Pharyngula

Posted by: D- | July 10, 2008 3:18 PM

Hmm, turns out Jesus was a Cracker...wonder if he really had blue eyes too.

Posted by: drow | July 10, 2008 3:20 PM

FSM save our noodles, and the meatballs among them, from the desecration of heathens, and of clerics and nuns, and of druids and rangers, and especially of favored souls, being a total munchkin class. amen.

Posted by: kubenzi | July 10, 2008 3:22 PM

its a miracle.i have witnessed "what? errr..." turned to "whine"

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 10, 2008 3:24 PM

How long will it take Bill Donohue to express his outrage over this activity in Wales?
Weekend is sure to be a cracker

Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 3:28 PM

Thanks for continuing the comments, PZ.

Dave S, #1006: Do you seriously suggest that Prof Wacko faces the same danger from Catholics here in Minnesota that he would if he tried a stunt like this in Mecca?

Do you really think this is even relevant? I mean, how the hell does retarded Muslim intolerance excuse retarded Catholic intolerance? How does the fact that Saudi Arabia is a theocracy have to do with the fact that PZ Myers lives under a secular government despite the ill-wishes of our own Christofascists? Do you even have a coherent point, or is your intent to obfuscate the issues here with emotion-laden irrelevance?

Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 3:30 PM

1. Poor kid takes home uneaten eucharist to show his friend.
2. Church and catholics go batshit crazy.
3. PZ thinks this is ridiculous and says so, also says he may do some things to a cracker.
4. Church and catholics go batshit crazy.
Teh end

Nah, the cycle of batshit crazy is never ending. Your summary needed a question mark at the end:

Teh end?

I didn't know that this was such a big deal thoughout histtor until reading the Wikipedia article on Host Desecration. Apparently, disrespecting this little (rather silly) bit of religious dogma has been used as justification for some rather extreme acts against groups that the Catholic Church despised.

The first recorded accusation was made in 1243 at Berlitz, near Berlin. As a consequence all the Jews of Berlitz were burned on the spot, which was subsequently called Judenberg. Another famous case that took place in 1290, in Paris, was commemorated in the Church of the Rue des Billettes and in a local confraternity. In 1370 in Brussels, the charge of host desecration, long celebrated in a special fest and depicted in artistic relics in the Church of St. Gudule, led to the extermination of the Jews of the city.

and on and on ... One hopes the Catholic Church of today doesn't resort to massacres and atrocities to protect its dogma as they did in the middle ages, but it looks like morons like Donohue long to a return to the good old days of the inquisition.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 10, 2008 3:31 PM

SICOTI: Someone Is Crackers On The Interwebs. And it sounds so much like psychotic.

Posted by: Chris P | July 10, 2008 3:32 PM

How is one supposed to know all these stupid religious no-no's? Are they codified in a book? It's bad enough when they change the traffic rules in a city without telling anybody outside.

Why don't the relgious stop using their cell phones while driving - that's flat dangerous. It directly affects my drive to work EVERY day. Having to spend effort checking for stupid behavior.

My eating a cracker doesn't affect your real safety in anyway.

What total hypocrits.

Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 3:33 PM

I could look up the names but I'm to lazy, I'd say we're up to 6 posters with confirmed koran envy and extremely self-centered delusions that indicate they actually think their specific religion is of special importance to atheists.

Posted by: H.H. | July 10, 2008 3:35 PM

Brett, I'm pretty sure the hate-filled and ignorant ones are those making death threats over a cracker.

Man, it's like the cultists live in Opposite Land--all Orwell all the time!

Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 3:35 PM

For all those who are thinking of smuggling out consecrated crackers, don't bother. Store-bought (or mail-ordered) ones are easier to get, and as the blessing process doesn't change their physical properties in any way, the priests won't be able to tell the difference.

You can do what-ever you like to them (Jesus sculpture!), and in doing so, mess with the minds of the credulous hopefully to the extent that they realize how stupid their beliefs are. If you like, some-time afterwards, you can reveal that no Jesus was harmed.

Oh what fun we shall have!

Posted by: qbsmd | July 10, 2008 3:36 PM

Congratulations....you have just committed career suicide!!!! Posted by: Brett

Because intelligent people care.

Posted by: midwifetoad | July 10, 2008 3:37 PM

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/louisiana-whats-the-big-deal/#comment-292251

The Christian Love is oozing out all over.

DaveScot

07/10/2008

12:52 pm
Myers is playing Russian roulette. He just keeps pushing the envelope in seeing how many people he can possibly offend in the worst way. It's just a matter of time before someone with a terminal disease, a month left to live, decides he hasn't got anything to lose by taking out Myers along with him.

I wonder what kind of Christian would think he has nothing to lose by committing murder. Or fantasizing about it.

Posted by: Taz | July 10, 2008 3:38 PM

Number of comments in the old thread is 661. Can't we put 5 more in there?

Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 3:40 PM

It just occurred to to me that if it weren't for the selfishness of Catholics each wanting to ingest a little Jesus, they would just chew him up to make him sticky, get together and sculpt all the gobs back together so we could have Jesus back.

But noooooooooo... they gotta EAT the guy. Sickos.

Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 3:41 PM

Six six six comments in the previous thread. It has been transubstantiated!

Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 3:42 PM

Are you gonna close down the other thread too? It reached a beautiful 666 post count. :P

Posted by: 386sx | July 10, 2008 3:44 PM

It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ.

I guess that means it's not as bad as kidnapping the Body of Christ! Lol, what a bully.

Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 3:46 PM

Dave S, #24: My point is...

...completely irrelevant to the fact that some kid who pulled a prank that harmed no one is being harassed and sent death threats by thugs who are little different than the ones you keep bringing up. That it's safe to criticize the Catholics is due to the work of people who have worked hard to maintain a secular government and freedom of expression in this country, people who don't seem to include either you or Donahue.

Posted by: me | July 10, 2008 3:47 PM

I don't quite get why you need to attack faith and physically go after believers; however, I think you would make excellent soldiers of Mao or Stalin in their "rational" liquidation of hundreds of thousands of religious peoples.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 10, 2008 3:48 PM

I found this link in the comments to the Strib article:

Eucharistic Miracle
...
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size...

Posted by: me | July 10, 2008 3:50 PM

Wow! How deluded...

Posted by: Ray S. | July 10, 2008 3:53 PM

I am so glad Crackergate has happened. Describing to my kids the inanity of the Catholics for believing such silliness has probably inoculated them from religion for life. Two new members of the reality based community. One not even a teenager yet.

Posted by: brandon | July 10, 2008 3:54 PM

Invading a Church to physically steal Holy Communion IS physically invading/attacking a religious people.

Brett as an ethical person, you ought to use thesauruses for good, not for lying and exaggerations.

Posted by: Fred Nurke | July 10, 2008 3:55 PM

This reminds me of the scene in Angela's Ashes where the boy (Frank?) gets sick and throws up the wafer, and the grandmother is upset because she's got the body of Jesus all over the back yard LOL!!!

When I was a kid, I had a friend who was an altar boy. We used to sneak into the church and take wafers by the bag and scarf them down for snacks.

Posted by: Epicurus | July 10, 2008 3:57 PM

Jesus prefers Wheat Thins. How many goddamn, fucking times to I have to goddamn tell you? Goddamnit!

Posted by: John | July 10, 2008 3:57 PM

Invading a Church to physically steal Holy Communion IS physically invading/attacking a religious people.

Who said anything about invading. They will be invited, heck, encouraged to come in. I bet if anyone here was told they were not welcome, they would leave.

Wow, what a wack job

Posted by: Sir Jebbington | July 10, 2008 3:58 PM

Wow, #48. The incorporation of an insult into PZ's name, the suggestion of unemployment, the reference to Winston Churchill, and a bonus KKK reference.
Godwin, it won't be long now.

Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 4:00 PM

From wikipedia: "Mortal sin, according to the beliefs of Roman Catholicism, is a sin that, unless confessed and absolved, condemns a person's soul to Hell after death."

Is not eating a wafer a mortal sin? Is this guy, according to Catholic beliefs, going to get tortured for eternity? I would think the Catholics would be satisfied with the torture, but they want to kill him too.

Posted by: Nonjebusbelievingheathen | July 10, 2008 4:01 PM

Albatross, Get your Albatross! "Do you get any wafers wif'em?" Of course you don't get any bloody wafers wif'em! Albatross!

Now we know why he didn't get any wafers with his albatross!

Posted by: Rebecca Watson | July 10, 2008 4:02 PM

All this talk about Jesus is making me hungry.

Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 4:03 PM

Wow, #48. The incorporation of an insult into PZ's name, the suggestion of unemployment, the reference to Winston Churchill, and a bonus KKK reference.
Godwin, it won't be long now.

I believe he was referring to WARD Churchill, now Winston. But he's probably too stupid to know the difference, so I withdraw my objection.

Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 4:03 PM

"Not sure what yet, "piss cracker" would be too derivative."

and too soggy.

Posted by: Richard Wolford | July 10, 2008 4:04 PM

Anyone ever hear the Hayward Banks song "Big Buttered Jesus"? I'll bet Big Butter Jesus would be great with Wheat Thins Jesus.

Posted by: Ray S. | July 10, 2008 4:05 PM

I've made breadcrumbs before by putting Pepperidge Farms Goldfish crackers through my KitchenAid food grinder. Does that mean I've committed genocide? Did I cause a ripple in the Force?

Posted by: K8 | July 10, 2008 4:06 PM

me scribbles: "made by someone entirely ignorant of the fats."

Which "fats" are we talking about, genius???

The point that tenured professors CAN be fired -- even if they need to find creative ways to do so.

Remember how they got Capone - on tax evasion....

Secular extremists really are sheltered aren't they....too much time spend playing WoW in the basement?

Posted by: HumanisticJones | July 10, 2008 4:07 PM

So if we could get about 150 lbs of these... and make a statue... then fill it with 10 pints of communion wine... Would atheists then by definition have built the real Jesus?

Posted by: Sarcastro | July 10, 2008 4:07 PM

Invading a Church to physically steal Holy Communion IS physically invading/attacking a religious people.

So a cracker is your God and a building is your people?

Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 4:08 PM

Mao or Stalin in their "rational" liquidation of hundreds of thousands of

You noticed the lack of rationality in those guys too?

Posted by: Fletch | July 10, 2008 4:09 PM

To all atheists:

You describe Catholics as bigoted morons. Fine.

But if we're just matter, than our (deluded, intolerant, unenlightened, bigoted) behavior is just the result of the motion of electrons in neurons of our brain.

So I have two questions
a) how can you get angry at Catholics, if they are just matter?
b) If we are just matter, then there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong"...we're all just atoms in an expanding universe. In which case bigotry and intolerance are no more immoral than gravity or the weak nuclear force. On what grounds can you call these things "wrong"?

Posted by: MrGadget | July 10, 2008 4:09 PM

Never fails to amaze me how hypocritical these cretins can be. Doesn't their bible say "each time you do this to the least of my brothers, you do this to me"? If their cretin god was in fact real, they'd ALL be bound for cretin hell.

Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 4:10 PM

"So if we could get about 150 lbs of these... and make a statue... then fill it with 10 pints of communion wine... Would atheists then by definition have built the real Jesus?"

I think that would be the real DRUNK Jesus!

Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 4:11 PM

"Also: the last time I let a guy transubstantiate down my throat he at least bought me more than a cap-full of his own blood beforehand."

That does not sound at all safe. But somehow I admire you anyway.

Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | July 10, 2008 4:12 PM

You are lower than dirt Myers. You are nothing but a childish grandstanding bigot. This is rational behavior? This is the behavior of an overgrown child-man.

Talk about being socially autistic!

Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 4:13 PM

Invading a Church to physically steal Holy Communion IS physically invading/attacking a religious people.

And you call religious extremists!

Wow! How deluded...

Posted by: Brett

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahha!!!!! they're going to have security guards passing out the precious lil crackers and bouncers at the door! Crazy extremists...

Posted by: me | July 10, 2008 4:13 PM

Which "fats" are we talking about, genius???

Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 10, 2008 4:15 PM

Congrats, Fletch. That's one of the dumbest things said on these threads yet. That takes some real effort, and you should be commended for it.

Right and wrong are social and cultural agreements. There have been times and cultures that considered human sacrifice and cannibalism right. There have been others that considered the alleged celibacy practiced by the Catholic clergy wrong. These things aren't dictated by disembodied spirits floating about and whispering in our ears.

Oh, by the way, the Catholic church also once taught that it was right to torture and execute those with religious beliefs that deviated in small ways from those of the Pope. As far as I'm aware, that's no longer practiced. So, what changed? Was it the word of God or social values? And if it was the latter, then when was the church acting against God's word... when it burned heretics or when it stopped?

Stick to your cookies. Trying to think will just get you in trouble.

Posted by: Randy | July 10, 2008 4:15 PM

Rebecca @ #61:

The only post in a long line of amusing posts that made me laugh out loud. Understated, yet evocative. The fine, (untransubstantiated), wine of cracker comments.

K8 @ #71:

What's WoW? Is that like Truth or Dare? We atheists loooove Truth or Dare... and Spin the Beelzebub.

Posted by: John | July 10, 2008 4:16 PM

how can you get angry at Catholics, if they are just matter?

The anger is not at the at Catholics and their silly beliefs, but at the bad behavior and death threats that were discussed in the initial post.

The beliefs seem to produce laughter, but not anger

Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | July 10, 2008 4:16 PM

>He didn't follow the church's rules because: HE DOESN'T HAVE TO.

Yes he does. I wonder how Myers would feel if I got up in the middle of his class & started chanting prayers in Latin? Or if I stole a picture of his mother from his wallet & used it to wipe my ass?

When you go into a Church you follow the rules of that church otherwise DON'T go in.

But then again what can you expect from an uncivilized bunch of jerks?

Posted by: qbsmd | July 10, 2008 4:16 PM

Once at a Catholic wedding (I'm not) I went up to take communion. I was about 20 years old and I didn't know non-Catholics weren't supposed to take communion because everyone was going up to do it. Apparently I did something (or didn't do something) that tipped the fact that I wasn't Catholic and the priest shot me a look like he was about to punch me in the face. But then he restrained like he knew he couldn't prove anything or something like and wasn't sure what to do. I'll never forget that moment. It was the weirdest, strangest, creepiest moment of my life.

Of course later I found out what the hubbub was all about.

Posted by: splint

Since you brought it up, hopefully this will be useful to everyone who wants to send PZ holy crackers (assuming I remember everything correctly):

Only old people let the priest put the cracker in their mouths; in Sunday school, I was taught to hold out my left hand palm up with my right hand under it. The priest says "the body of christ", you say "amen", he puts the cracker in your hand, and then you walk out of the way, and use your right hand to pick up the cracker and eat it, then make the sign of the cross.

Posted by: Boosterz | July 10, 2008 4:17 PM

Hmm, I wonder if Brett in #40 is the same Brettard that is always trolling around in the Amazon.com forums making a complete fool of himself.

Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 4:17 PM

@94

can't jeebus blow his own horn? ;) I laughed out loud at that one...

Posted by: paul lurquin | July 10, 2008 4:17 PM

Don't tell me that this bloated bearded buffoon of bigotry speaks for all atheists!

Posted by: jj | July 10, 2008 4:18 PM

@62
"How about planting some hosts around in various places"

Jesus Trees!

Posted by: Sid Rodrigues | July 10, 2008 4:19 PM

That's nothing. I once drank a whole bottle of communion wine and vomited it back up into a demijohn, re-fermented it and sold it back to the priest.
That was the best First Holy Communion. Hmmm.

Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 10, 2008 4:20 PM

By the way, we should draw something of a distinction here.

Not every Catholic on the planet is upset that some kid stole a cookie and then some professor thought it was funny and not worthy of said student being attacked, etc.

Most Catholics are relatively rational people. I must admit a certain fondness for modern Jesuits, for example.

None of those are the ones freaking out about this. In fact, those that had an ounce of actual faith would trust that God would sort all this out and not be screaming and ranting and calling for blood after the fashion of Bill "Dances with Apoplexy" Donohue.

I mean, heck, if God is supposed to know all and see all (ooh, spooky), wouldn't he have simply withdrawn the Essence o' Jesus out of the cracker as soon as the kid came up with the intent to smuggle it out?

But nooooooooooooo... so convinced are these raving militants in the impotence of their own deity that they think THEY have to take action to protect him!

No deity that needs human protection is worth worshiping.

Posted by: Your_daddy | July 10, 2008 4:22 PM

What the secularists on here really show their hate and desire to aggressively engage groups that are different from their established, godless norm....

So much for rational, tolerant beings...

Trotsky would be proud --- the utopia will arrive soon!!! (after the cleansing and purge of resistors, that is)

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 4:22 PM

"Do you really think this is even relevant? I mean, how the hell does retarded Muslim intolerance excuse retarded Catholic intolerance? How does the fact that Saudi Arabia is a theocracy have to do with the fact that PZ Myers lives under a secular government despite the ill-wishes of our own Christofascists? Do you even have a coherent point, or is your intent to obfuscate the issues here with emotion-laden irrelevance?"

Chiroptera, You need to understand fundie/right-wing logic (if that is not an oxymoron, maybe I should say lack of logic).

For the fundie/right-winger anything you do is OK as long as others are doing something worse. Thus it is ok to torture and kill muslims you think are terrorists, or just are bored, as long muslims are around who are doing worse. You see they set their moral and ethical standards not by saying there are things it is wrong to do, ever. They have moveable standards. Thus it is ok to execute murderers because the murderers behaved worse than you do in executing them. It is ok to torture people, if you think those you are torturing are kidnapping and beheading people. It is ok to assault someone who took a consecrated wafer, and make death threats against them because what they did is worse.

I really really do not understand people like that.

Posted by: Victor | July 10, 2008 4:23 PM

You know, they get these crackers sent to them in huge bags. Nothing really special about them. A friend of mine who attended centenary use to snack on them all the time. I wonder how many are spilled on the factory floor during the manufacturing process?

Posted by: luis | July 10, 2008 4:23 PM

Hey, someone told me that a "cracker" can fetch EU 5,000 to those satanic cults, which seem to be plentiful in Barcelona, even that I have never seen the entrance to their temples... that would be good business, any one interested in sending me some?

Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 4:25 PM

I reply: I can critize the Koran all I want but stealing one from a Mosque & tearing it up & puting the pictures on the internet is hateful & vile & something an anti-Muslim bigot would do.

Are we talking about missionaries again?!

Posted by: Entropy | July 10, 2008 4:27 PM

Sometimes following an idiot's advice pays off. Who knew? A quick Google search on Ward Churchill yields the following results:

He had written the essay shortly after the 2001 attacks.

CU officials ruled that Churchill's essay was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

But the spotlight on Churchill revealed numerous complaints of academic misconduct that had been raised by other academics, but never addressed by CU. He was accused of plagiarism, inventing historical incidents and ghostwriting essays which he then cited in his footnotes in support of his own views.

Those allegations were the ones that brought dismissal

If PZ had made up the whole cracker story to support his anti-Catholic agenda, maybe Brett's comparison would hold water. But one does not need to invent historical incidents or ghostwrite papers to show how batshit crazy Catholics are. All one has to do is look at the headlines.

I understand that you would prefer to stone people for thought crimes against alleged pieces of Jesus, but the concept of constitutionally protected speech still exists.

Posted by: Pleco | July 10, 2008 4:27 PM

@113

THIS

The weakness of faith shown by the theists is astounding.

Posted by: Tallie | July 10, 2008 4:28 PM

I just stole two blessed communion crackers. I gave one to a homeless man with mono for a small burst of calories. Now Jesus has mono. The other one I tied to a wooden stake and lit on fire to remind myself of how rational and forgiving the Catholic Church has been and can be.

Posted by: ben | July 10, 2008 4:28 PM

"Most Catholics are relatively rational people."

Relative to *what*, exactly?

Posted by: llewelly | July 10, 2008 4:28 PM

hm, PZ. Comment #1007 on the previous thread? Revealing, isn't it? Makes it obvious that you're a secret agent for British Intelligence. We all know Dawkins is British. Now you're revealed as an agent of the British. Shows quite clearly that the Evil Atheist Conspiracy has secretly taken over the British Government. Only one way out. We'll have to nuke the British!

Posted by: BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | July 10, 2008 4:30 PM

>Not every Catholic on the planet is upset that some kid stole a cookie and then some professor thought it was funny and not worthy of said student being attacked, etc.

I reply: I don't advocate unlawful violence or vengence. That is against the teaching of the Holy Church & more specifically the teachings of Augustine. But calling upon people to abtain a object that is held to be sacred by a particular groups for the purposes of defiling it is un-reasonable & vile.

Threats against Catholics is not an example of "speaking out".

Now you will excuse me I am going to find a nice White Supremicist Website to troll because at least the brain dead bigots there will give me more intelligent responses than the brain dead bigots I have seen here.

Myers you are a sick hateful person.

Posted by: Maragon | July 10, 2008 4:30 PM

Brett,

I think YOU'D make an excellent solider for Hitler, he was, after all, a Catholic, like you are!

OMG C WUT I DID THARE?

Spare us your tired rhetoric, we despise all religions and sects equally - yours isn't special, sorry peaches.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 10, 2008 4:32 PM

You should write some code that would limit all threads to a maximum of 666 comments.

Posted by: AdamNelson | July 10, 2008 4:33 PM

"Myers you are a sick hateful person."

Referring back to the title: It's a frackin' cracker!

Posted by: MrGadget | July 10, 2008 4:35 PM

As a (fortunately) EX-catholic (and ex-altar boy and ex-lector)I am amazed at the hateful diatribes spewed out by these so-called xtians. While quite a few can be reasonable (unlike the idiot Donohue) and are likely embarrassed by the whole ordeal, the hypocrisy exhibited by so many is simply mind-boggling.

Posted by: PCD | July 10, 2008 4:35 PM

+++++++++++++++++++

You people really are something!

To deny the VERY natural human notion and desire for the transcendental is foolish.

...and dangerous as shown by recent history - i.e. 100 million killed by the materialistic,utopian and atheistic regimes of the 20th cent.

Do you realize how infantile and ridiculous you all sound for claiming absolute knowledge about life and creation.

Must be a bunch of freshmen posting on there!

Read a bit of philosophy - Charles Taylor or Philip Rieff - and have a bit of life experience and get back to me, kiddies....

Posted by: Randy | July 10, 2008 4:36 PM

Mark B:

Thank you for the information. I thought I had at least basic nerd credentials, but evidently not. Too much time threatening crackers and not enough time lurking in my mother's basement, I guess.

Posted by: Zeno | July 10, 2008 4:37 PM

I'm sure that Vatican scientists must be hard at work on a Jesus detector that will sound an alarm if anyone tries to leave the church with an unconsumed communion host. When the alarm goes off, SWAT teams of ninja nuns will slide down from the church rafters on ropes, subdue the miscreant, reclaim the consecrated wafer, and Jesus will be saved!

False alarms are going to be really embarrassing. So, mothers, no Triscuits or Wheat Thins in the purse for the kiddies. Just asking for trouble. Cheerios are probably okay.

Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 4:38 PM

Or if I stole a picture of his mother from his wallet & used it to wipe my ass?

You can do it to mine. I'll send you one. It doesn't hurt my mother one bit. It only hurts me if I hold any value of the picture as a symbol of my mother, which I don't. It's a piece of paper. And the host is a cracker. See how easy that is? Not being offended is entirely within your control. Being offended is entirely of your own doing.

But then again what can you expect from an uncivilized bunch of jerks?

Off the top of my head, death threats for "desecrating" a cracker.

Posted by: nvfu | July 10, 2008 4:39 PM

"calling upon people to abtain a object that is held to be sacred by a particular groups for the purposes of defiling it is un-reasonable & vile."

I am an unbeliever; however, I see the logic of this and am quite embarrassed by the commenters on here.

New atheism is not any different than old atheism - just more extreme and anti-intellectual.

I count myself in the old guard, thankfully.

Posted by: AdamNelson | July 10, 2008 4:40 PM

"To deny the VERY natural human notion and desire for the transcendental is foolish."

HELLOOO! You're pretending crackers and wine are flesh and ichor, then eating them! You're playing cannibal!

"...and dangerous as shown by recent history - i.e. 100 million killed by the materialistic,utopian and atheistic regimes of the 20th cent."

Hmm, I don't remember the Soviets wearing belts that said "Atheism mit Uns," or "Materialist pogroms", or the "Utopian sacking of Constantinople". Just because the USSR didn't have a state religion doesn't make it atheist, or that they killed folks to favour atheists. They killed people to reinforce the cult of personality, aka Stalin and Mao. They killed because they were megalomaniacs, not because they were atheists.

p.s. Look up Soviet Union and Evolution together. You'd notice that the USSR unanimously rejected the Theory of Evolution because it too closely resembled free-market Capitalism. Idiot.

Posted by: Tom | July 10, 2008 4:41 PM

http://www.offendedyet.com/2008/07/true-evil.html

"Back off, or the cracker gets it!" (With apologies to Mel Brooks)

Posted by: Mozglubov | July 10, 2008 4:42 PM

Quoting comment #79: "But if we're just matter, than our (deluded, intolerant, unenlightened, bigoted) behavior is just the result of the motion of electrons in neurons of our brain."

I just thought someone ought to point out that it is actually positive ions moving across the neuronal membrane that lets your neurons fire action potentials... not that saying it was electrons is your only mistake, but it is one I didn't see anyone else correct.

Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 4:44 PM

Too much time threatening crackers and not enough time lurking in my mother's basement, I guess.

I play WoW, but I have a regular job (home sick today), so I not playing 18 hours a day like a lot of the people that I run into all of the time while I'm playing. A lot of those people DO live in their mom's basement, but those are also likely to be the people who think like K8. Which kind of sounds like a WoW nym.

Posted by: PCD | July 10, 2008 4:45 PM

Adam,

You are angry and ignorant -- i.e. the perfect atheist!

As for atheism in the communist revolutions....it was absolutely essential to their doctrine and practice.

To say otherwise is to be ashamed of your bloody atheist history! (in the name of progress and humanism, of course)

And, why be ashamed is there is no god?

Posted by: Rebecca Watson | July 10, 2008 4:46 PM

To Blake Stacey, Randy, badjuggler, and others: thank you for the kind words. However, credit goes to my muses: my homie PZ and my favorite cracker Jesus.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 4:47 PM

"To deny the VERY natural human notion and desire for the transcendental is foolish."

There are many things that are natural in humans that we do not encourage. It is natural for young men to have a propensity for violence. We do tend to discourage that though, as it tend to bugger up society.

However there is a bigger hurdle you need to get past. Merely asserting something does not make it true, so what evidence do you have to support your claim humans need the transcendental ?

"...and dangerous as shown by recent history - i.e. 100 million killed by the materialistic,utopian and atheistic regimes of the 20th cent."

I assume you are refering to Stalin, Mao and others.

Well of course there is a strong argument those regimes were in fact religious in nature. Explore the concept of political religion. It was not a lack of god that led to the crimes against humanity those regimes committed. Sweden is a very secular country, with a low level of belief in god. If you are right it should be a place where genocide is taking place, and human rights are frequently abused. Of course it is nothing like that. Sweden is a rather civilised country, albeit with very expensive beer, that has far less violence than the US, which is of course a very religious country.

"Do you realize how infantile and ridiculous you all sound for claiming absolute knowledge about life and creation."

I think you have atheists and theists confused. It is the religious who have certainty. Atheists just do not believe there is a god, but most will even concede they could be wrong about that. Richard Dawkins will admit there could be a god but he just sees no reason to think there is one, and no evidence to think there is one.

Nor do scientists claim they know everything and have total certainty. In fact science thrives on what is not known, and all scientific knowledge is tentative. Even the most cherished theories, such as Evolution, Relativity or QM could be overturned tomorrow if evidence came to light that showed they were wrong.

Posted by: jj | July 10, 2008 4:49 PM

@145
"Do you realize how infantile and ridiculous you all sound for claiming absolute knowledge about life and creation."

To whom is this directed?

Posted by: BJ | July 10, 2008 4:51 PM

As Tom said,
"Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied".

Posted by: Bouncing Bosons | July 10, 2008 4:52 PM

Just wondering - how do you folks feel about corpse-desecration? I mean, it's just a frackin' hunk of meat, right?

Well, thats up to the next of kin isn't it.

Let's say next of kin totally hate the idea. And then I go ahead a desecrate that corpse anyway, really go to town on it, ripping it up and shitting in it and everything.

When next of kin get really pissed at me, I can just say "Hey! It's just a frackin' hunk of meat, you retards!" and I win, right?

oooooh, nice try. But the corpse is OWNED by the next of kin, the cracker was FREELY GIVEN away.

Thanks for playing though

Posted by: AdamNelson | July 10, 2008 4:53 PM

"Adam,

You are angry and ignorant -- i.e. the perfect atheist!"

Projection, eh? Nice try.

"As for atheism in the communist revolutions....it was absolutely essential to their doctrine and practice."

No, you're an idiot. Having taken four courses on Soviet history, two just in the past term, I'm a little more educated than you are on the subject. Soviet socialism was a grasp for power, the murders a way to secure power. It was never about god-images or atheism, it was purely about making sure that everybody worshiped Stalin as a god. Which is, of course, the antithesis of atheism.

"To say otherwise is to be ashamed of your bloody atheist history! (in the name of progress and humanism, of course)"

One word: Pogrom. One more: Inquisition. Here's two more: interracial marriages. People are killed under the name of God or Yahweh or Allah, not in the name of a method of performing experiments.

"And, why be ashamed is there is no god?"

I have no idea what you're trying to say due to your fractured grammar. But if I assume you mean "if" instead of "is", I would say that I can be ashamed of things based on how my actions affect other people. Like I mentioned before, I base my morality on precepts founded on benefitting others, not appeasing som imaginary god to buy my ticket into eternal paradise. Or by pretending that I'm eating a dead guy.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 10, 2008 4:55 PM

Chocolate Christ = Bad, Cracker Christ = Good

Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 4:56 PM

Get lives, please...and stop being so sheepish and mob-like.

My irony meter just exploded.

Posted by: JCHall | July 10, 2008 4:59 PM

For people who claim to be so tolerant of others, it's amazing the amount of hate that religion gets. We may not understand why Catholics believe the things they do, but to mock them because they don't think like you or me is disgusting and puerile hatred that doesn't belong in America.

Posted by: AdamNelson | July 10, 2008 5:02 PM

"We may not understand why Catholics believe the things they do..."

It doesn't matter one bit WHY they're issuing death-threats. THAT is the true hatred here, and it is merely being called out for the farce that it is. This is literally the biggest joke since the "Behead those who claim Islam is a religion of violence" posters.

Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 10, 2008 5:04 PM

...but to mock them because they don't think like you or me is disgusting and puerile hatred that doesn't belong in America.

It's the hatred and the threats against life, limb, and employment, Stupid! For the thousandth time, they're welcome to their beliefs, but they have no control over how they are treated in the rough-and-tumble outside world.

Posted by: CDV | July 10, 2008 5:04 PM

Adam: "Having taken four courses on Soviet history, two just in the past term"

That sure is impressive, honey...did you make mommy and daddy proud?

The transference of a state religion did not come until the later stages of the revolution.

Marx, Trotsky and the Red Army wielded atheism as a weapon against traditional peoples and committed genocide to advance the cause of a god-less utopia.

Get over yourself, kid.

Atheism is not excused from the atrocities of the 20th century as it enabled many millions of people to be liquidated in the name of, as you state, comrade: a "morality on precepts founded on benefitting others."

Posted by: Nerdette | July 10, 2008 5:05 PM

"To deny the VERY natural human notion and desire for the transcendental is foolish."

Yes, that's all it is, it's HUMAN. Nothing more, nothing less, just a human thought planted in a bit of carbohydrate. It's not unique (billions of them have been consumed), it's not valuable, it's just a bit of flattened bread that a man with self-given authority waved his hand over while speaking some magic words. That's it. It's comparable to going into a botany lab, stealing a leaf off of a plant, and walking out. The leaf is only valuable to the researchers, and while they might be mildly annoyed over a lost data point, it happens. Personally, I'd be more pissed that an unauthorized person entered my lab, but meh...

Posted by: David | July 10, 2008 5:08 PM

"Call the Church!"

"Call the Police!"

"Call the Church Police!"

(sound of siren, screeching tires, hurriedly pious footsteps)

"What's all this then, amen?"

Posted by: Randy | July 10, 2008 5:09 PM

Mark B:

I didn't mean to imply that you were posting from your mother's basement. As I try to make clear on my own blog, that sort of insult gets saved for people who take Cracker Desecration seriously.

Rebecca:

I'm quite sure Gawd is beaming down upon you for taking up for his boy in this day and age when his followers are so grievously persecuted. May you always have Cheese Whiz for your crackers.

Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 5:10 PM

I reply: It's given away to Catholics for the SOLE PURPOSE of eating it.

So, there's a EULA? Who knew?

Posted by: b7 | July 10, 2008 5:11 PM

"Myers, in an interview today, explained that the blog entry is more "satire and protest" than an actual threat to defile the Eucharist."

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html?location_refer=Editorials

Posted by: az | July 10, 2008 5:11 PM

Nobody disrupted a religious service or even suggested any such thing. Nobody stole or defaced any personal property. A better analogy might be if you went to PZ's class and stole a pencil.

Not even that.

More like, you took a test in PZ's class and he gave you scratch paper and you took some of it home to show your friend what kind of scratch paper PZ gives out.

Posted by: AdamNelson | July 10, 2008 5:13 PM

"That sure is impressive, honey...did you make mommy and daddy proud?"

Well, based on THOSE credentials, I truly am humbled... typical anti-intellectualism.

"Marx, Trotsky and the Red Army wielded atheism as a weapon against traditional peoples and committed genocide to advance the cause of a god-less utopia."

I think you've got your names mixed up. Marx described religion as the perfect tool to control the uneducated by, and that's how Stalin et al. played the game: they created cults of personality around themselves, becoming national, infallible heroes. Back your assertions up: name a single textbook that says that atheism was weilded as a weapon. You won't, because you can't, as you're clueless. Get yourself educated and read a book that wasn't endorsed by Answers in Genesis sometime.

"Get over yourself, kid."

Ah, such sophistication and razor-sharp wit. I eagerly await your first published proverb collection.

"Atheism is not excused from the atrocities of the 20th century as it enabled many millions of people to be liquidated in the name of, as you state, comrade: a "morality on precepts founded on benefitting others.""

So... killing hundreds of millions of people is for benefitting others? I'd think that's more along the lines of harming others, but as a non-cannibal, I may be mistaken from the human-flesh deficiency in my diet. One final time now, I will correct you: Soviet socialism had nothing to do with religion; it was purely about securing power in the hands of a megalomaniac at the excuse of EVERY ethnic and cultural group that didn't agree with Stalin. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.

Why don't you point out YOUR 20th century Russian credentials?

Posted by: 5ive | July 10, 2008 5:14 PM

"Just wondering - how do you folks feel about corpse-desecration? I mean, it's just a frackin' hunk of meat, right?"

Excellent question!
But I think "desecration" is too vague. Does autopsy count as desecration? Or use for students learning anatomy? Or organs used to save small, big-eyed children? How about tissue samples taken to help find cures for diseases? If it does, then, yeah. I can deal with corpse desecration.
If you mean like exhuming a body and holding it your mouth til you get home, then I would only wonder about your motives and your immune system. The human corpse is NOT a pretty thing to behold.
I was irritated that someone stole Ian Curtis' headstone, but I sure as heck wouldn't send death threats or call it the most vile thing someone could do.
How do YOU feel about corpse desecration?

Posted by: peter | July 10, 2008 5:14 PM

@190 you seem to have this mania for excrement on dead bodies... Not spending a lot of time in med schools, I don't know the answer to this, do they ever report back to the next of kin on the eventual disposition of the remaining protein? Or once you sign off on the cadaver you sort of assume no further interest...

to a large extent, if your body's been left to science you've left yourself open to the possibility that the cadaver might be sliced into very tiny pieces and dissolved in any number of different solutions and chemicals... what's one more piece of shit on a body who's not really worried about anything anymore. chances are pretty good that there was a bit left inside at time of death anyway...

I would, however, tend to wonder about the state of mind of a person who seems driven to shit on dead bodies...

Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 10, 2008 5:16 PM

@173 That's it? That tiny legalistic loophole is what this whole thing hinges on?

@178 Yeah, *was*. Makes the whole the difference.

OK. Say the corpse left his body to science, so next of kin don't own it. And then after the med students have done with it, I take it and take a big old shit on it. Now next of kin are being totally retarded if they're offended, right?

The point I was trying to make at #178 is that you don't have to be deluded or crazy to agree that the poor bastard's corpse was a human being. Whereas, with Jeez-Its, you do.

Most atheists would be sickened by wanton disrespect shown toward a human corpse; it's a completey human, if not entirely rational response. I am disgusted by kids who knock over gravestones merely on the principle that monuments to the people who lived before us are deserving of respect, without buying into any superstitious nonsense about ghosts or resurrection or invisible sky buddies.

Posted by: TTT | July 10, 2008 5:16 PM

DaveScot, #25:
It's just a matter of time before someone with a terminal disease, a month left to live, decides he hasn't got anything to lose by taking out Myers along with him.

But-but-but I thought atheists were supposed to be the ones who had no values and nothing to live for and nothing to stop the constant urges towards rape and murder that--according to most creationists I've read--are felt by all humans 24/7.

Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 5:17 PM

@Brett | July 10, 2008 4:53 PM
Get lives, please...and stop being so sheepish and mob-like.

Brett don't like atheists talking to each other? :*(

You and your projections make me a sad panda man.

On the other hand, it entertains me and countless others to no end when you keep trying to throw mud in the form of flawed comparisons with religion at us even though you are championing religion yourself.

Posted by: CDV | July 10, 2008 5:19 PM

"So... killing hundreds of millions of people is for benefitting others? I'd think that's more along the lines of harming others, but as a non-cannibal, I may be mistaken from the human-flesh deficiency in my diet."

Adam,

You really are clueless...I was being ironic and is called a dystopia.

Where did you say your are spending your freshman year away from mommy?

Posted by: AdamNelson | July 10, 2008 5:20 PM

"it entertains me and countless others to no end when you keep trying to throw mud in the form of flawed comparisons with religion at us..."

Agreed. Atheism is a religion just as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Posted by: protocol | July 10, 2008 5:21 PM

I think you've got your names mixed up. Marx described religion as the perfect tool to control the uneducated.

You're pretty misinformed, aren't you. I would stop digging if I were you. There are actually people here who have read (and teach) the stuff. Go read "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right", you idiot, carefully this time, to understand what Marx was trying to say. He never stated that "it was a perfect tool" for anything. Homework: go read it carefully and find out the flaws in your moronic interpretation.

Posted by: KKKAthiest | July 10, 2008 5:26 PM

This is like a good ol' Catholic beat down!

It reminds me of the good old days of anti-Catholicism.

I guess the bigots change (replace WASPs/KKK with militant atheists)....but the bigotry stays the same!

I'm gona find me a Catholic....they are not getting away with this!

Posted by: Ktesibios | July 10, 2008 5:27 PM

But the corpse is OWNED by the next of kin, the cracker was FREELY GIVEN away.

Umm, no- at least with rpsect to the corpse.

The prosecution of the people who plotted to steal the body of Abraham Lincoln and hold it for ransom ran up against this problem.

It was established law that a corpse is not a person, so kidnapping charges were out. It was also established law that a corpse is not property, so theft was out as well. Illinois had no laws prohibiting grave-robbing at the time, so what to do?

The solution was to try the conspirators for conspiring to steal the coffin, which was property and even had a known value- $75.00- enough to qualify as grand larceny.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 5:28 PM

"What I don't get is why, if I am nothing but the some of my atomic parts, I should give a damn about what's good for the society in which I live, let alone the species? If the evolutionary forces that prompt us to preserve the species are truly blind, what difference does it make if we ignore them? Humanity dies out. Big whoop."

You have heard of this thing called evolution ?

In social species co-operation confers an increase in fecundity. There can also be a reward in increased fecundity for those that break the rules of the society in which they live. Taking more food, and failing to share for example. Social species then evolve means of preventing freeloading. The evolution of morality, and of alturism is well studied and understood. That you do not understand it only indicates a gap in your education, not in human knowledge. It is a comples subject, and I have not done it justice here. A google on Richard Dawkins for "The Selfish Gene", and Matt Ridley for "The Origins of Virtue" will get you started.

Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 5:30 PM

KKKAthiest seems rather preoccupied with catholicism and catholics for someone who doesn't believe in gods. Either he was one, or he's just a troll trying to prove himself to jeezus.

Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 10, 2008 5:31 PM

Shorter KKKAthiest [sic]:

You guys mocking us for our lynch mob mentality over a purloined biscuit is anti-Catholic bigotry.

Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 5:32 PM

Fletch #214 wrote "Yes, legal and social consequences to "immoral" actions are a good reason at a practical level...but what if I'm clever enough to avoid getting caught?"

Wow, you really don't have a conscience, do you? You do realize that's not good?

Az #200 wrote "More like, you took a test in PZ's class and he gave you scratch paper and you took some of it home to show your friend what kind of scratch paper PZ gives out."

Exactly!

Posted by: az | July 10, 2008 5:33 PM

Nobody disrupted a religious service or even suggested any such thing. Nobody stole or defaced any personal property. A better analogy might be if you went to PZ's class and stole a pencil.

Not even that.

More like, you took a test in PZ's class and he gave you scratch paper and you took some of it home to show your friend what kind of scratch paper PZ gives out.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 5:34 PM

Let me get it right!

Atheism is a religion the way bald is a hair colour.

Posted by: Ella Rache | July 10, 2008 5:35 PM

You are lower than dirt Myers. You are nothing but a childish grandstanding bigot. This is rational behavior? This is the behavior of an overgrown child-man.

Talk about being socially autistic!

Well, you certainly are worked up into a religious zeal, aren't you, BenYachov. Words are not magic. Neither was that cracker. Are you trying to accuse the man of wizardry or something? Are you trying to say the letters on this page are somehow magically wounding you? What are you getting at? Your magical beliefs are being questioned in the light of rational society. Get used to it if you're going to come around places like this.

Less whine, more brain, next time.
Ella

Posted by: Slimy Joe | July 10, 2008 5:36 PM

@203 How do YOU feel about corpse desecration?

Oh I'm STRONGLY in favour of it, can't you tell? I'm just wondering if I can count on you guys' support, given that all the argument against is just so much irrational horseshit. I mean - it's just a fackin' hunk of meat! Who cares!

Posted by: CDV | July 10, 2008 5:41 PM

==========
PZ writes:
==========

"So no poll-crashing today. Instead, I would appreciate it if you would write a short note to President Robert Bruininks in support"

I guess hate-speech and lynch mob tactics of atheists like PZ have a price to pay.

Good luck, sucker...

PS - calling all Catholics extreme because of a couple of fanticis (and their threats) is what is known as a "collective fallacy" - logic in which parts are confused for the whole.

Atheists still believe in logic, dont they? ;)

Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 5:42 PM

Brett #224 "The atheists are trumping up charges on "catholics" so that they can unleash their anti-catholic bile and hate speech. Sound familiar? (I think the Jews and Black have experienced similar mob reactions)"

What are these charges that atheists are trumping up? That Catholics believe in stupid nonsense? So what?

The Catholics are charging the kid with "desecrating the Host", which is a charge that Jews are familiar with, and it resulted in the murder of a great many of them.

Throughout history, a number of groups have been accused of desecrating hosts; because of the religious importance of the consecrated wafer, the accusation is one of metaphysical evil and hostility towards God. Accusations against Jews were a common pretext for massacres and expulsions throughout the Middle Ages in Europe.

See here.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | July 10, 2008 5:43 PM

Hey there Catholics,

I just want to have it on the record that I, the former Judean zealot who lived a couple thousand years ago and accidentally started a religion that would spread across the world, am not the son of God. I was the son of two ordinary human beings. I did not die to save you from "original sin"; I died because of Roman and Judean politics. Yeah, I was called the Messiah, the Anointed, which title was later translated into Greek as "Christ", but you know, "Messiah" was code for "True King", and was therefore as much a political phrase as a religious one.

I do not "transubstantiate" into wafers when an ordained priest waves his hands and says some words. When you eat those wafers, you are not eating the essence of my body. My body decayed long, long ago. The whole "this is my body" business arose because at the time of that Passover meal, I was drunk out of my mind, on wine, and also on Judean politics and mysticism.

All that having been said, you probably are "ingesting" the remnants of my body right now. But then, so is everyone else.

When I lived, I ate food and breathed in oxygen. I also breathed out carbon dioxide. Oxygen and carbon dioxide are gases that circulate through the metabolism of living things all the time. So part of the air you breathe used to be part of me. You don't need any special ritual to get it, and it doesn't give you any special benefit, either.

But there it is. The air you're breathing right this instance, was once part of me.

Just so you know.

Oh, and some of the carbon and oxygen is also in the wafers and wine, but again, no more so than in any other bread product or fruit juice product. You can just as easily eat some toast and drink some orange juice at home, and it works out about the same.

Bon appétit!

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 5:45 PM

"PS - calling all Catholics extreme because of a couple of fanticis (and their threats) is what is known as a "collective fallacy" - logic in which parts are confused for the whole."

I am not sure where PZ said that. Can you point us towards the post where he called ALL catholics extreme.

It is worth pointing out that of the people who have posted here claiming to be Catholics very few have bothered to condem the death threats made against PZ. I am not sure if that tell us much other than either they lied, or there are Catholics who are pretty vile people.

Posted by: beagledad | July 10, 2008 5:46 PM

Craig @ #92,
Actually, it's more like Shaun of the Dead.

Posted by: the strangest brew | July 10, 2008 5:53 PM

"Marx, Trotsky and the Red Army wielded atheism as a weapon against traditional peoples and committed genocide to advance the cause of a god-less utopia."

Nonsense... it was to promote a one party political system of government....religion was not required to subdue the masses with threats and horror stories...just the gulags...

"Atheism is not excused from the atrocities of the 20th century as it enabled many millions of people to be liquidated in the name of, as you state, comrade: a "morality on precepts founded on benefitting others.""

As could the same charge be levelled against the religious pogroms...and not just in the 20th century...like the crusades and the persecution of the Jews...the burning times also required a certain suspension of the Christian ethic... but the church does it for jesus so whoopidoo...!...bit like they are doing now with this palpable nonsense...

"Get over yourself, kid."

Likewise... as in 'heal thyself physician'

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 5:55 PM

I am quite sure there are Catholics who probably think Webster Cook was a silly kid but are not outraged about what he did. I imagine there are some who are also highly embarressed that their co-religionists seem to be having a collective fit that leaves them devoid of all reason.

I just wish these Catholics would tell all those saying this is a hate crime to shut the fuck up.

Posted by: Jon H | July 10, 2008 5:57 PM

I wonder if PZ could come up with an experimental protocol involving eucharist wafers and zebrafish?

Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 10, 2008 6:00 PM

Let's start this letter with a little quiz:

1. Where is PZ Myers's integrity?
2. Why can't PZ relieve his aching sense of inadequacy without having to turn us into easy prey fordevotees of conspiracy theories?
3. Essay: Compare and contrast his scare tactics ["~the pious religious control the military] to those of unprincipled vagabonds, focusing especially on who is more likely to turn our country into a soulless cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime.

Don't worry; I'll give you all the answers throughout the course of my time here as well as a wealth of other information about PZ. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that just the other day, [figurative story - not literal] some of PZ's lackeys forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described PZ's blueprint for a world in which infernal wantwits are free to abrogate some of our most fundamental freedoms. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that anyone -- you or I or a Martian just arrived in a flying saucer -- who wants to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community should realize that PZ has been known to say that Lysenkoism [the same as to believe in false science as a means to understand people and the soul] is a wonderful thing. That notion is so wanton, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this statement. Someone, possibly PZ Myers himself or one of his assistants, will write a detestable piece about how utterly ultra-footling I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.

For those who argued for the desecration of the dead: How would you feel to have a loved ones body sexually violated? The necrophiliac does no literal harm by anyone else surely?

Posted by: CDV | July 10, 2008 6:02 PM

"As could the same charge be levelled against the religious pogroms...and not just in the 20th century"

Numbers matter here, my friend.

3000-5000 over 300 years of the Spanish inquisition etc. compared to 60,000,000 killed in Russia alone by dogmatic communism and its ENFORCED ideology of atheism.

100,000,000 in only 100 years of modern secular/atheist rule or maybe couple 100,000 in thousands years or religious rule.

Modern progress, eh?

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | July 10, 2008 6:05 PM

Corpse desecration? Isn't that what the communicants are doing when they ingest little pieces of their god?

Flushing the remaining body parts down the Sacrarium to go mouldy under the church basement doesn't sound too respectful, either.

These people have even considered what to do with it when someone is so sick that they can't swallow it. reference: liturgy.wordpress.com

Seriously, this post needs a humour tag. Very funny comments and trolls.

Posted by: windy | July 10, 2008 6:07 PM

For those who argued for the desecration of the dead: How would you feel to have a loved ones body sexually violated?

This question will become relevant after I start handing out bits of my loved ones' flesh out to strangers and demanding that they EAT them.

Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 6:08 PM

This breathtaking stupidityinanity

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 6:11 PM

"You are completely right, of course. But if the wiring was done blindly, there's no good reason to obey it's resulting impulses."

Fletch, do you know the first thing about evolution ?

You do know that evolution is not a random process ? If you do, why did you make such an idiotic comment ? And if you don't, why the fuck are you spouting on about stuff you are totally ignorant of ?

Posted by: 5ive | July 10, 2008 6:14 PM

@237
Can you please show me "all the argument against it"? I must have missed it. I only saw where people were fine if it was for scientific/medical advancement and was ok with the next of kin or the dead person themselves...
I am also confused about the supposed "Irrational horsepucky". I missed that, too. Show it to me and I will reconsider your response.

Posted by: CDV | July 10, 2008 6:17 PM

Mr. Pinfold,

Sweden, eh? I think that Denmark is the most cohesive and "happiest" society in the world and this is largely (according to experts) due to it's monolithic nature and standard of living. (mostly Lutheran, btw)

As for Communism and atheism, they are not the same; however, they are closely (disastrously) linked in history.

OK, now, how about another personal attack to support your illogic?

Posted by: ROFLMA(theist)AO!!! | July 10, 2008 6:18 PM

#40:
"And you call religious extremists!"
As far as I know I have never called a religious extremist. Have you? Does the government know?
#48:
"PuusssZy Myer,"
Are you a zealous right winger or are you 5 years old? It's hard to tell the difference most of the time. This is soooo grade school.
#71:
"Secular extremists really are sheltered aren't they....too much time spend playing WoW in the basement?"
What's WoW? Is there math involved?
#79:
"So I have two questions
a) how can you get angry at Catholics, if they are just matter?"
You really don't understand the difference between anger and ridicule, do you? You and the people who are trying to get PZ fired are GOOFY. We are laughing at you. Rolling on the floor. Tears are coming out of our eyes. People have sore sides. This comment was especially rich in you thinking that it was a clever observation (again, it was very grade school) but made even more funny by the projection and lack of observational skills.
#99:
"Or if I stole a picture of his mother from his wallet & used it to wipe my ass? When you go into a Church you follow the rules of that church otherwise DON'T go in."
What church do you go to? I'm never going to go there or eat anything made at one of their bake sales!
#115:
"What the secularists on here really show their hate and desire to aggressively engage groups that are different from their established, godless norm...."
Actually what I'm seeing is hate and desire to aggressively engage groups that are different from their established, godded norm. No one is starting a letter writing campaign to get Bill Donahue fired, for starters, and no one is bragging on his blog (does he have one and does it even allow comments?) how they are such important people that they can do so. You too seem to be hearing shouting when you should be hearing the deafening roar of laughter.
135:
"Now you will excuse me I am going to find a nice White Supremicist Website to troll because at least the brain dead bigots there will give me more intelligent responses than the brain dead bigots I have seen here."
That's because they will probably agree with you. They are devout Christians after all. You have a lot in common.

Just for good measure, I think that I'll throw in an extra helping of sacrilege.
http://www.ghastlycomic.com/d/20040425.html
On behalf of myself and the people in my family and my friends who are Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish, thanks for the laugh, ye offended ones. I haven't been following this very closely but if all of the threads have as much silliness to them as I have seen so far on this thread I really have missed much. Oh, to have free time. :^(

Posted by: Hap | July 10, 2008 6:19 PM

CDV - #257 has a hole big enough to drive a large truck through. Neither the Soviets nor the Russians killed most of their people because they wished to force the poupulations to become atheist - they killed to gain power and to make the world closer to what they thought it should be (if anything, one might argue that Stalin and Mao may have thought themselves gods, but I don't know that for sure). (The Soviets and Chinese, among others, have attempted to suppress Christianity, though in nowhere near the numbers you present). The strongest argument you can make is that atheism (at least in the leaders) did not prevent them from believing in themselves enough to commit mass murder - but then again, Hitler's Christianity didn't much stop him, either.

There is also the slight manner of weaponry - if you are unfortunate enough, the Indians and Pakistanis may dwarf your death tolls in one shot, in major part due to their religious differences (alloyed with nationalism, of course).
I don't think the people who led the Crusades would have restrained themselves from using whatever weapons they had against their enemies (their beliefs didn't stop them from raping and plundering, after all) - with our weaponry, those totals would have been much higher. The reason that we have both the weaponry and the lifespans we do, of course, is because of the rise of science and intellectual questioning, brought in part by secularism. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Samuel | July 10, 2008 6:20 PM

I, like many atheists, was raised in a religious family, and find that many fundamentalists have missed a few points that Jesus taught. Those of "love thy neighbor" and the like. Also, he had a lot to say about dogma. Fundamentalists get hung up on the dogma that has grown up around Christianity.
The main point that Dr. Myers was trying to make was how absurd it is to get bent out of shape over removing a cracker from mass. How is that infraction so bad as to threaten death? I believe your boss would have something to say about death threats.
As for the issue of militant atheists. It's pretty hard to stay neutral and hide outrage when someone threatens your life or the life of anyone else over such a mundane thing as poking fun at the absurdity of this whole situation. When a group faces such hostilities for so many years, it's natural for that group to push back. And as for militancy itself, the most militant atheists I've ever met are, in general, very mild mannered individuals. On the other hand, the most militant fundamentalists I've met are truly scary individuals.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 6:26 PM

Mr. Fletch @276, Dr. Dawkins would absolutely not agree that evolution is a random or "blind" process. Mutations may occur at random, but the natural selection process that favors some mutations and culls out others is anything BUT random. Got that now?

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 6:28 PM

And let me add to that, Fletch, that Dawkins would probably be more than a little appalled (as I am) at attempting to marshal your misunderstandings of evolution into the support of your irrational and ultimately silly world view.

Posted by: Martin Wagner | July 10, 2008 6:28 PM

#276: I think Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker) would agree with me that natural selection is a completely blind process.

Well, if you mean by "completely blind" the same thing as "random chance," no. Natural selection is a "blind" process only in that there's no need for a god to be involved.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 6:30 PM

How about the church issue a stern warning that Cook's immortal soul is in danger and leave it at that? But nooooo... they had to assault him in their sanctuary, their more extreme members had to threaten him and his property physically, and their yapping league bobblehead had to threaten the careers of anyone who didn't kiss their asses. This is how they follow the putative Prince Of Peace?

Yeah, it strikes me that they must think very little of Jesus's power, you know? I mean, their own savior got crucified and rose from the dead supposedly in triumph, but here he needs a goon squad to protect his cracker "body" from desecration. Just another thing about Catholicism that doesn't add up.

Posted by: the strangest brew | July 10, 2008 6:37 PM

"Numbers matter here, my friend."

yep! and making them up also seems to matter...to some folks...

"3000-5000 over 300 years of the Spanish inquisition etc."

Not to mention the desecration and ethnic cleansing of the Incas and the rest in South America...all in the name of God and Gold...probably runs into a few million just on that continent before holy rome got it's pernicious way...

"compared to 60,000,000 killed in Russia alone by dogmatic communism and its ENFORCED ideology of atheism."

As opposed to the millions killed in the second world war by a religious commitment by the Waffen SS...yep they were religious enough to believe they had god on their side...check out their deaths head belt buckle...the design is symbolic of the fact that they believed they were from the first holy roman empire...do the research if you do not like the point...

"100,000,000 in only 100 years of modern secular/atheist rule or maybe couple 100,000 in thousands years or religious rule."

Imaginary numbers do not win the argument...try to back up your maths with some facts...but whatever... the point is that religion kills in the name of God...Secular deaths...although not as high as you claim occur due to other inanities...but not because of some fairy story...simple like so...and according to some Christian bunnies on this thread they seem to get off on the thought of murder...still...that is the modern Christian for ya....

"Modern progress, eh?"

Seems not...!

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 6:39 PM

And Fletch, exactly why should we not be concerned about constructs of the human brain, again? Yes, our "mind" is really the workings of our physical brain, but this doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 6:42 PM

SO, why stand up for this fool if not for a sheer sheep-like mimetic desire?

Because it's just so funny (not to mention pathetic) when people like you get riled up over it!

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 10, 2008 6:47 PM

The top atheists attack religion in the theoretical ground and would never stoop down to attacking actual sacred and physical objects of a tradition.

Actually, pointing out that "sacred" is an incoherent concept is in fact an attack on the theoretical basis of religion.

And recall that this whole brouhaha started because the defenders of the "sacred tradition" attacked an actual, real physical human being.

Do you think Dawkins or Harris would pull a stunt like this?

I'm sure they would (or are going to) point to it as yet another example of the insanity that is religion.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | July 10, 2008 6:55 PM

K8,

I am extremely amused by the foolishness Catholics believe in. Does that count?
___

So when those Danes decided to make a point and mocked the Muslims for their extreme sensitivity about their religious beliefs, what were this batch of outraged Christians doing then?

Chuckling at the foolishness of the false believing Muslims? Rising in anger to demand respect for Mohammed? Pointing out the dangers of Islamic world conquest?

Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 10, 2008 7:03 PM

Do you think Dawkins or Harris would pull a stunt like this?
I'm sure they would (or are going to) point to it as yet another example of the insanity that is religion.

Actually, the bat signal has already gone out:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2848,PLEASE-WRITE-IN-SUPPORT-OF-PZ-MYERS,Richard-Dawkins-PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

Thanks for playing, K8.

Posted by: frog | July 10, 2008 7:13 PM

Fletch: What I don't get is why, if I am nothing but the some of my atomic parts, I should give a damn about what's good for the society in which I live, let alone the species? If the evolutionary forces that prompt us to preserve the species are truly blind, what difference does it make if we ignore them? Humanity dies out. Big whoop.

Have you heard of this little thing called empathy? Most of us care, well, because we do. We have empathy; we love others. Decent people don't require a reason to be decent; we just are.

Obviously, you're another fine example of the sociopathy that uses religion to simply advance their own vacuous interest. I.e., you're just one more potential serial killer hiding under your magic fairy's skirt.

Posted by: Hap | July 10, 2008 7:16 PM

It's sort of ad hominem, but why do the aggrieved posters all seem to love equals signs as separators? I'm just waiting to see some ASCII art while they're at it.

This isn't USENET - the return key will work just fine.

Posted by: Mena | July 10, 2008 7:20 PM

Breaking news...
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html?location_refer=Gophers
and more stupid comments I'm sure. I haven't read them yet but the first dozen or so seem sane but the last one mentions Hitler so I'm sure that tired canard is being used there too. The ten or twenty people who paid to watch Expelled sure do seem to have a thing for news about PZ...

Posted by: frog | July 10, 2008 7:22 PM

strangest brew: Not to mention the desecration and ethnic cleansing of the Incas and the rest in South America...all in the name of God and Gold...probably runs into a few million just on that continent before holy rome got it's pernicious way...

North America may have had upwards of 20 million at the time of colonization --- and Central and South America were much more heavily urbanized. The Caribbean was very densely populated. So between the Protestants and Catholics, a significant portion of the world population at a time when total world pop was about half a billion was eliminated in a couple of centuries.

That's not including such lovelies as the Albigensian crusade, where in one single cathedral, 20,000 heretics, men, women and children, were killed with the approval of the Vicar of Christ.

We don't even know the numbers killed in Northern Europe during the 8th - 10th centuries to eliminate the pagans; but we do know that in the 17th century, a quarter of the population of Germany was eliminated on exactly the question of the magical status of crackers.

Yeah, baby, the genocides of the 20th century are almost unimpressive next to the continual history of genocide shown by the monotheists.

Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 10, 2008 7:25 PM

I really don't get why the religious people here aren't far more upset with Donohue than they are with anyone else.

Donohue has stated that some college kid was capable of "holding the body of Christ hostage." Doesn't that count as... you know... blasphemy? Apparently Donohue thinks that some kid at UCF is more powerful than Jesus. If Jesus didn't want to be held hostage, how does Donohue propose that said student would have been able to do so?

And if God didn't want the "body of Christ" to be held hostage, then surely God would have been able to do whatever was necessary to prevent or correct the situation (such as turning the thing back into a plain old cracker again), right?

I mean, why is that God and Jesus need Bill Donohue to come to the rescue? If you believe in God in the first place, isn't what Bill Donohue is saying in all of this is that he is capable of doing something that God couldn't do?

Isn't that nothing more than Bill Donohue leading Catholics to violate the first commandment, the one about "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? It looks a whole lot to me like Donohue is setting himself up as a bit of a golden calf here, if you catch my drift.

More here, but that's the gist of it.

Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 7:30 PM

I mean, why is that God and Jesus need Bill Donohue to come to the rescue?

Apparently, God needs defending. And money, I hear. 10% of yours would be a good start.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 7:35 PM

Hey, it looks like Pharyngula is rarin' to break the 100K page-views mark today. Maybe, once the drive-by trolls and persistent pests have all ebbed away to the intolerant mists from which they came, we'll have a few more reasonable regulars.

Posted by: frog | July 10, 2008 7:39 PM

Fletch: This is beautifully put. What you are implying is that your empathy transcends matter.

You really are slow --- or so committed to magical explanations that you've lost contact with reality.

No, my empathy is matter. It's the way my momma raised me, it's a 100 million years of mammalian evolution, it's a lifetime of connecting with other people. No transcendence -- just real, hard, matter filled life. No magic dust, no fairies with sticks chasing me.

Really, stop following Socrates and those other legalistic fools from an age of barbarism -- the Athenians laughed at them, why do you follow them?

The corollary is that if I am a sociopath, I can not solely attribute that to my "wiring" (which is out of my control) but also to my freely made choices for which I am culpable.

Your wiring is not out of your control --- it is your control, and the effects of your control. Stop pretending that there's a little man running the show, even a three year old has a more sophisticated understanding of will. You're not a machine being run by a ghost --- you are an active piece of meat that transforms itself continually.

What's your major malfunction that you hate yourself so -- you hate the very essence of your existence and want to abandon it? I could see Augustine's problem --- it had to do with his momma, and his "uncontrollable" sexual urges. But in the 21st century? To still be pulling this crap, this exuding hatred of our very existence?

Very sad. I blame it on your church and that SOB Plato.

Posted by: Hugo | July 10, 2008 7:40 PM

Forgive my religious ingorance (non-Catholic):

A priest blesses a wafer, making it the Body of Christ (or some such), which you then swallow...

Have I got this right?

And by not swallowing it you a desecrating the Body of Christ because...

Um...

Anyone?

Posted by: Andrew | July 10, 2008 7:47 PM

#255 "Don't worry; I'll give you all the answers throughout the course of my time here as well as a wealth of other information about PZ."

Why wait, I want to know this wealth of info. Oh, and of course being the truthful young man I know you are you'll also cite all references and provide accurate links right?

Posted by: Fletch | July 10, 2008 7:50 PM

frog:
Indeed, I am really slow, but as you point out, this is just the result of matter failing to transform itself.

Your wiring is not out of your control --- it is your control, and the effects of your control.
What, exactly, is controlling the matter in my brain? Is it only external matter (like how my mom raised me)? Because that is out of my control as well.

that transforms itself continually.
Again, sounds like your giving me a very valid excuse for my being stoopid-- poor chemical reactions in my noggin.

Where's the part where I'm culpable for my malicious ignorance?

Posted by: jj | July 10, 2008 7:51 PM

@310
"To those of you who want to scoff at Catholics, would you show the same lack of respect to muslims or jews?"

When they are acting like loons, sure thing! This is a place of opinions, deal with it. If you don't like it, then don't read it. It's that simple.

Posted by: JeffreyD | July 10, 2008 7:56 PM

Frack my cracker, tired and time for bed.

Some wonderful and funny posts. Sadly, many of the religious posts were not meant to be humorous.

Pax Nabisco

Posted by: jj | July 10, 2008 7:59 PM

@320
"he eventually got tired of being a stupid, worthless animal and decided that being smart would be fun, and hence, humanity.

You can make anything sound stupid if you want to"

No you just sound stupid because you don't understand the main principles of evolution.

Posted by: jgfellows | July 10, 2008 8:04 PM

I'm going to guess that the lack of contrary opinions is due to the editing system. However let's give it a shot

To those of you who want to scoff at Catholics, would you show the same lack of respect to muslims or jews? If so, you may want to focus more on what you believe and less on what you don't believe.

The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. You have free will not to believe but it is simply rude and intolerant to mock us or what is central to our faith.

Posted by: Andrew | July 10, 2008 8:08 PM

#320 JC: "Criticizing people who send death threats is one thing, but to criticize an entire people simply because they believe in something you don't goes beyond the mark."

I think I'm missing something but are you saying the second one is worse? Or that they are equal? I mean, I get your thoughts on why you don't think it's intellectual to criticize silly beliefs but in what relation to the death threats?

It almost sounds like your comment is that criticism is easy but death threats, now that's hard.

Posted by: Andrew | July 10, 2008 8:13 PM

Nevermind, I get it now.

Posted by: Nemo | July 10, 2008 8:14 PM

#99:

I wonder how Myers would feel if I got up in the middle of his class & started chanting prayers in Latin?

First, it's a bogus analogy. You'd be disrupting the class. Webster Cook didn't even disrupt the mass.

Second, I imagine he would feel that his remedies were limited to throwing you out of the class. No one disputes the right of the church to throw Cook out... but that's where it should end.

Or if I stole a picture of his mother from his wallet & used it to wipe my ass?

Not analogous. Nothing was stolen.

Posted by: Ray S. | July 10, 2008 8:17 PM

Criticizing people who send death threats is one thing, but to criticize an entire people simply because they believe in something you don't goes beyond the mark. It doesn't make you sound intelligent and it doesn't convince anyone that you're right. Mocking ideas is easy.

See, look, I can do it, too.

Evolutionists believe that in the beginning, there was nothing. That nothing exploded into everything. On one giant chunk of that now everything, a cell decided that it wasn't happy being alone, so it decided to grow a body. That body one day decided that not being able to see was a bummer, so it magically grew eyes, somehow knowing that light reflecting off of other objects would then create images in its brain, that also just magically appeared from nowhere. Next the growing goop of life decided it wanted to taste, and feel, and hear, so it grew a mouth, hands and ears. A few years later, this new, hardening goop of life decided that life was boring if everything were the same, so it had babies that were different than he, some with hair, some with scales and some with wings. He was very creative. And to make a long story short, he eventually got tired of being a stupid, worthless animal and decided that being smart would be fun, and hence, humanity.

You can make anything sound stupid if you want to. It's really not that hard. It just demeans yourself.

Posted by: Peter Mc | July 10, 2008 8:21 PM

Matt Penfold @254. I am in North Yorkshire, home of Timmy Taylor's Landlord and Black Sheep bitter. Any time you are in the county, I am happy to buy you a pint to replace what you lost. Failing that, London and Cambridge in a week's time.

It could be a Pharyngulites sesh, anyone?

As to the Catholic child abuse, up here we have a £4 million, 167 victim case simmering. (Pardon the tiny url, HTML tags don't work for me on SB): http://preview.tinyurl.com/55ygnx

Posted by: frog | July 10, 2008 8:24 PM

JGFellows: The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. You have free will not to believe but it is simply rude and intolerant to mock us or what is central to our faith.

No, it is simply rude or offensive. Intolerant would be declaring that eating magic crackers is a crime that could result in an execution (just like the Catholic Church declared for so many centuries that even questioning the magicness of the crackers was a death-penalty offense).

Mockery is rude. So what? It's not terribly rude -- terribly rude would be going to your house and mocking you in front of your family; or going to your house on your day off early in the morning and haranguing you (as some of your splinter sects do) This mockery is only slightly rude --- depending on how funny it is.

Amazing how some folks find others speech intolerable, and then call that speech intolerant, particularly when that speech contains no threat of any kind, but simply mockery.

Funny.

Posted by: Andrew | July 10, 2008 8:42 PM

"Forgive my religious ingorance (non-Catholic):

A priest blesses a wafer, making it the Body of Christ (or some such), which you then swallow...

Have I got this right?

And by not swallowing it you a desecrating the Body of Christ because...

Um...

Anyone?"

I'm still hoping someone will answer this. Any catholics want to take a shot?

Posted by: frog | July 10, 2008 8:45 PM

Andrew: #320 JC: "Criticizing people who send death threats is one thing, but to criticize an entire people simply because they believe in something you don't goes beyond the mark."
I think I'm missing something but are you saying the second one is worse?

JCHall: "I think I'm missing something but are you saying the second one is worse?"
Yeah, that was the idea.

You've got a be a Poe. The depth of your moral depravity is more than even I would expect. Even Ratzi would find you despicable --- and he was the head of the Inquisition for over a decade.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 10, 2008 8:54 PM

"No you just sound stupid because you don't understand the main principles of evolution."

And any Catholic could repeat the very same words back to you replacing "evolution" with "catholicism." That's the point I was making.

Your point is pointless and stupid.

The body of knowledge that is science is based on observations of reality. If you bothered to study it at all, you could, at least potentially, duplicate those same observations yourself, or understand how the various observations fit together. Science is the best way that we have of understanding how the universe works.

The body of beliefs that is religion is based on handed-down traditions. No duplications of observations is possible. There never were any observations in the first place, just some long-ago person pointing at some bible verse and saying that it's important, and that it means something.

There's no there there.

Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 10, 2008 8:57 PM

Saying magic words over a communion cracker does no more than if I consecrated Goldfish crackers to Dagon.

Posted by: Andrew | July 10, 2008 8:59 PM

In defense of JC Hall I did misread his comment and then figured it out like 5 minutes later. See #330

I took it as Criticisms of Religion is beyond the mark of death threats. What he really said essentially the criticism of religion is worse the criticism of death threats.

I don't agree of course but I don't want to imply he was saying something else. My mistake.

Posted by: Metamorphic | July 10, 2008 9:01 PM

In response to Geoff, #6 as quoted here:

"When I saw the words 'cracker' 'eating' and 'Bill Donohue' in the same post, I thought it was going to be about cannibalism.

All this over some starch.

*sigh*

Posted by: geoff | July 10, 2008 3:23 PM"

My response:
Don't know how many cannibals you've been around, Geoff, but I've been around a lot of them for years--all very devout church-goers. I have to disagree with you, this whole bunch of crap hitting the fan IS about cannibalism! Wonder what they'd have done if that dude took the blood of Christ out the door....maybe ALL hell breaking loose??

Seriously, man....I think a lot of the churches are being reclaimed by fanatics, just like Islam has been.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | July 10, 2008 9:09 PM

Happens every time - I'm AFK for a day or two and all hell breaks loose...

Crackers, Gromit? Can't have crackers without cheese...

Posted by: wistah | July 10, 2008 9:11 PM

Screed: 255

For those who argued for the desecration of the dead: How would you feel to have a loved ones body sexually violated? The necrophiliac does no literal harm by anyone else surely?

Probably about the same as I'd feel if someone took my loved one, ground and dried the remains into some sort of flour, and made a cracker out of it for people to eat with a little sip of wine?

Your verbal stylizings aside, your logic leaves much to be desired.

Posted by: 386sx | July 10, 2008 9:15 PM

They don't want people going around and kidnapping the Body of Christ all over the place.

They don't want people going around and kidnapping the Body of Christ all over the place up and down the street like it was going out of style.

Jesus is very helpless when in the form of a cracker, and must be protected at all costs. And people should be sent to hell and other stuff like that.

Posted by: anti-nonsense | July 10, 2008 9:26 PM

All this nonsense over a cheap cracker. Seriously.

For those of you who object to the mockery of the various Catholic loonies, these people are making a huge fuss over a cheap, crappy cracker because they believe that cheap cracker is actually the body of some dead guy. That is patently absurd by all rational standards and when one sees absurd things, one is inclined to laugh at them.

They threatened the guy with DEATH for "kidnapping" a cracker that was HANDED to him.

Free speech and freedom of opinion means you are free to believe absurdities and I am free to laugh at you for believing absurdities.

If somebody came up to you and announced that they were really an alien from Neptune wouldn't you be inclined to laugh? Why should religious delusions be treated differently?

Posted by: DLC | July 10, 2008 9:28 PM

Okay.. so.. the furor over a youth absconding with a bit of unleavened bread has now gone into two threads.
Understand please, a piece of unleavened bread.
I'm sitting here scratching my head and wondering.
I'm just amazed. well, I'll wander on off now and leave you to your amusement.
(/move-along-nothing-to-see-here)

Posted by: Becca | July 10, 2008 9:41 PM

SOooooooooooooooooooooo many comments!
PZ, you broke the interenets!

Posted by: jgfellows | July 10, 2008 9:53 PM

All this nonsense over a cheap cracker. Seriously.

For those of you who object to the mockery of the various Catholic loonies, these people are making a huge fuss over a cheap, crappy cracker because they believe that cheap cracker is actually the body of some dead guy. That is patently absurd by all rational standards and when one sees absurd things, one is inclined to laugh at them.

They threatened the guy with DEATH for "kidnapping" a cracker that was HANDED to him.

Free speech and freedom of opinion means you are free to believe absurdities and I am free to laugh at you for believing absurdities.

If somebody came up to you and announced that they were really an alien from Neptune wouldn't you be inclined to laugh? Why should religious delusions be treated differently?

Posted by: anti-nonsense | July 10, 2008 9:26 PM

There's a billion of us Catholics kiddo. Study up a bit and you'll that delusional behavior ain't that popular.

Do us both a favor and focus on what you do believe and not so much on what you don't.

Better yet, you might want to actually learn about the largest religion in the World.

Posted by: Julie K | July 10, 2008 9:56 PM

Better yet, you might want to actually learn about the largest religion in the World.

I've learned that it is no different than the religion that made people yell and scream over someone naming a teddy bear 'Mohammed'.

Posted by: frog | July 10, 2008 10:00 PM

jgfellows: There's a billion of us Catholics kiddo. Study up a bit and you'll that delusional behavior ain't that popular.

The old argumentum ad populam? A majority of European society (Catholic society) believed that Jews sacrificed Christian children for Passover -- so I guess that's not a delusion. Or that witches infested their societies --- chalk up another venerable truth. Or that God wanted heretics put to death --- I guess they were right.

Lordy, once again, you must be a Poe. Either that, or shut the hell up --- you're humiliating your co-religionists.

And they've had enough of that this week.

Posted by: Trent Eady | July 10, 2008 10:09 PM

Gentle Jesus meek and mild
The Lord's one and only child
Ate bread, drank wine, then all was lost
They nailed him high upon a cross
But don't despair, it doesn't matter
Christ still lives within a cracker

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 10:14 PM

A repeat of this whole mess can be avoided easily enough: just make everyone who receives the host sign a contract stating they will eat (or swallow or let dissolve - I'm unfamiliar with the mechanics of the process) the host and not doing anything else with it.

Sure, it'll slow the process down - and maybe result in a few court cases here and there - but if it's to protect Jesus that's a small price to pay, right?

Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 10, 2008 10:17 PM

but if it's to protect Jesus that's a small price to pay, right?

Silliness and tomboozlery.

Posted by: Goldfishflakes | July 10, 2008 10:25 PM

He-he-he...

Jesus was manufactored not by Hebrews...but NABISCO!

LMAO!!!!!!!

Oh gah...that's just too much...LMAO!!!

Posted by: Brian | July 10, 2008 10:35 PM

These crackers must be laced with real CRACK!

Posted by: p.a. | July 10, 2008 10:40 PM

Used to work in a town- Smithfield, R.I., that had a eucharist factory that supplied most of the East coast, I believe. Never had a reason to enter. Wonder if it was sanctified, like a kosher butcher? (Remember Carlin blessing his golf clubs in Dogma?) The Cavanaugh company, if memory serves. Met some of the owners. Very well off. Don't know if there was a bidding process for the contract or if internal church politics was involved. Might make interesting research.

Posted by: clinteas | July 10, 2008 10:51 PM

Guys,Ive got to say,after reading most of the 2ooo or so posts about a cracker and seeing what collection of ugly hateful murderous christofascists propped up here in the last few days,I am more than a lil scared and worried about your country,and at the same time glad im not living in it.
If what we have experienced here in the last few days is anything to go by,there are plenty of people in your country that are not only totally unhinged from rational thought and reality,but at the same time ready to grab a gun and kill for their delusions.Truly scary.

Posted by: $curdizzle | July 10, 2008 11:02 PM

Long time reader, first time poster here on the P. I noticed someone suggested a comic be done about this whole fiasco in the last cracker thread.

*Raises hand*

Check it out on my blog. I figure it would make a perfect "first content posting" for us since we just started. The theme of our work is going to be centered on finding common sense answers for the nuttiness of today's world (kind of like PZ's postings in most cases). Thanks.

Posted by: David Harley | July 10, 2008 11:06 PM

The self-righteous sneering of fundamentalist atheists almost makes me ashamed to be an unbeliever.

In the US, self-described atheists are a tiny minority. The proportion of people for whom Christianity is just a cultural identity is hard to gauge.

Who thinks that any useful social change can be achieved without forming alliances with believers of various sorts? Atheists, mainstream Protestants and secular Jews won't win any federal election.

25% of the population consists of self-described Catholics. They are everywhere. Are they all idiots? Are they all reactionaries? Or is that just a bigoted stereotype, no more sophisticated than the tubthumping of a revivalist hellfire preacher?

Whatever is the case, however, if every evangelical and every Catholic, whether politically liberal or conservative, is driven into the arms of the Republican Party, you can kiss the future goodbye.

Posted by: Jim | July 10, 2008 11:08 PM

I think everyone needs to seriously chill out. Just repeat to yourself: Crackers Don't Matter!

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 10, 2008 11:14 PM

BenYachov (Jim Scott 4th)

So much wrong, so little time.

There is only one Mona Lisa, and it cannot be reproduced. It is also someone's property - if I owned the Mona Lisa and gave it to you, you could do what you liked with it and I'd have no recourse. This does not apply to a cracker.

There are laws against defiling corpses. There are no laws against defiling crackers. If you would like to introduce a law to protect magic biscuits, go for it. If it becomes a law then I will obey it.

I, as an atheist, would decry the action of anyone, atheist or not, making threats of death or violence against someone for offending in the way you described. I doubt I am alone in this. So that blows your theory on that.

I threated nobody but must I & my fellow Catholic be made to suffer watching what we love more then life being treated with such vile disrespect because of the provoked morally questionable actions of another?

Do you eat meat? If so, that is offensive to some Buddhists - so you should stop doing it. Has that meat ever been pork? If so, that is offensive to Jews and Moslems - so you should stop doing it.

Have you ever gambled? Smoked a cigarette? Drank alcohol? Enjoyed coffee, tea or coca-cola? Worked on the sabbath? Given someone a present?

All of those things are against the beliefs of one of more religions.

Will you stop doing them?

Posted by: Kel | July 10, 2008 11:20 PM

So the Eucharist is just a Cracker to you lot? Fair enough. The Mone Lisa is just colored oils on cloth but to millions it's very valuable.

The cracker on the other hand is claimed to be something else. It's claimed the cracker becomes the body of Christ. Our contention is that it's still a goddamned cracker.

If you are going to compare it, at least compare it to something that is equivalent.

Posted by: Godless Chemist in training | July 10, 2008 11:22 PM

@#384
Did you just compare not eating a cracker to peeing on my mother's grave? If anything, my mother's decaying body should be turned into a loaf of bread and you should be made to eat it. And in defiance you insult me by not eating said bread. After which I will be promptly outraged and call you an irrational sociopath.

Posted by: David Harley | July 10, 2008 11:30 PM

Susan Fani, identified in almost every news item about this story as a spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Orlando, is no such thing.

She is an employee of Bill Donahue's lavishly funded Catholic League in New York. He draws a six-figure salary and he usually has a couple of female assistants on five-figure salaries.

It is Ms Fani who has been making the most incendiary statements, while masquerading as the voice of the diocese.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 11:34 PM

I think Myers is lying about receiving "threats"

Oh, boy!!! (Looking forward to a post of some of the Emails PZ gets containing "god's tough love")

Posted by: Zarquon | July 10, 2008 11:50 PM

The cracker is a lie!

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 10, 2008 11:53 PM

May I humbly suggest that the Catholic Church might do well to borrow a hymn written by a renowned former member of its flock?

A mighty cracker is our god...

Posted by: Damian | July 10, 2008 11:55 PM

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) said:

Why would any being who claimed to be "rational" do such a foul thing in the first place to provoke such a reaction?

I threated nobody but must I & my fellow Catholic be made to suffer watching what we love more then life being treated with such vile disrespect because of the provoked morally questionable actions of another?

Only an irrational sociopath or sadist would say "yes". Which pretty much describes Myers & His pet sycophants on this blog.

Because some of us believe that it about time that people stopped being so bloody melodramatic over something that, deep down, most of them know doesn't really become the body of Christ.

I can't speak for others, but I am fairly confident (which can change given the right evidence) that basing our decisions on "faith", and not evidence, is not likely to be a good strategy for our species in the future. And this whole episode just adds to that conviction.

There is no evidence that the cracker is anything other than a cracker, but that doesn't stop people from becoming so irate that an admittedly very small minority decided to send death threats to other people, and a much larger majority became so incensed that they attempted to not only punish a young man for a simple prank, but then compound the ridiculousness of the whole affair by attempting to destroy the career of someone who was essentially saying, "come on now guys, 'tis but a frackin' cracker".

I am under no obligation to cater for your sensibilities, and as harsh as that sounds, I am pretty sure that there are beliefs that others hold that you too find ridiculous, and wouldn't think twice about telling them so. So, where do we draw the line, here? I say that we don't. If you want me to respect your beliefs, there had better be some good evidence that they are worthy of respect, and I don't honestly believe that is particularly controversial, or unfair.

David Harley said:

The self-righteous sneering of fundamentalist atheists almost makes me ashamed to be an unbeliever.

It isn't even possible to be a fundamentalist atheist, not least because there aren't an fundamentals that we have to hold to (bar the obvious one), but also because criticizing religion does not make one a fundamentalist by any reasonable definition of the word. Not a good start, to be honest. Let's see if it gets any better.

David Harley said:

Who thinks that any useful social change can be achieved without forming alliances with believers of various sorts? Atheists, mainstream Protestants and secular Jews won't win any federal election.

25% of the population consists of self-described Catholics. They are everywhere. Are they all idiots? Are they all reactionaries? Or is that just a bigoted stereotype, no more sophisticated than the tubthumping of a revivalist hellfire preacher?

Whatever is the case, however, if every evangelical and every Catholic, whether politically liberal or conservative, is driven into the arms of the Republican Party, you can kiss the future goodbye.

For a start, where is the evidence to suggest that being highly critical of religion is likely to prevent us from achieving political goals?

And what if we aren't interested in kowtowing to religious belief, and if our goals are for it to socially acceptable to identify as an atheist, first and foremost? Not to mention the fact that none of us have a problem with working with religious believers, but that isn't going to stop us criticizing religion, and nor should it.

If someone refuses to work with us because we criticize their beliefs, that, in my opinion, does not suggest that they were particularly interested in doing so in the first place, or that they are only interested on their terms, which is even worse.

And don't even bother to suggest that we won't get anywhere this way. Not only does that ignore every lesson that history has to teach us, but it also ignores the fact that atheism has become more mainstream in the last few years, precisely because so many of us are not content to sit down, shut up, and pretend that we don't have an opinion.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 12:00 AM

Felch, #400,wrote:

It's inconsequential to the universe.

Congratulations! You got something right. Do you want a cracker? Oops, poor choice of words.

To the universe it - and us, and everything else - is inconsequential. To humans, who have the ability to think and feel and empathise, it isn't.

Yes, we are made up of molecules that are, in and of themselves, without feelings. But when you put those together, you get something else entirely.

Have you never heard the expression 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'? The Germans have a great word for it - gestalt.

Posted by: Brian | July 11, 2008 12:08 AM

I wonder how much this cracker would go for on EBAY!

Posted by: Sauceress | July 11, 2008 12:11 AM

Gorge Soros
"What could be dumber then thinking Dawanism is valid"

Dawanism? What sort of crap is that?

Posted by: Kel | July 11, 2008 12:15 AM

"Sorry, you do not have permission to see this note."

Posted by: Dale | July 11, 2008 12:16 AM

Professor Myers is a cock sucking Fag. And what happened to Matt Shepard was not a hate crime but rough sex gone bad.

Posted by: Fletch | July 11, 2008 12:27 AM

Wowbagger: To humans, who have the ability to think and feel and empathise, it isn't [inconsequential].
Of course it is. Thinking, feeling, and empathy are (to the materialist) illusions. Macroscopic manifestations of microscopic atomic motion. How I'm treated by others is not consequential to "me" because there is no "me"-- "I'm" just a collection of molecules. I like the expression "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts", but you are deviating from materialist orthodoxy by claiming it...

Your premise (and frog's, and others) is that existence itself is good. That it is better for humanity to continue than to die out. On what grounds does the materialist make this claim? "Evolutionary wiring" gives us a cause for looking out for each other's well being, but not a reason for claiming that it's "good" or "right".

Posted by: Spinoza | July 11, 2008 12:33 AM

Ya know, Jesus wasn't Caucasian, so the Catholic Church has got it all wrong.

Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 12:58 AM

And I was all excited thinking I had a new post to read...

Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 1:01 AM

Fletch, you have a very strange view of both humanity, and of meaning.

Anyway, as I posted in another thread, what is your answer to the "Euthyphro dilemma", where morality is concerned:

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is moral is commanded by God because it is moral) implies that morality is independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by morality just as his creatures are. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge.

The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God, known as divine command theory) runs into three main problems:

First, it implies that what is good is arbitrary, based merely upon God's whim; if God had created the world to include the values that rape, murder, and torture were virtues, while mercy and charity were vices, then they would have been.

Secondly, it implies that calling God good makes no non-tautological sense (or, at best, that one is simply saying that God is consistent and not hypocritical).

Thirdly, it involves a form of reasoning that G.E. Moore classified as a naturalistic fallacy; to explain the claim that murder is wrong (or the prescription that one should not commit murder), in terms of what God has or hasn't said is to argue from what Moore classified as a putative fact about the world to what Moore classified as a value (see is-ought problem).

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 mentioned in the bible? I suppose that you could argue that the bible helps to guide you, but it's a pretty weak defense.

Also, how does morality and meaning manifest itself through a belief in God? In other words, unless you are actually biologically different from all non-theists -- which there is no evidence for -- why is believing in God superior, if you only have the bible to derive morality and meaning from, and we have the bible, as well as thousands of years of literature? What makes you different, in reality?

Unless you can show us that you aren't more than just molecules, you really don't have an argument. It's just what you hope to be true, which is of no use whatsoever.

Posted by: Alfredo Louro | July 11, 2008 1:12 AM

While I have no use for Catholic rituals myself and I don't believe in supernatural entities of any kind, I do understand that certain things are sacred for Catholics. I don't see the need for a childish provocation like this. If you pick a fight, you can't blame the other party for responding.

Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 11, 2008 1:21 AM

|"Just wondering - how do you folks feel about corpse-desecration? I mean, it's just a frackin' hunk of meat, right?"
|| "Doesn't bother me."
Well it should - think of the health hazards!

Posted by: Garry Lee | July 11, 2008 1:44 AM

Firstly.

It is NOT a cracker. It's a wafer.

Secondly, even though it's only a wafer, you must remember that people are emotional as well as logical, so that while insulting them about their religion etc. may logically appear harmless, you may be surprised by the result.
Your student who committed this logically harmless prank has displayed a lack of intelligence in not anticipating the result.

So, while not sympathising with his persecutors in the slightest (I'm an atheist ex-Catholic (brought up that way)), I think that he should have more sense in the future.
Equally, burning a Koran might be logically a harmless prank, but it would be illogical to not anticipate some trouble if you do it.

A religious upbringing causes emotionally locked deeply ingrained beliefs, which are difficult to shake off, especially from the emotional point of view.

Or burning an American flag,,

Or desecrating a grave and so on.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 1:58 AM

Garry Lee wrote:

Your student who committed this logically harmless prank has displayed a lack of intelligence in not anticipating the result.

If the result had been polite chastisement by the church and some head-shaking from other believers then we wouldn't be here. It's because he received threats of legal action, physical violence and death that we're making an issue out of.

In anything resembling a civilised society murder is not the appropriate punishment for disrespecting someone's beliefs - flag-burning, corpse desecration or anything else for that matter.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 2:21 AM

Holierthanthou,

If the people involved had limited their response to being disapproving, or even to go as far as to excommunicate Webster Cook from their church then this issue would not have been raised on this blog.

However, it was brough to the media's attention, and Cook was threatened with legal action, physical harm and death. PZ chose to comment on this - and was himself threatened with legal action, physical harm and death; ironic, considering the very figure at the centre of the religion involved is purported to have taught a lesson of peace and love.

He reacted to that by suggesting an attack. Not on the believers themselves, but on their beliefs. He has not threatened any physical harm to anyone.

He has, therefore, under-reacted - not gone overboard.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 11, 2008 2:24 AM

Gary Lee, your logic sounds an awful lot like that I've heard from Muslims claiming that men will be incapable of restraining their boundless animal lust if they see a woman's ankles.

And holierthanthou, what sacred cow? Is it a sacred cow to believe that the ridiculous should be ridiculed and that people who so easily resort to violence should be vehemently opposed?

This 'don't rock the boat' attitude only condones the sort of terrorism these nuts are so eager to move to.

Posted by: crackers and cheese for every one! | July 11, 2008 3:26 AM

take a can of easy cheese with you and go to a mass and when they give you the cracker
wip out the can and apply it to the cracker and while every one is looking at you eat the cracker with cheese on it ask them if they want some cheese too

Posted by: Sparky | July 11, 2008 4:02 AM

The story doesn't explain something: we know that he took this Jesus-flavored snack food product, but how do we know? How did anyone discover it? Did an alert priest notice he didn't chew or swallow and follow him down the street? If he contacted the church after the fact and told them he had absconded with their starchy lord instead of swallowing him, why? What was his motive in doing so? Wouldn't he expect some sort of inconvenient and possibly dangerous backlash by taunting a community who is obviously nuts? If he contacted the press, blogged about it, or otherwise made the information known himself, was he seeking publicity for it? I'm not surprised by anything in the story. I don't give a rat's ass if he took the cracker and spit on it and set it on fire - its his cracker, and it is just a cracker. But there is an underlying sense here that he was harassing these people or otherwise going out of his way to stir the shit. And while that might not be a hate crime it's fair to say he got exactly what he asked for.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 4:12 AM

Did an alert priest notice he didn't chew or swallow and follow him down the street?

it's there, in the original press release. You must have just missed it (and I'm being charitable in saying so).

basically, the student was literally assaulted by a paritioner who saw him spit the cracker out of his mouth when he returned to his pew (after the priest first noted he originally didn't swallow it, and grabbed his arm to make him put it back in his mouth). After being assaulted, the student left the building with the cracker. So, it was the paritioners and priest that reported the cracker leaving the premises. After the student literally received death threats, he offered to return the starchy biscuit.

you should have read the original article more closely.

But there is an underlying sense here that he was harassing these people or otherwise going out of his way to stir the shit

just the opposite, actually. the student was assaulted, and death threats were leveled his way. the shit was all stirred by the religionuts, not by the student, who originally was just trying to take the cracker back to his pew to show his buddy, who evidently had never seen one before.

you really need to learn to read things a bit more carefully, sparky. It's all there in the original articles and followups.

Posted by: Sparky | July 11, 2008 4:23 AM

Ichthyic, Thank you. My apologies. I did read the entire article linked first in this blog. ("Here's a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity".)and I thought that was the original story. It left all questions above unanswered. A couple more paragraphs down is a second link I didn't follow, which turns out to be the original story.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 4:29 AM

1. Poor kid takes home uneaten eucharist to show his friend.
2. Church and catholics go batshit crazy.
3. PZ thinks this is ridiculous and says so, also says he may do some things to a cracker.
4. Church and catholics go batshit crazy.
Teh end.

You left out

5. Concern trolls run amuck at Pharyngula, repeatedly berating Cook and mischaracterizing his actions.

Posted by: slang | July 11, 2008 4:36 AM

Holy shit, I'm without intarwebz for 6 days, get back home, go here for a chuckle, and I find out I missed the most hilarious batshit fucking crazy idiocy ever seen here... With all the looney creationists here, it's the catholics busting their nuts.. ROFLMAO. Nice one PZ, shows nicely that all religion can be stupid and dangerous. I'll have to go see if I have some crackers in the house, to drag them through the cats litterbox before I nail 'm to a makeshift cross. Mindnumbing idiocy... relitards.. will need to re-read the posts to check if I really read what I think I read.. Caths on crack, cracks me up :)

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 11, 2008 4:41 AM

With all the looney creationists here, it's the catholics busting their nuts..

Note that the 5 right wing religious fanatics on the Supreme Court are Catholics, not creationists.

Posted by: Ray S. | July 11, 2008 4:57 AM

@384:

The grave of any Atheist's beloved deceased relative or spouse is merely the container of decaying organic matter. Does that mean it's OK for someone/anyone to relieve themselves on it?

I threated nobody but must I & my fellow Catholic be made to suffer watching what we love more then life being treated with such vile disrespect because of the provoked morally questionable actions of another?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 5:27 AM

What kind of religion gets interpreted as a clarion call to bigotry

What kind of god fearing people pretend it is hunky dory with their religion to kill other people that do not quite accept their version of events?

We do.

Posted by: John Warner | July 11, 2008 5:41 AM

My letter: -

"The University has undertaken significant reform in the context of an increasingly competitive global market for resources, talent, and ideas," Bruininks said. "Our vision is to improve lives through the advancement of knowledge, and our strategic goal is aspirational, audacious, and, I believe, achievable: to become one of the top three public research universities in the world, with a deep and abiding cultural commitment to excellence in everything we do, across all our campuses, research and outreach centers, and offices statewide." (http://www1.umn.edu/pres/04_biography.html)

I'm aware, obviously, that you will be receiving quite a volume of e-mails and postal mail regarding Professor Myers recent article (yes, the crackergate scandal as Richard Dawkins' has refered to it), so I shall try to keep this brief so as not to waste your time on a decision that I'm sure you have already made.

I found the above quote on your biography page and it inspires me to believe that you will, without the public outpouring of support that the secular community is demanding, make the right decision. If your goals are as you outline, then I'm sure you aware that the retention of the services of such outspoken, clear minded individuals as Professor Myers is vital to their attainment. Whether you receive ten, ten thousand or ten million e-mails, letters, singing tellegrams, geurilla-grams or whatever form of contact is chosen by the Catholic sender, I would strongly (though I'm sure unecessarily) suggest you disregard them all as the rantings - no matter how erudite or succinct - of those to whom the words of Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Church and a respected religious philosopher, "[That] Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things." make sense.

In many ways, religion is at the forefront in the war on education and on scientific knowledge and I know that as a learned man, you will make the right decision, not only to support your Professor privately, but openly and without fear of reprise from religious fanatics that so often preach the necessity of the right to believe.

Many thanks for reading,

John Warner

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 5:47 AM

The one thing I hate about the internet is the fact that the Christian extremists come out of the wood work because they have the ability to be anonymous and spew their hatred.

funny, I was just thinking the exact opposite:

I love the internet because it allows fundies to show everyone what they really think, and shoot themselves so thoroughly in the head at the same time.

it might be irritating, but it sure is educational.

Posted by: John Farrell | July 11, 2008 5:48 AM

Okay, so the original story says this:
***
""When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."

A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him.

"She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.
***

This is considered the death threat? A lady trying to grab his hands and take it back?

Are there further stories/links? When specifically did Cook receive actual death threats? Is there another story where he provides evidence? Emails? Phonecalls. Did a big RC football player come up to him and threaten him?

Posted by: SEF | July 11, 2008 5:53 AM

How about some rival marketing campaigns:

"Those Jesus stains can be so hard to remove from ordinary consecrated communion wafers that you are constantly at risk of desecration. Try commutative wafers instead - they are fully interchangeable. Your Jesus can freely pass from one to another."

"Is your host playing host to more than the spirit of Jesus? Wash it down with Demon-Begone. (Fully compatible with Antabuse.)"

"Concerned about prion disease? Try our priory-free wafers instead of your usual communion ones. Guaranteed untouched by mad cows."

Posted by: severin | July 11, 2008 6:00 AM

even without a soul, I could maybe do with a proofreader.

i meant rape, murder, or steal

Posted by: Christian | July 11, 2008 6:21 AM

Of course it is. Thinking, feeling, and empathy are (to the materialist) illusions.

No, they're not. At least no more than to a non-materialist.

Macroscopic manifestations of microscopic atomic motion.

As opposed to what? Macroscopic manifestations of ectoplasmatic motion?

How I'm treated by others is not consequential to "me" because there is no "me"-- "I'm" just a collection of molecules.

Well, you can see yourself as a (dynamic) pattern that is instantiated in matter. And if there is no "you" if the substrate of this pattern is "just" ordinary matter, there is no "you" either if this medium is replaced by some nonmaterial substance (whatever that may be).
You can't escape the fact that you are still a complex pattern no matter what medium you are instantiated in. So far no one has demonstrated that thoughts and feelings are processes that can only happen in a non-material medium.

And above all, there is no description of the properties of this medium (and why it allows for patterns which are not realizable in ordinary matter) except that it is uhm... non-material. So there is no reason to assume that you won't run into the same problems as with ordinary matter (e.g. the ghost in the machine is itself a machine which needs another ghost, etc.).

A problem you will encounter, however, is the necessary interaction of the non-material with the material if your thoughts should have any effects on your body. And this interaction of the non-material with the organic matter of your brain has to be quite massive, even greater than the interaction of neutrinos with same clump of tissue - and we can detect the latter.

I like the expression "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts", but you are deviating from materialist orthodoxy by claiming it...

Huh, materialist orthodoxy? What's this, the 19th century?
Methinks this "materialist orthodoxy" exists solely in your imagination.

Your premise (and frog's, and others) is that existence itself is good. That it is better for humanity to continue than to die out. On what grounds does the materialist make this claim? "Evolutionary wiring" gives us a cause for looking out for each other's well being, but not a reason for claiming that it's "good" or "right".

Posted by: Peter Mc | July 11, 2008 6:23 AM

'What could be dumber then thinking Dawanism is valid'

Being illiterate and proving it in public, George.

Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 6:29 AM

John Farrell:

I admire your skeptical approach, but could you not have simply used Google-fu to search for, "Webster Cook, death threats", instead of asking on several occasions (which you now have) whether there is any evidence that he had been threatened?

College Student Gets Death Threats for Smuggling 'Body of Christ'

A video describing the incident.

Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 6:38 AM

By the way, I can personally vouch for the fact that his email address was being freely and carelessly displayed on at least two Catholic blogs that I followed links to, and there were people on those blogs who were saying some pretty nasty things about him, some of which were bordering on, and even manifesting in, threats of violence.

Make of that what you will.

Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 6:50 AM

Ichthyic:

Did you know that the college that Gonzalez is now working at is under censure for violations of tenure and academic freedom?

From Wikipedia:

"Since 1963, the American Association of University Professors, an organization that represents the interests of college professors, has placed Grove City under censure for violations of tenure and academic freedom. In fact, Grove City has the distinction of having been on the AAUP's list of censured administrations longer than any other college that is currently censured. In its report, the AAUP Investigative Committee at Grove City concluded that "the absence of due process [in the dismissal of professors at Grove City] raises...doubts regarding the academic security of any persons who may hold appointment at Grove City College under existing administrative practice. These doubts are of an order of magnitude which obliges us to report them to the academic profession at large."

It's really old, and not particularly relevant or fair to bring that up, but it's still rather amusing.

Posted by: Escuerd | July 11, 2008 6:57 AM

Fletch @214 said:

Blake:
Right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, etc., etc. are constructions of the human mind, which matter to us because we are human.
Exactly my point. If right/wrong, justice, beauty, ugliness are just constructs of the mind, then they are in fact nothing more than the movement of atoms in my brain. You say it should matter because we are human. Again, your premise is the preservation and overall good of the species. If we're just matter, why does this matter?

An "is" isn't an "ought", as I'm sure you know, and Blake Stacey's statement does not address what "should" matter.

You seem to have a preconceived notion that "ought" must be objective somehow. I don't see why this should be so, and I don't see why anyone would bring it up except to smuggle in what amounts to nothing more than an appeal to consequences.

Posted by: Dave2 | July 11, 2008 7:12 AM

In his Natural History of Religion, Hume has a great passage using bathos to hilariously exploit the sort of contrast on display here, between (i) a perfect being at the foundation of all reality, and (ii) a cracker. Here it is:

"That original intelligence, say the MAGIANS, who is the first principle of all things, discovers himself immediately to the mind and understanding alone; but has placed the sun as his image in the visible universe; and when that bright luminary diffuses its beams over the earth and the firmament, it is a faint copy of the glory, which resides in the higher heavens. If you would escape the displeasure of this divine being, you must be careful never to set
your bare foot upon the ground, nor spit into a fire, nor throw any water upon it, even though it were consuming a whole city. Who can express the perfections of the Almighty? say the Mahometans. Even the noblest of his works, if compared to him, are but dust and rubbish. How much more must human conception fall short of his infinite perfections? His smile and favour renders men for ever happy; and to obtain it for your children, the best method is to cut off from them, while infants, a little bit of skin, about half the breadth of a farthing. Take two bits of cloth, say the Roman catholics, about an inch or an inch and a half square, join them by the corners with two strings or pieces of tape about sixteen inches long, throw this over your head, and make one of the bits of cloth lie upon your breast, and the other upon your back, keeping them next your skin: There is not a better secret for recommending yourself to that infinite Being, who exists from eternity to eternity."

Posted by: Dave2 | July 11, 2008 7:31 AM

Also there's a famous quote from Tacitus's Annals that seems apropos: deorum iniuriae dis curae -- "Offenses against the gods are the concern of the gods", or loosely "If it upsets God so bad, let Him take care of it!".

Posted by: Dave2 | July 11, 2008 8:01 AM

Fletch, a few things.

1. A lot of your rhetorical questions turn on the assumption that material things do not matter. But this is clearly a question-begging assumption, for (as you must know) any materialist who thinks that some things do matter would never be tempted to accept it. So either back up the assumption or else stop relying on it in this discussion.

2. Oh, and while we're on that assumption, is it your view that animals have immaterial souls or is it your view that animals do not matter? I'm just curious.

3. You sometimes gesture at a deep challenge that we materialists provide a philosophical demonstration that some things matter. But any such challenge is out of place, for the nasty philosophical difficulties lying at the foundations of ethics are there for all of us, theists included. The Euthyphro dilemma (and the related points going back to Ralph Cudworth) show pretty conclusively that theism offers no quick fix for metaethics. All of which means that pressing deep metaethical worries is about as appropriate as pressing deep skeptical worries drawn from epistemology.

4. Sometimes it looks like you're assuming that selfishness is automatically justified by default, and that altruism is in need of special justification. Or maybe you're just attributing this assumption to materialists. But either way it's a stupid assumption. If nothing matters, after all, then selfishness is no better off than altruism, and it's not like murderous sociopaths get to chuckle with superiority at the poor saps who care about others.

5. I don't know why you think materialism is incompatible with free will. Usually people talk about whether determinism is incompatible with free will, and even there most people end up concluding that they're compatible after all. Materialism seems like a red herring.

6. If you start using 'beyond my control' arguments, then free will gets endangered really quick. God's knowledge of the future starts taking away free will. Hell, even plain facts about what will happen in the future start taking away free will. Those are really implausible consequences, so better be careful with 'beyond my control' arguments.

7. Supposing that we are immaterial substances, we either run on deterministic principles of 'spiritual mechanics' or else our spiritual activity is random and inexplicable. In neither case does free will make a great deal of sense, and the advantage over materialism is completely unclear. As for "free will is the cause of its own movement", I don't know what that even means.

Posted by: Jim | July 11, 2008 8:15 AM

Really? Is there something in these jesus biscuits that they don't want us to find out about?

Guys, here is a grip... Get it.

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 11, 2008 8:38 AM

Holy cow. At least 1488 comments, and it's still just *A FRACKIN' CRACKER!*

Imagine what whine the religionuts would have let out if it would have been the wine.

And it's all besides the point, which is that both Webster Cook and PZ Myers gets death threats over an object containing cellulose. In the name of a religion that is supposed to shun violence and makes a supposedly eternal sin out of killing.

Nuts.

Posted by: Blondin | July 11, 2008 8:52 AM

Do animal crackers have souls, too?

Just askin'.

Posted by: Catdance | July 11, 2008 9:19 AM

Yeah, it's easy to make fun of. But here's the thing: the Catholic faith believes that ISN'T just a cracker. They believe that the host (not a cracker, it isn't crisp) is actually the body of Christ. Not a symbol. The real deal. And all of us can take issue with that, and make cannibal jokes or whatever. But the fact remains that Catholics sincerely believe that during the Eucharist the priest changes the host into the body of Christ through the miracle of transubstantiation.

I left the Catholic church and religion in general as soon as I possibly could, over 30 years ago. I think people like Donohue -- and religious extremists of ALL sorts -- are dangerous and fair game. But I think human decency and respect for others requires that we do not make sport of people's sincerely held religious beliefs. While I don't believe the host is the body of Christ, millions of good people do, and take comfort and joy in that. It was bad taste and bad manners for the kid to treat the host with disrespect. And it's just bad taste and bad manners to make fun of the host the way you've done.

We don't want these religious assholes forcing us to live by their beliefs. By the same token, I don't think any of us non-believers should spit on things that people of sincere faith revere.

Posted by: MartinT | July 11, 2008 9:36 AM

OH MY, errrr God? What the hell is happening in our society today. The good Christian Right is up in arms over gay marriage and such, and now over a stupid cookie. Some one shoot me, please. These are the same fools who thought the whole Muslim thing with the cartoon of Mohamed was actually funny and couldn't understand why those "towelheads", their words not mine, got so upset over a drawing. I don't suppose anyone sees a correlation here, do they? Christianity in my book is a good cult gone bad. The other problem I have with the whole body of Christ thing is that for their to be a body, Christ would have actually had to have been a real person, he was not. There is actually NO reference to a Jesus Christ in the historical records from the first century and the Romans were some of the best at keeping historical records. If a man was out there performing miracles, you'd think someone would have written something about it. But then again, the bible is made up of a bunch of fantasies, like the Isrealites being slaves to the Egyptians, simply didn't happen. There is NO historical record of that anywhere in any tomb or Egyptian writings anywhere. So, to me it's still a cracker.. get over it.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 11, 2008 9:57 AM

Marx, Trotsky and the Red Army wielded atheism as a weapon against traditional peoples and committed genocide to advance the cause of a god-less utopia. - CDV

Um, Marx died in 1883. The only revolutionary activity he witnessed at first hand was the "June Days uprising" of 1848 in Paris; his part being as a journalist. There is no evidence he ever killed anyone, let alone committed genocide. History FAIL.

Posted by: qbsmd | July 11, 2008 10:02 AM

Actually, Catholics (I think the others too, but I'm not sure about them), but Catholics to do think the cracker and wine are symbolic of the body and blood of christ, they BELIEVE IT IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. This is not symbolic to them. Yes, they are all cannibals. Every last one of 'em.

Posted by: charli

25% of the population consists of self-described Catholics. They are everywhere. Are they all idiots? Are they all reactionaries? Or is that just a bigoted stereotype, no more sophisticated than the tubthumping of a revivalist hellfire preacher? Whatever is the case, however, if every evangelical and every Catholic, whether politically liberal or conservative, is driven into the arms of the Republican Party, you can kiss the future goodbye.
Posted by: David Harley

There are no laws against defiling crackers. If you would like to introduce a law to protect magic biscuits, go for it. If it becomes a law then I will obey it.
Posted by: Wowbagger

Catholics are only outraged about this because inside they know that it's just a stupid cracker and their mythology is crazy.
Posted by: thelogos

I would actually bet that most Catholics don't know a lot of the dogma they are required to believe. I went to Catholic Sunday school for many years, and didn't learn about most of the batshit crazy stuff Catholics believe until after deconverting. Since the church has a growing priest shortage (most priests apparently joined during the Vietnam war, by complete coincidence) Sunday school is taught by whoever volunteers and is mostly feel-good "Jesus loves you" stuff, not Catholic theology.

Posted by: Michelle | July 11, 2008 10:14 AM

@MartinT: "The good Christian Right is up in arms over gay marriage and such, and now over a stupid cookie"

What the.... WOAH! WAIT A FUCKING MINUTE RIGHT THERE! Let's not be so downright degrading. Please be respectful. You offend me deeply and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Oreos are cookies. Chips Ahoy! are cookies. Hosts are paper sheets. They lack something called "taste".

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 10:25 AM

qbsmd,

I'm curious - why did you quote me in your post at #492? I'm not complaining, but i am wondering what you're getting at.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 10:32 AM

"See, unlike some I could name, I have respect for what other people believe, even if I don't share their beliefs. And that's all I ask of anyone."

You can ask it of us. And we can refuse. We can point out that simply calling your ridiculous ideas "sacred" does not mean they stop being ridiculous. You are free to believe what you want. You are not entitled to demand our respect for those beliefs, and your insistant that we do tells us a lot about you. It tells us that your ideas are so weak they cannot stand up to examination. If religion is so strong, as it adherents claim, why do they get so threatened when people refuse to take their silly claims seriously ?

I will no more treat the idea that a wafer becomes the body of Christ with respect than I will the claims of people who say they have been abducted by aliens. Just because you have decided your beliefs are sacred does not mean anything to me.

Further, I do not believe you. When you say "I have respect for what other people believe" I do not think you actually mean it. I doubt you have much respect for the view that the only role for women is as mothers and wifes. Do you respect the beliefs of sucicide bombers ? Do you respect the beliefs of those who think it is ok to kill doctors who perform abortons ?

If you want respect do something to earn it. You do not earn it by whinging and saying your belief is sacred and so cannot be criticised.

Posted by: Deborah Kerr | July 11, 2008 10:36 AM

This kind of insanity will never go away until God comes down to earth and CONFIRMS that he doesn't freaking exist.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 10:39 AM

"Yes, because as we all know ... if one person of a group acts like a dimwit, you should treat the rest of the group as if they're dimwits too. Brilliant line of thinking there Michelle. Brilliant."

Well Ellen did demonstate she is not exactly the brighest bulb around. When she says she respects all views I question either her honesty or her sanity.

Posted by: Mr. Gerbz | July 11, 2008 10:44 AM

While I find all this absolutely hilarious (OMFG HE TOOK OUR CRACKER HOSTAGE!1111!!!), I am also severely pissed off by this.
When will we finally get rid of these cults... I mean religions, influencing our governments and media?

Getting absolutely sick by the stupidity of cultists. Oh did I say cultists? I of course mean religious bastards.

The only thing religions are good for are extra holidays.

Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 10:56 AM

Catdance said:

But the fact remains that Catholics sincerely believe that during the Eucharist the priest changes the host into the body of Christ through the miracle of transubstantiation.

But I think human decency and respect for others requires that we do not make sport of people's sincerely held religious beliefs. While I don't believe the host is the body of Christ, millions of good people do, and take comfort and joy in that. It was bad taste and bad manners for the kid to treat the host with disrespect. And it's just bad taste and bad manners to make fun of the host the way you've done.

Hi Catdance, while what you have said is essentially true, are you prepared to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion? Should everything, no matter how absurd or unpopular (as in a minority) a belief, be taken seriously, be afforded equal respect?

How much more absurd can a belief be than in this particular instance? And are you serious about the fact that you would treat all beliefs of equal absurdity (on the absurdity scale, of course) consistently? Or is this really about the fact that Catholics are so numerous (it's a relevant question)?

And I notice that you haven't mentioned even once in your post that the reaction to both Webster Cook, as well as PZ Myers, has been a litany of hate mail and several death threats. Is the sensitivity of Catholics more important to you than the threat of death? Of course, I don't believe that for a second, but it really pisses me off when that isn't mentioned, while at the same time berating PZ and the young man for such trivial acts by comparison. I realize that is not the impression that you were aiming to create.

There are so many things that religious believers should be irate about, as well; so much poverty, so much needless death and suffering -- it angers me when they time and again provide ample evidence that they have lost all perspective, and would rather focus on silly little issues like this. And there is nothing that you or anyone else can say that would convince me that, by comparison, this is anything but ridiculous. I am sure that you would agree.

It is also my opinion that offending people from time to time does not have to be bad thing. As I've said elsewhere, if we are to live peacefully on this ever changing, ever more culturally diverse planet, there are plenty of groups that are simply going to have to grow a thicker skin, and learn to deal with it. I don't mind helping that process along, if I'm honest. I dream of the day when nobody is offended by mere words, except in circumstances where the overwhelming majority would be in full agreement of the real and tangible offense.

After all, if we never challenge sacred ideals, never present people with anything but the comfortably familiar, then nothing is ever likely to change. And while I would never, and have never, purposely offend anyone, someone has to be provocative, to risk making enemies of others, and yes, at times, whether purposely or not, offend others without first making the cost-benefit analysis, which would surely come down in favor of doing nothing at all.

We can sit in our comfortable seats and remark, whether in support or not, but we will never be at the forefront of affecting change in society, because we neither have the courage nor the conviction to simply say, "to hell with all of this, its a Goddamned cracker."

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 10:57 AM

Is Fletch still going on about morality and the like ?

A few thousand posts ago I pointed to him towards where he could find out more information about the evolution of morality. It would seem he could not be bothered to go away and learn.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 11:07 AM

"So if I walked into your house, stole your dead mother's ashes, and flushed the down the toilet, you'd be ok with that, right?

Because those ashes are only a mass of calcium phosphates."

Those ashes are the remains of a human being. A wafer remains a wafer no matter what manner of words are spoken over it.

Can you not see the difference ? The claim that wafer become the body of Christ during a Catholic Mass is an example of how religion allows a large number of people to delude themselves.

Posted by: Mary Herboth | July 11, 2008 11:11 AM

If the Eucharist was just a cracker no one would care - no one would receive it, no one would protect it, no one would steal it, and no one would threaten to abuse it. Even for the atheist, its way more than a cracker.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 11:13 AM

Beep wrote: So if I walked into your house, stole your dead mother's ashes, and flushed the down the toilet, you'd be ok with that, right?

The important difference, all the relative values of such things as crackers and ashes aside (i've learned that lesson on another thread), is that my house is a private residence and that my (hypothetically) dead mother's ashes weren't freely given to you.

If I invited you into my house and gave you my mother's ashes and you flushed them down the toilet I'd probably be a annoyed (though i'm not really the sort of person who'd keep them lying around, but i'll play along) - but I wouldn't call all of my friends and have them make death threats against you.

Posted by: BrentG | July 11, 2008 11:20 AM

We should start a youtube campaign that shows people NOT eating eucharists during church and then carrying them around during their daily business. Riding the bus with them, sitting at work with them, in the bathroom, you know whatever comes to mind.

I think the best way to show a group of people that their fanatacism and ignorance is not welcome is to run their stupid idol right into the ground.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 11:27 AM

Mary Herboth, #513, wrote:

If the Eucharist was just a cracker no one would care - no one would receive it, no one would protect it, no one would steal it, and no one would threaten to abuse it. Even for the atheist, its way more than a cracker.

You don't have to believe in something in order to understand that someone else believes in it. Any 'threats' made against the crackers relates to the impact those threats will have on the people who believe there is something special about them - not that what they're threatening to do to the cracker will have any impact whatsoever apart from that.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 11:32 AM

"Those ashes are, to you, the remains of a human being, and therefore have certain meaning attached to them. If I believe that they represent nothing more than ashes, and, further, give no respect to your irrational regard for a box of burnt organic material, then why shouldn't I flush them? From exactly what scientific rationale can you claim that I should have any respect for these ashes which now, by any rational/scientific analysis, bear zero actual relation to your living mother?"

No, those ashes are actually the remains of a human being.

The wafer NEVER becomes the body of Christ.

Can you not see the difference ? This is the second time I have had to point it out to you, since twice you seem to have missed it. If you fail again I will just write you off as being to stupid to understand.

In addition you seem unaware of the concept of theft. The ashes are not yours to take, and were you to do so you would be committing a crime. A wafer is GIVEN to the communicant.

It seems your value system is broken. Your whole hypothetical scenario is a false one that I presume you intend to be analogous to the taking of the wafer by Webster Cook. If so you have failed miserably. It is nothing of the sort. The wafer had become Cook's property. Unless they are given to you, the ashes of someone's mother are not. Likewise I cannot destroy the US Constitution, (or rather the bit of paper it is written on as the Constitution is an idea not an object) since it is not mine to destroy.

Posted by: StuV | July 11, 2008 11:40 AM

Mary:

Even for the atheist, its way more than a cracker.

No it is not. That's the entire point.

Oh, and don't ever pretend to speak for me again. Thank you.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 11:45 AM

"If the Eucharist was just a cracker no one would care - no one would receive it, no one would protect it, no one would steal it, and no one would threaten to abuse it. Even for the atheist, its way more than a cracker."

Mary, what a stupid thing to say. It was a cracker, it remains a cracker and has never been anything other than a cracker. Just because some people choose to believe it has additional properties does not mean we are all required to go along with their claims.

Posted by: Beep | July 11, 2008 11:49 AM

"No, those ashes are actually the remains of a human being.

The wafer NEVER becomes the body of Christ.

Can you not see the difference ? This is the second time I have had to point it out to you, since twice you seem to have missed it. If you fail again I will just write you off as being to stupid to understand."

Sorry that you are so philosophically naive.

The host and the ash are both proxies for dead people (at the very least.)

Don't be stupid.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 11:56 AM

No, one is the remains of a dead person. Quite literally the burnt remains of a dead person.

The other is made from wheat and never has the attributes associated with human remains, dead or otherwise.

It is a simple question of fact. One is a wafer, one is burtn remains of a dead person. To think the two are in anyway equivalent is bizzare.

Posted by: Crowbot | July 11, 2008 12:01 PM

What actions exactly would these ARMED GUARDS the church now has guarding the mass ceremonies take should someone decide they do not wish to swallow the cracker?

Swallow that cracker OR I'LL SHOOT? Seeing as it's florida, and a university, perhaps there would be tasering involved?

Posted by: TomJoe | July 11, 2008 12:05 PM

Where's he hiding?

He's probably not here because he got disgusted by P.Z. Myers antics/rantings about his beliefs a long time ago.

Posted by: Mike Williamson | July 11, 2008 12:06 PM

You're all missing the point, this Catholic intolerance is totally different from Muslim intolerance because Muslims have darker skin than the good Catholics do, so they'd actually kill him, whereas the Catholics just hide behind their screens and their Bibles and pray for his soul.

My arse.

Posted by: Carl from Atlantic City | July 11, 2008 12:11 PM

I can understand how incomprehensible the reverence we Catholics give to Christ in the consecrated host must appear to the non-believer. And I don't think any reasonable Catholic would expect those outside of the faith to treat the Eucharist as we do.

What I don't understand is the lack of civility in a 'gleeful' act of desecration of what others hold dear. I think Islam is a crock of sh*t, but I wouldn't 'delight' in desecrating a Koran. Or to move outside the realm of religion, I wouldn't delight in desecrating what the non-religious holds as sacred just for the sadistic fun of injury-- wiping myself with the Constitution, say, just to agitate the patriotic or torturing animals outside of PETA headquarters. Mutual respect for each other and what we hold as sacred is all that holds civilization together. If you're suggesting that we chuck civilization and get back to the down-and-dirty of the state of nature, then, with all due respect, you're a heck of a lot crazier than I am, my worship of 'a cracker' not withstanding. Delight in desecrating the Eucharist FEELS TO ME no different than my hurting of a member of the Myers family, say, just because I knew it would infuriate you, would feel to you. [That's not a threat, by the way-- just a point of comparison]. Your disregard for the people with whom you share your community and country is not, after all, a form of dialogue or dissent. Its an act of profound injury and provocation and it severely damanges the dynamics of peaceful, civilized society.

Posted by: icanus | July 11, 2008 12:18 PM

Why is everyone getting so upset about this one guy who took it home, when millions of Catholics all over the world regularly immerse the Eucharist in strong acid for several hours, then flush the remnants down the toilet?

Posted by: FAWild | July 11, 2008 12:20 PM

This is a wonderful example of what one can expect from liberals! When I grow up, I want to be just like you: respectful of others' beliefs, tolerant of others who differ from you, and willing to celebrate the diversity that makes all of us special!

Poor Paul, you are indeed an example of the old dictum: God puts limits on intelligence but not on stupidity!

Posted by: Priscilla | July 11, 2008 12:21 PM

The reaction of Bill Donahue to Mr. Myers is not about Mr. Myers refusing to believe in the Eucharist as the real presence of Jesus Christ. It is about his disrespect toward those who hold this belief. As a professor at a University his demeanor should be professional and respectful of others. If Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is it professional and respectful to hurl insults and profanities toward them about beliefs they hold to be sacred?
Mr. Myers is displaying a seriously offensive attitude of religious intolerance and using his position at the University as a platform for this bigotry.
If the University has any sense at all it will realize the behavior of Mr. Myers has been destructive to the credibility of the University as a respectful institution and it will feel the need to repair the damage Mr. Myers has done to its reputation.
Whether or not Mr. Myers agrees with the Catholic Church about the real presence is irrelevent.
I am shocked at the level of disrespect that has been displayed in these postings by commenters. The insensitivity revealed here is huge and I hope it is not an accurate representation of the University itself.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 12:25 PM

"It is about his disrespect toward those who hold this belief. As a professor at a University his demeanor should be professional and respectful of others. If Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is it professional and respectful to hurl insults and profanities toward them about beliefs they hold to be sacred?"

Why should belief that a wafer becomes the body of Christ be respected ? It is an idiotic belief, that anyone with even the most basic of science educations will know is false.

I doubt you treat all beliefs with equal respect Priscilla. In fact I would be amazed if you do. So cut out the false demand for respect, it just makes you look dishonest.

Posted by: beep | July 11, 2008 12:30 PM

"Why should belief that a wafer becomes the body of Christ be respected ? It is an idiotic belief, that anyone with even the most basic of science educations will know is false."

Matt: Back to the kiddie pool for you. Come back when you evolve some flippers so you can swim.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 11, 2008 12:32 PM

"Matt: Back to the kiddie pool for you. Come back when you evolve some flippers so you can swim."

Ah Beep, I see you have finally reached the depths of your intellectual paucity.

Posted by: has_te | July 11, 2008 12:38 PM

Just over from Jesse...
Hang in. !!

Got to wondering if:
you transubstantiated a bit of dry biscuit to
say, Alabama....would it be a cracker's cracker?
And if...then?

The possibilities, the potentialities are mind-boggling.

Posted by: karen marie | July 11, 2008 12:40 PM

does this comment thread break a record?

given the historical nature of this thread, i want to be fully on the record here.

[UPDATE: in the time it's taken me to compose my comment, the original thread passed the tipping point, so i don't get bragging rights to posting comment number 1101, but hey, maybe i'll hit 666 in the encore!]

i'm a sporadic but consistent reader and sometimes commenter here, so when i read the post over at Sadly, No! about the cracker blowback (oh, man, you got some on my clean shorts!), i rushed right over to see what professor myers has done now to cause catholic, and other christianist, heads to explode.

as i read all the background material here and elsewhere, i kept thinking about the story sally quinn told about how she "took communion" at tim russert's funeral service, despite not being catholic AND a "founder" of the "on faith" blog published by newsweek and the washington post, a position which apparently erroneously presupposes that she would speak, write and behave in an informed way with regard to traditions of the various religions.

it turns out that the response to quinn's faux pas by donahue (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1453) does not reflect his current sense of outrage. he does not even demand that sally quinn apologize, much less lose her job or her blogger duties at "on faith."

this is simply an excuse to go after professor myers.

donahue and the rest of the hysterics should take a deep breath and review the long honored use of satire.

as part of my review of background materials here, i also went over to youtube and reviewed some of the blasphemy challenge videos. egads! there's bunches of them! and not a peep about it at the catholic league website (at least as far as i can determine by googling "catholic league statement blasphemy challenge youtube" -- i've clicked through to their site too many times today already and i'm not willing to contribute to their site traffic and so enable them to make the false equivalency that they're getting traffic 'cause they're so awesome), much less a demand that youtube remove all the pointed challenges to catholicism.

going after professor myers on this is simply a ploy to get their base to donate cash to "the cause," and if it has the added benefit of sidelining someone whose words they fear, so much the better.

fortunately, we are not yet quite that far gone, but good for donahue and the catholic league for at least trying to turn their otherwise embarrassing behavior into what they hope to be an enriching experience! ("hey, you hungry people, get out of here, this money is to buy ornaments for the baby jesus, and maybe a jacuzzi for the annointed, you'll get something to eat if god wills it.")

i sent a politely worded email to president bruininks advocating on behalf of professor myers.

there are plenty of left, democratic, progressive blogs whose comment threads are deeply embarrassing and shocking. my response is usually to simply read the posts and not bother reading the comments because they contribute nothing useful to the conversation. i stop visiting a blog altogether if i get a sense that the poster in any way encourages dialogue rendolent of ignorance.

sure, hijinks ensue sometimes in pharyngula comment threads, as with the thread to the original cracker post, but generally the threads, as the posts, are highly entertaining, LITERATE, and enlightening.

(one memorable and lengthy thread involved geology puns which left me gasping for breath and in awe of the knowledge base of the community here)

thank you, professor myers, for your willingness to stand up front to point out and refute the dangerous ignorance which too many religious advocates work hard every day to increase.

to close, i will just say that the catholic league and bill donahue are proof positive that god does not exist because no all-powerful, all-knowing and vengeful god would tolerate being hijacked by a mere mortal.</