cretin.
Posted by: Daddy-O | July 11, 2008 9:41 AM
If you don't approve of stealing consecrated crackers, don't do it.
But Webster didn't steal a cracker. They gave it to him. Right? There are no instructions about what to do with the 'Holy Eucharist', except at Confirmation classes. Some priests will insist right before the celebration that only confirmed Catholics are 'invited' to partake of the Communion; usually only the most hard-hearted and hardcore priests will say something that crass.
Otherwise, what Webster did was not stealing. And it's not stealing for PZ to ask someone to take one from a service and give it to him. Communion is free--supposedly.
Until now, when we need armed guards at Mass. Oy.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:42 AM
But Webster didn't steal a cracker. They gave it to him. Right?
ConcernedJoe isn't talking about Cook, he's talking about PZ's request that someone "smuggle" consecrated crackers to him.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:43 AM
"Well for starters, unlike you, I'm the kind who's actually able to level criticism at that holiest of holies, the blog author, rather than bottle it up and nod along."
I half-agree with you. But I believe the point of PZ's post was to level criticism on the insane reaction to the cracker-theft, and didn't exactly support the act itself. However, I will agree that many people would find his feigned desire to deface holy artefacts (no matter how delicious) offensive. But I honestly believe that he wouldn't walk into a church and piss off the entire congregation.
So in short, I know where you're coming from, and though I find the overall reaction to this incident inane and obscene (over a cracker), I don't endorse defacing the holy reliquary to make a point.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 9:43 AM
Arun wrote:
There's a vast difference between a cracker and the other things you listed, Arun - being a materialist (if PZ even considers himself that; I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't) doesn't change that.
Posted by: Kilo | July 11, 2008 9:44 AM
Except I didn't say "get what's coming", now did I chump. I said he got what he pursued. What he wanted. You could try and disagree with that rather than just swimming in the gutter with the liars. Who are we kidding, no you can't.Posted by: negentropyeater | July 11, 2008 9:44 AM
Adamnelson,
no problemo
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:45 AM
[sorry, didn't read your whole post]
And it's not stealing for PZ to ask someone to take one from a service and give it to him.
I think the idea was to get ahold of the wafers after consecration but before communion. (I don't know the workflow of Catholic rituals, so I have no idea if that's possible.)
Posted by: clinteas | July 11, 2008 9:46 AM
Oh gawd,I was about to go to bed......
@ Kilo
//Well for starters, unlike you, I'm the kind who's actually able to level criticism at that holiest of holies, the blog author, rather than bottle it up and nod along//
Sorry what?
Ahem,i disagreed with PZ on the cracker desecration issue,did you read my posts? Guess not...
//And yet you go on to write this as though you're a goldfish... //
A goldfish?
Ichthyic to the rescue,I have no idea what the man is talking about ! Some fish thing....
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:48 AM
"Fucking cretin."
Get over yourself, douchebag. You're too idiotic and immovable to see that somebody is genuinely sorry for MAKING A MISTAKE. No, you had to keep dishing out the insults.
I don't care anymore if you're an atheist's atheist. Your beliefs are irrelevant, because you're an asshole in character. No belief, or lack of belief, can cover up how you were tragically born without a personality. So unless you'd like to at least accept my apology for mistaking your position through your posts, please keep it to yourself.
Posted by: MReap | July 11, 2008 9:49 AM
Sent a comment to Bruininks with my official Winona State University, Department of Eduction, Chairperson signature. On WSU letterhead, too.
Posted by: MReap | July 11, 2008 9:50 AM
Um...Education (damn my editing abilities!)
Posted by: Kilo | July 11, 2008 9:52 AM
And I missed the part where this story was notable anywhere outside of here. So I guess that makes us even.Did catch Dawson's and Hitchens' books though, their media, social debate about their works, etc. This, not so much. Anyways, we both know what story will bring that big breakthrough, don't we.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 9:52 AM
explain to me how it would be logically and intellectually impossible for someone (anyone - not just a PZ longtime player) to view PZ's challenge as intending to offend?
Why would I explain to you something that isn't true?
Again, it's just not worth my effort to try to explain something to someone who is so dense that you mischaracterize things that badly.
Posted by: Needles | July 11, 2008 9:52 AM
I have sent this by US mail this morning.
July 11, 2008
President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Dear President Bruininks,
I am writing in support of Professor P.Z. Meyers. As a lifelong, practicing Roman Catholic I am appalled at the over-the-top reactions of Bill Donohue and his supporters. I assure you, they do not speak for me or for millions of other American Catholics. Their intolerance, ignorance, and hate are a blot on my religion.
I wish only the best for Professor Meyers, for you, and for your university.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:52 AM
"Adamnelson,
no problemo"
Thank you, NE. I appreciate your response after I embarrassed myself like that.
"Sorry what?
Ahem,i disagreed with PZ on the cracker desecration issue,did you read my posts? Guess not..."
Kilo, I think you'll find many of us here who agree on that issue: I also disagree with PZ over the whole willful desecration thing, and I believe that he was merely joking to illustrate a point, insofar as he would not actually perform such an act.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 9:56 AM
"explain to me how it would be logically and intellectually impossible for someone (anyone - not just a PZ longtime player) to view PZ's challenge as intending to offend?"
I doubt he said it purely, or even incidentally, to offend. He said it jokingly; he won't go and broadcast a video of him desecrating a bunch of crackers. He is mocking the over-the-top reaction to the whole incident, Kilo.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 9:59 AM
Winona State University
If there's no other reason to come to this blog, at least I get to learn the names of some more US educational institutions.
I'd never heard of that one before - I'm not being snide; I don't live in the US and I'm not an academic, so outside of movies and tv I'm not that familiar with much other than the 'biggies'.
Posted by: Roger, FCD | July 11, 2008 9:59 AM
Glenn D. in comment #10 said:
"P.S. You can do whatever you wish, of course, but it's still in bad taste (and offensive to a lot of grannies) to desecrate the host."
Why is it in bad taste? Unless you're talking about the wafers themselves...
Why should religion get automagical respect? It's woo. Highly organized woo, but still woo. Do we 'respect' astrologers? No. Snake-oil salesmen? No. Faith healers? No again. Why does literal-but-not-really-"wink"-cannibalism-of-space-zombies deserve our respect? Because more people will be put out by it than when we make fun of psychics?
What's in bad taste is that it hasn't been done enough. Ridicule is a legitimate weapon in the fight against sky-faeries.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 10:00 AM
It's a cracker like the flag is a piece of cloth, or the Constitution is a piece of paper or books are fuel for fires like wood, or Michelangelo's David is a slab of marble. There are ideas and values bound with things - PZ Myers in his purely materialistic vein tends to forget that human beings do that.
That's utter bullshit. Flags are indeed pieces of cloth, which is why sensible people don't object to burning them or wearing them on your butt. But the Constitution is not a piece of paper, it's an abstract document that is recorded on many kinds of media -- unless you mean the original copies, which have historical value. The same for books -- it's the content that matters. As for Michelangelo's David, it's a unique work of art of great quality by a long dead master -- it cannot be replaced, quite unlike a communion wafer. I have seen people shed tears upon seeing the David in person because of its great beauty and power.
As for ideas and values bound with things -- PZ doesn't forget that at all. The whole point is that the ideas and values bound with communion wafers are intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 10:03 AM
"Do we 'respect' astrologers? No. Snake-oil salesmen? No. Faith healers? No again."
Don't we? I'm sure you don't go into a psychic's office and tear down her bead curtains, or into the astrologer's shop and shatter all her quartz. So the answer is that you respect these people insofar as they are still people, and you don't go out of your way to interrupt their daily lives.
But I agree with you still. Ridicule IS appropriate, but ridicule for constructive purposes and not just to piss people off, which people often forget.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 10:04 AM
Get over yourself, douchebag. You're too idiotic and immovable to see that somebody is genuinely sorry for MAKING A MISTAKE. No, you had to keep dishing out the insults.
I dished out what you deserved, you hypocritical scumbag. You're new here, but you took no time making a complete ass of yourself.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 11, 2008 10:04 AM
Daddy-O 1105: PZ said" .. if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me.." Ambiguous -- do what it takes means to many a vet like me - do what it takes [even if not by the book]. Others may construe it similarly as beg, borrow or STEAL.
My point however was there are many ethical issues with this all that we could discuss. For instance is it stealing to appropriate something under false pretenses? For instance if I give you $100 to buy meds for your baby and you instead buy hash for yourself - is that stealing? Is taking a wafer from a priest stealing when he offers it as a sign of your communion with the group knowing that said priest would not gift it to you if truth be told?
I am NOT a cracker defender .. I am 100% atheist .. but for the love of reason and freedom remember we have an additional burden to be strict on ourselves, fair in our dealings, and thoughtful that our approaches are humble and chariable. We rightfully cast aside stupid and mind numbing religion and its ancient thinking, hopefully to allow ourselves to enter a wider world of honor and goodness. It ain't all about not believing in a sky-daddy to many of us.
Posted by: Miracle Max | July 11, 2008 10:06 AM
For what it's worth, anybody who walks into a church, synagogue, mosque, or ethical culture society facility to create a disturbance should be unceremoniously drop-kicked outta there.
Of course Donahue is a goon and a thug, and PZ's ability to freely fulminate on-line should be supported.
Posted by: Dahan | July 11, 2008 10:06 AM
Someone thought Truth Machine, OM was a fundie? Now that's funny!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 11, 2008 10:07 AM
Golly, can't imagine why you wouldn't want me using my handle on this letter. ;-)
I'll send one via Ye Olde Fashioned Snaille Mail anyway.
Posted by: rmp | July 11, 2008 10:09 AM
mreap, I'm wondering if we've ever met. I live right next to campus and know several of the faculty/administration.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 10:10 AM
So unless you'd like to at least accept my apology for mistaking your position through your posts, please keep it to yourself.
I'm not going to keep to myself that you're such a stupid dick that you would say that I was offering a distraction by pointing out that I'm an atheist (and have an OM). You didn't merely make a mistake, you were a pathetic stupid jackass.
Posted by: TinyRobot | July 11, 2008 10:10 AM
I sent an email as soon as i read the post. Although i now feel slightly inadequate given the length and eloquence of some of the other expressions of support.
Hope it helps calm the waters nonetheless: I dislike witch hunts of all sorts. Especially when they involve a victimless crime such as blasphemy or sacrilege.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 10:10 AM
"The whole point is that the ideas and values bound with communion wafers are intellectually and morally bankrupt."
I disagree. As a SYMBOL, the communion wafer can and does mean a lot to people, even if it's ridiculous (the literal view of it as flesh, however, IS ridiculous). David is also a symbol of power and perfection of form, but it is still just that -- a symbol. It has power because people attach great meaning to it, just as others attach meaning to the cracker.
Standing in awe under David, or marvelling at the revolutionary content of the Constitution, is exactly the same neuronal response as marvelling at the cracker: sane people understand it is just a cracker, but also a powerful symbol. We must not forget that.
You cannot say that someone's morals are bankrupt because they come from a symbol we find repugnant. We CAN criticize them for threatening others with death over it, but in all honesty, if somebody can function in society, who cares WHERE they get their morals from?
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 11, 2008 10:13 AM
To all out there -- I know that we can rationalize PZ's actions to be positive in the context of our positive relationship to him.
It is still a fair question and an important one to those interested in winning hearts and minds: "explain to me how it would be logically and intellectually [dishonest and] impossible for someone (anyone - not just a PZ longtime player) to view PZ's challenge as intending to offend?" And that is what I asked. I leave it rhetorically for what it seems worth.
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 10:15 AM
And you're showing that being a veteran is no impediment to making a complete ass of yourself. The guy apologized to you. Either accept his apology and move on or not, but move on.
/signed/
Another new guy
Posted by: Kilo | July 11, 2008 10:16 AM
And for those who do, there's "clubs" for that kind of thing. Lot of em tailored towards defacing Jewish landmarks and black churches but hey, it's all religion.Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 10:17 AM
"I dished out what you deserved, you hypocritical scumbag. You're new here, but you took no time making a complete ass of yourself."
I got what I deserved eh? An eye for an eye? Such morality.
"Someone thought Truth Machine, OM was a fundie? Now that's funny!"
I thought that because he was a complete ass. He's just a fundie in a different camp.
"You didn't merely make a mistake, you were a pathetic stupid jackass."
First off, I don't know or care what an OM is. You can't get over your stupid self enough to even get back to the message. But based on your posts here, I can say that you are probably one of the dumbest people on this blog, and BY FAR the dumbest atheist here. I thought you were a fundie because you foam at the mouth like a fundie. And like I said before, your lack of beliefs don't cover up how much of an ass you are.
Now this is the last time I will justify your idiocy with a response, and I will end on this note: you may praise yourself as open-minded and a fellow atheist, but you're a dick. Pure and simple.
Posted by: CalGeoge | July 11, 2008 10:19 AM
A worthy life goal:
Get people into your power by building a bunch of roomy, pointy-towered buildings, play dress up, invite people inside (playing sonorous, loud music helps) for free, spout nonsense, then have them ritually eat something bland made out of wheat and tell them it's the most special thing in the world.
I remember how terrible I felt when I stopped going up to ommunion. I thought I was doing something wrong by not following the other sheep up to the altar.
If they can get you to do the cracker thing, they know they've got you hooked. When I got myself to stop doing the cracker thing, and stopped giving in to that impulse to follow the herd of people up to that altar, I was on my way to freedom from the brainwashing that is religion.
Posted by: Doppelganger | July 11, 2008 10:20 AM
You're all so fucking brave behind your computers aren't you?
I think it's about time for a real Christian "fatwa." Die fuckers. Time for some real firepower. A new civil war. Time for all the atheists to be gathered together and fucking drowned.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | July 11, 2008 10:21 AM
A nice email has been sent to the president, I hope it helps you PZ.
Posted by: Matti | July 11, 2008 10:22 AM
Hey PZ,
I was a bit presumtuous and decided to write the President yesterday asking that he ignore the outcry for the blatent stupidity of the entire ordeal.
When I saw the email address on BD's website I thought it was going to be bad, so I wrote a nice happy email. Probably one of the only ones that day that wasn't typed in ALL CAPS and filled with various curses.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 11, 2008 10:22 AM
Wow! After reading a thread full of so many examples of the superior God-Given Morality and Christian Love we've all heard so much about from religious posters how could a reasonable person do anything other than sign up to the Catholic League without delay?
Just kidding - my email of support for PZ has been sent, hope it helps (sorry if I'm a bit late to the party)!
Seriously, after this ludicrous incident they have the gall to say us atheists are the bigoted, hate-filled ones? Sheesh!
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 10:23 AM
"And you're showing that being a veteran is no impediment to making a complete ass of yourself. The guy apologized to you. Either accept his apology and move on or not, but move on."
Thanx, JoJo. I know the vast majority of users here are quite accommodating, being a longtime reader and short-time commenter. TM is living proof that idiocy and ignorance are not limited to sectarian beliefs, and can even infect those who claim to hold the side of reason.
"It is still a fair question and an important one to those interested in winning hearts and minds:"
First off, I'm not sure that's a worthy goal. Sure, I will raise my kids to think intellectually and objectively, and I will support them even if they identify with a faith, but I for one am certainly not interested in proselytizing (sp. maybe?) the virtues of rationality and atheism. I believe that people who actually think about the world will arrive at that viewpoint themselves, and they need no help from us. Frankly, that's what separates us from mainstream faiths: the lack of will to convert. In my opinion, it's also the most refreshing.
But still, I agree with you. If I were in the other camp, PZ's comments would offend me (the ones about defacing crackers, which I still hold was a joke). However, I support his right to say such things on a public blog with no private affiliation.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 10:23 AM
First I may be misinterpreting your question, but assuming I am not...
So, his reaction to death threats by threatening to soil a cracker (one I doubt seriously he would have carried out, he was making a point) is unwarranted or over the line? Yes it was meant to offend. To offend a group of people who so overreacted to a stupid prank that some of their members threated to murder the kid. Attempts to offend were and are warranted. You do not have a right to not be offended.
The kids stunt was stupid but the reaction of the dumbfucks was not in measure to the offense. PZ's response was so far below the level of the Catholics, including blowhard of all blowhards Donohue.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 10:24 AM
I disagree.
You again misunderstand -- because you simply don't read what is written. Arun wrote "PZ Myers in his purely materialistic vein tends to forget that human beings do that". I responded that "PZ doesn't forget that at all. The whole point is that the ideas and values bound with communion wafers are intellectually and morally bankrupt." That's about PZ's point.
As a SYMBOL, the communion wafer can and does mean a lot to people, even if it's ridiculous (the literal view of it as flesh, however, IS ridiculous).
Of course it can and does. Like I just said, "PZ doesn't forget that at all". Sheesh. But that it means a lot to them doesn't mean that those ideas are intellectually and morally bankrupt. To say that the beliefs are ridiculous is pretty close to saying they are intellectually bankrupt. So you're again disagreeing with those who agree with you, it seems.
Standing in awe under David, or marvelling at the revolutionary content of the Constitution, is exactly the same neuronal response as marvelling at the cracker: sane people understand it is just a cracker, but also a powerful symbol. We must not forget that.
No, it isn't. The response to David is not because of it's symbolism, it's because of its direct aesthetic effect. People often refine their reaction when they learn of the symbolism that Michelangelo intended, but that's not on the same order of the initial reaction. People weep upon seeing the David even after seeing its picture and reading about it in books because it is so magnificent, it has such a direct emotional impact.
You cannot say that someone's morals are bankrupt because they come from a symbol we find repugnant. We CAN criticize them for threatening others with death over it, but in all honesty, if somebody can function in society, who cares WHERE they get their morals from?
You have serious reading comprehension problems. What I said is morally bankrupt is the morals bound to the wafer. It's the morality that's repugnant, not the wafer.
Fun as this is, I must go. See you around, newbie.
Posted by: Thom | July 11, 2008 10:25 AM
Done, and with pleasure.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | July 11, 2008 10:26 AM
Doppelganger, that sounds an awful lot like a death threat. Not too smart are you? You know that your IP has been recorded, yes? You also know that people like me, see I'm one of those nerdy IT guys (more of the management type now) that can trace you, pretty easily actually. Oh, sure, we'll need the subpoena once I trace the IP back to your ISP to get your account information, but it will take very little time.
So, would you like to make yet another death threat so that we can get the traces going?
Posted by: Kilo | July 11, 2008 10:26 AM
Sensible people don't object to fucking either and yet it's a leading motive for murder.
Would you like to declare that you've realised homicide itself is not sensible and then just STFU about it or is there some more discovery left to do here on the topic ?
FFS already.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 10:27 AM
"I think it's about time for a real Christian "fatwa." Die fuckers. Time for some real firepower. A new civil war. Time for all the atheists to be gathered together and fucking drowned."
The very image of cowering, wetting-your-pants fear. Poor guy is so terribly threatened.
Also, I agree with the good Reverend's above post: the post was designed to criticize the overt reaction to the incident. Incidentally, PZ said something I disagreed with (the will to desecrate more crackers) but I agree with the overarching message of calling out insanity when it is detected.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 10:29 AM
One more point:
marvelling at the revolutionary content of the Constitution
First, wafers have no content; everything of import comes from outside the wafer, whereas the significance of the Constitution is due to what it says. And people don't simply "marvel" at it, like the David. Being law, it's an effective document, with consequences, consequences that we largely are glad of. Or at least it used to be.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 10:29 AM
Ok even with all the dumb comments, this one is up there with the dumbest.
Attacks on Jews and Blacks in the contexts you are referring, were a cultural racial attack on a people. You even hinting at this being even close shows your utterly myopic understanding of history and this incident.
Wow that is just fucking stupid.
Posted by: Jefe | July 11, 2008 10:30 AM
Email Sent:
Dear Sir,
In respect to the recent controversy between the personal opinion voiced by Professor P.Z. Myers and members of the Catholic Church over the status of a Eucharist wafer, I hope you'll take a moment to view these remarks.
I am writing in support of Professor Myers. It would be a shame if the mob opinion of a large group or organization could lead to the summary expulsion of a Professor at a University over something as simple as expressing a personal opinion. I hope you and your institution will not be moved by the posturing and emotional threats of a group that is so obviously over-reacting, and that you and the University of Minnesota will continue to recognize Professor Myer's constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and opinion.
Kind Regards,
J. Hunt
Calgary, Alberta
Canada.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 11, 2008 10:30 AM
Wowbagger 1108,
I think you are wrong there.
There is no difference between a cracker, a piece of cloth, or a piece of paper, or a piece of marble.
If you are the owner of these artifacts, and you do not wish to recongnize the additional sentimental or symbolic or sacred value that they may have (the cracker -> body of christ = sacred symbol of your faith, piece of cloth -> flag = symbol of your country, piece of paper -> constitution = all your rights, piece of marble -> work of art) you may wish to destroy it or desecrate it or burn it for whatever reason or to voice your differences, this is all as the courts say closely akin to pure speech, and therefore constitutionally protected.
Now of course, if you do this to someone else's property it's another question.
You cannot argue that the sentimental value which is added to the cracker is less for a catholic than the sentimental value which is added to the piece of paper for a defender of the constitution. This doesn't make sense.
The only way to defend your right is to say that you have no obligation to recognize this sentimental value, as long as you are not infringing their property nor dirupting their services. That's all there is to it. Which is quite simple really.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 10:33 AM
I have a hard time not thinking Poe with this coming from someone named Doppleganger.
Posted by: The Pink Unicorn | July 11, 2008 10:33 AM
It's amusing how some catholics seem to speak of tolerance, conveniently forgetting that the doctrines of their homophobic, misogynistic, crap of a religion is intolerant to the majority of humanity.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 10:35 AM
"The response to David is not because of it's symbolism, it's because of its direct aesthetic effect."
Same shit, different pile. You look at David and you see his characteristic pose, his expression, his form, etc. and your response is caused by how our brains react to such images after evolving in an environment where such reactions were directly or indirectly integral to survival. It's basically subconscious, instinctive symbolism. The communion wafer is the same thing, but less abstract.
"You have serious reading comprehension problems."
The very characteristic of an intellectually-unsound argument (which, ironically, is also an ad-hom, but whatever).
"People weep upon seeing the David even after seeing its picture and reading about it in books because it is so magnificent, it has such a direct emotional impact."
But it ISN'T magnificent, not at all. Magnificence isn't a property of matter. Magnificence is IMPLIED onto it by how our brains interpret it. Same thing with rituals such as the wafer.
Anyways, I digress. The point is that morality is bankrupt ONLY if it impedes on the rights and comforts of others, and has nothing to do with whether it's attached to a wafer, or our own deduction, or an invisible sky-daddy.
Posted by: Randy | July 11, 2008 10:36 AM
Short, polite email duly sent.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 10:36 AM
But based on your posts here, I can say that you are probably one of the dumbest people on this blog, and BY FAR the dumbest atheist here.
You're again just making a fool of yourself; the smart people here know better. ta ta.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 11, 2008 10:36 AM
it gives me insight on how you athiest clowns think
Fortunately, you Christians have your own websites, like www.godhatesfags.com, to tell me how people like you think, Starbuck.
Posted by: Kilo | July 11, 2008 10:37 AM
Either that or the basis of what's defended is on what's being attacked. A totally awesome comeback would be for you or anyone else to point out where you've done something similar to Islam.Perhaps we could scientifically test whether this is a clueless intuition or simply an accurate statement borne out by the evidence in the archives here. That some faiths must be specifically targetted while others get a pass. Eh ?
Let's all pretend together that we don't already know what the answer is.
Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | July 11, 2008 10:39 AM
Is it me or does it seem that some comments are coming and going?
PZ mentioned their database gets screwy when threads get over 1000. We're far past that here.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 10:39 AM
You look at David and you see his characteristic pose, his expression, his form, etc.
You really really are stupid. The reaction to a wafer is not because of the loveliness of its grain. Pointing out the that the reaction to the David is mediated through the symbolic nature of human consciousness is a strawman that misses the point entirely.
Ok, I'm really out of here now.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 11, 2008 10:41 AM
"Being law, it's an effective document, with consequences, consequences that we largely are glad of."
But it isn't. (The Constitution) It was entirely made by people, sculpted of words made by people. The only reason it means anything it all is because we understand the language, and we accept the values it espouses as desireable. If you took that constitution to an authoritarian society with people who supported said society, it would be scorned and scoffed at. It means something to us because we agree with it.
"You're again just making a fool of yourself; the smart people here know better. ta ta."
I thought you were leaving.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July