…and this is a 
Thomas Foley of Virginia is nuts. This is the delegate to the Republican National Convention who has called for increased security. Why? Because he has an irrational fear of us.
On Friday the Catholic League reported that Thomas E. Foley, a Virginia delegate to the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Minneapolis has asked that increased security be considered for the event in light of Myers' threat to acquire and desecrate the Eucharist.
"I just felt security at the Republican National Convention ought to look at him and his followers," Foley told CNA in a phone interview on Wednesday morning. He reported that he had not received an update about his request.
Voicing his concerns about Myers, Foley said: "What I think he has done, he's loaded a cyberpistol and he's cocked it and he's left it on the table. He may have set something in motion that no one can stop. It was irresponsible, a hell of a thing to do."
Foley explained that he thought Myers should not be able to incite such acts with "impunity," saying that he was especially disturbed by the comments posted on Myers' blog. He said it was "eye-opening" to read the people who supported Myers' action. Even at his age of 63, Foley said, he had never "personally encountered such bigotry."
He also objected to Myers' recent description of Catholic League President Bill Donohue as "braying," which Foley, a self-described Irish Catholic, claimed was "a great insult for the Irish."
Foley said he believes Myers was telling his readers to acquire a consecrated Host at Mass, which Foley thought would result in disruptions.
"What's he telling them to do? Consecrated Hosts are not just lying around," he said to CNA, noting that the only other possible way to secure a Host would be to accost a priest, nun, or layman taking the Sacrament to the sick. Even E-bay, Foley emphasized, has prevented the sale of consecrated Hosts.
Wait, what? I'm armed with a cyberpistol? Is that what we atheist brigands use to rob trucks trundling down the tubes of the internet?
I had no idea that "braying" was especially insulting to the Irish. I'm sure it's a word that is used with great frequency in reference to Bill Donohue, though. No ethnic slur was intended, since I was unaware of any association (and still am) — it's really just intended to highlight Donohue's personal attributes as an ass.
I'm baffled by the last paragraph, though. If the crackers aren't just lying around, how come people are having such an easy time getting them? The people who've sent them to me haven't mentioned having to disrupt anything. And if their availability is so limited, why is he calling for increased security at the RNC? Do Republicans get Christ Crackers on registration, or something?
This is precisely the kind of deranged hysteria we have to protest against, I'm afraid.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: James F | July 16, 2008 5:49 PM
Wait, what? I'm armed with a cyberpistol?
You know, on the higher levels you can get an assault rifle, shotgun, grenade launcher, flamethrower, and BFG!
Posted by: t-1000 | July 16, 2008 5:50 PM
Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
Guess you're part of the internet hate machine now PZ.
Posted by: HombreMoleculos | July 16, 2008 5:52 PM
Cyberpistol? Happiness is a warm gun.
Posted by: kubenzi | July 16, 2008 5:53 PM
OK i might be out of the loop so correct me if i am wrong,but isnt that particular convention going to have massive protests anyway?
Posted by: soteos | July 16, 2008 5:53 PM
"Even at his age of 63, Foley said, he had never personally encountered such bigotry."
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, a man who has lived in a cave for the past 63 years with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 16, 2008 5:54 PM
I already got my cyberpistol strapped to my cyberarm, bought a cyberbus cyberticket to Minneapolis, and got a Mohawk cyberhaircut. Watch out, cyberCatholic cyberRepublicans!
Posted by: Coragyps | July 16, 2008 5:54 PM
You've got followers?? Wowzers, Dr Myers!! Are all of 'em squids?
These Cathopublican folks are wacko.....
Posted by: Dustin | July 16, 2008 5:54 PM
It's true! Paul is the voice from the outer world! He is the Mahdi! Ya hya chouhada!Posted by: chrisD | July 16, 2008 5:57 PM
Lying for Jesus, yet again. They know their claims are disingenuously aggrandizing this situation but that's the point! They can get away with it due to the flock swallowing all that is brayed.
Posted by: Alex | July 16, 2008 5:57 PM
So what is it about being insulted anyway? I mean they talk about it like it's a deranged brutal crime. So your sensitivities have been insulted, get over it. The bigotry thing also cracks me up. An atheist thinks the religious world-view is whacko, therefore they're bigots. A religionists world-view has "infidels" burn in hell forever and they're not bigots?
Posted by: Doug | July 16, 2008 5:59 PM
A cyberpistol? That is about as likely to kill someone as cybersex is to getting me laid.
Posted by: Kristine | July 16, 2008 6:00 PM
I, too, wonder what the hell all this has to do with the RNC.
But I hope they make a big stink about it. Fools.
Posted by: George | July 16, 2008 6:00 PM
PZ Myers: "This is precisely the kind of deranged hysteria we have to protest against, I'm afraid."
This is known as projection.
Posted by: Hugh | July 16, 2008 6:01 PM
So you've got some consecrated wafers, PZ. Did they come in bodybags?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 16, 2008 6:01 PM
My God, a cyberpistol. Spewing optically-encoded bits at hapless believers in magic.
Watch out Foley, you might be targeted with information. Which apparently is a good deal stronger than magic.
Fear the man with the information, Foley. Oh, that's right, you already do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Mark F. | July 16, 2008 6:02 PM
Can you confirm that the communion wafers sent to you so far have been consecrated? My understanding is that the unconsecrated ones are pretty easy to get. You can order them over the web.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 16, 2008 6:02 PM
It would have been more impressive if he'd said something like "cybernuke". "Cyberpistol" is just lame, like the default gun on Doom lame.
Posted by: wazza | July 16, 2008 6:02 PM
I think they have Jesits with the wine and cheese course.
Anyway, I'd like to point out what an excellent way this was to reveal how fucking insane everyone over there is.
Good luck at the convention, PZ's Tentacular Army!
Posted by: Amplexus | July 16, 2008 6:03 PM
Why the hell is a catholic republican? evangelicals and catlicks used to hate each other! When did this union form?
YOu know the KKK from blazing saddles!
Posted by: miui | July 16, 2008 6:06 PM
Ebay does not sell them?? What about Jesus on a Cheese Sandwich?
What about these????:
Ebay Wafers #1
Ebay Wafers #2
Ebay Wafers #3
Holy Cyberauctions Batman!
Posted by: Sioux Laris | July 16, 2008 6:06 PM
He's an active "Republican" and therefore stupid, greedy, and consciouly dishonest. Metaphorically, fuck him until he drops dead of his own accord.
Posted by: Matthias | July 16, 2008 6:07 PM
With all these big words flying back and forth, I wonder: Is it time to declare War on Rhetorics?
Posted by: Sili | July 16, 2008 6:09 PM
Needs more Cyberpope.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | July 16, 2008 6:10 PM
Even at his age of 63, Foley said, he had never "personally encountered such bigotry."
He's been in the Republican party for how long? Did he just stick his fingers in his ears every time Jesse Helms spoke?
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 16, 2008 6:11 PM
Does anyone know of any Atheist groups organized or planning to protest (the legal sort, I promise to leave my cyberpistol at home) at the RNC? I've heard nothing yet from the Twin Cities or Minnesota atheists as yet.
I realize organizing atheists can be a bit like herding cats but there has gotta be someone with the gears already in motion. I'd rather spend time with like minded godless heathens then troll around with Greenpeace or those screechy PETA kids.
Posted by: Maria | July 16, 2008 6:12 PM
An atheist with a cracker is a powerful force.
Posted by: Alejandro | July 16, 2008 6:12 PM
This is getting way too craaaaazy. How come every almost freaking US American politician is crazy?
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 6:12 PM
I read that and my first thought was "As if PZ would *want* to go".
But then I realized that Foley was probably talking about protesters and not actual attendees and it made a little more sense.
... But then, after all the press about the Expelled screening, maybe he's expecting you to be lurking in the shadows, waiting to pop out during a big speech raving about the cracker. Or perhaps (gasp) DESECRATING a cracker in the middle of the convention! Oh noes!
:)
Posted by: Kampar | July 16, 2008 6:13 PM
Can you confirm that the communion wafers sent to you so far have been consecrated?
Please don't start this one up again - I think there must have been at least 200 posts the last few days on the subject of how to tell (or not) a consecrated from a virgin cracker (is virgin the right term here?)
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 16, 2008 6:13 PM
I have no idea why the term "braying" is especially insulting to the Irish, and I am, in fact, Irish.
Donohue however, is not Irish. To be Irish you need to have been born in Ireland. It's sort of the rules. Donohue is overwhelmingly American, and in the worst possible way.
Posted by: Alejandro | July 16, 2008 6:14 PM
And it is still a freaking cracker.
Posted by: Bill | July 16, 2008 6:14 PM
I think Mr. Foley confused the word "bray" with "brogue". The Irish of the world should be deeply offended by his comment.
Posted by: Ted H. | July 16, 2008 6:14 PM
"I just felt security at the Republican National Convention ought to look at him and his followers."
Sounds like we just made the terrorist watch list. Terrorist Fist Jab(TM)!
Posted by: Alan | July 16, 2008 6:15 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most American Catholics polled Democrat? Why is he worried about the RNC, other than that it's a three hour drive from Morris?
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 16, 2008 6:17 PM
"I had no idea that "braying" was especially insulting to the Irish."
The term "donkey" is used, mainly by Irish-Americans, as a derogatory term for recent immigrants from Ireland. An acquaintance of mine with a very Irish last name, once referred to a local tavern as a "donkey bar". Of course, it had better beer and music than the "old man bar" he frequents. "Mick" is the term outsiders use to disparage Irish and Irish-Americans.
Foley's fear-mongering gets at the heart of this whole rigmarole... It's not an Atheist vs. Catholic controversy, but a Liberal vs. Conservative controversy. Donohue has never criticized Jack Chick, or the Evangelicals proselytizing to Catholic service academy cadets, his outrage at Hagee was tepid and short-lived. Donohue is more Republican than Catholic, and he's fomenting a culture war in an attempt to dissuade Catholics from voting overwhelmingly Democratic this November.
Posted by: cory | July 16, 2008 6:21 PM
And being a Repube, he is very concerned about the SIZE of your cyberpistol, whether you hold it to the left or right, whether it's bigger than HIS cyberpistol, and of course where you holster it.
Posted by: Fr. J | July 16, 2008 6:21 PM
I know I said I wouldn't comment futher, but...PZ you are just as nuts as he is. You are nuts for claiming that you are afraid of Catholic faux death threats or some kind of inquisition. Now that's "deranged hysteria" and "irrational fear." When you see the similar things from the other side you think they're nuts. Pot calls kettle black. Frankly I think the GOP does have cause for concern.
What is really nuts is that you, and your allies, believe it's okay to disrupt worship services to protest. This whole mess is the result of your ego, immaturity, and lack of professionalism. Nothing good has come of this and nothing will. It will only increase the hatred that bigots like you thrive on. Those who have stolen consecrated hosts have committed a federal offense, as I pointed out before. Also they may have violated the laws of their State. I hope they are prosecuted, but I doubt they will fess up to the authorities.
I suspect your university is quite displeased. Others will be later when your actions are used by some to justify harassing homosexuals, feminists, or other protected groups. Even atheist groups may find themselves on the receiving end. You are setting the precedent. Someone mentioned the KKK. PZ you are the atheist version of the KKK. I don't see any difference between their ignorant bigotry and yours. Cheers, Fr. J
Posted by: Kampar | July 16, 2008 6:23 PM
To be Irish you need to have been born in Ireland.
Brian ... I can categorically state that that is not how it works in the U.S. and it seems odd to those of us from Europe.
Many U.S. born-and-bred citizens take pride (and rightly so, I guess) in telling you that they are Irish, or English, or German, Italian, Portuguese etc. and they really, honestly mean it. They are of course talking about their ancestry - so if Donahue has any recent Irish ancestry (likely with that surname) I have no doubt he (or others for him) would state that he is Irish. It just seems to work that way!
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 16, 2008 6:23 PM
"Sounds like we just made the terrorist watch list. Terrorist Fist Jab(TM)!"
So I should take the "PZ is my co-pilot" and "My boss is an atheist biologist" stickers off my car before heading near any government buildings? :P
Posted by: Carlie | July 16, 2008 6:23 PM
Can you confirm that the communion wafers sent to you so far have been consecrated?
Well, duh, it tastes like Jesus!
And we're not "followers", we're "minions". Jeez, can't the press get anything straight?
Posted by: Zeno | July 16, 2008 6:24 PM
I thought you referred to Donohue as "braying" because he is an ass. So why did Thomas E. Foley consider it a special ethnic slur aimed at the Irish? In all charity, we should consider the possibility that Foley was too drunk to think clearly.
Posted by: BMcP | July 16, 2008 6:25 PM
"What I think he has done, he's loaded a cyberpistol and he's cocked it and he's left it on the table.
Sounds like someone thinks with far too much phallic imagery to me.
BMcP, who is Irish.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 16, 2008 6:25 PM
Well, he is a Republican. You just know his definition of "bigotry" will be different from that of normal people.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | July 16, 2008 6:26 PM
Ah, Thomas Foley and Bill Donohue, a pair of undescended testicles on the groin of civilization.
--Traf E. Traf
Automotive Mastermind
Posted by: me | July 16, 2008 6:27 PM
Be aware you may be getting not just plain old unconsecrated crackers, but plain old unconsecrated _Episcopalian_ crackers (and they don't ever transubstantiate, you know).
When I was an altar boy, the parish priest always ordered the Episcopalian church suppliers' crackers because they were fresher and cheaper, we being in a Southern "missionary" church area.
No complaints about being brought up Catholic there, it was the only integrated school system in the state at the time; and to their credit, the Catholics went out and marched with robes and crucifix on the sidewalk each year as the annual city's KKK parade marched down the main street past the church.
It was another country.
Just sayin' there's no difficulty at all getting those little round flatbreads, anybody can buy them who sends the payment to the church supplies place. It's what's done to them later that makes whatever difference you believe in.
You may just have crackers.
Come to think of it, it still is.
Posted by: Joe Bob | July 16, 2008 6:27 PM
PZ, you should do something really horrible to a bunch of crackers, some "consecrated", some not, (e.g., shoot 'em up with your cyberpistol...) and then demand that someone prove which are which.
Posted by: Stuart Weinstein | July 16, 2008 6:27 PM
Got a cyber-pistol in your computer? Or is it just glad to see me?
Posted by: miui | July 16, 2008 6:28 PM
Correction here. Interesting nonetheless. Ebay stopped at some point selling consecrated wafers due to catholics complaining about it. However, Ebay didn't believe there was anything wrong or offensive with it.
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/202/8083
However, there are 997 items for sale which come around with the search for "blessed" (240 of which most are catholic in nature). While shopping around I found that there are medals with representations of the eucharist and even antique religious books. Some really interesting objects of much higher value than a blessed eucharyst imo.
Posted by: Pandora | July 16, 2008 6:28 PM
To be honest when I heard the word cyberpistol, my mind superimposed PZ's head on Rambo's and then it cut to a little montage of him shooting in the wild jungles of the internet.
Did this happen to anyone else?
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | July 16, 2008 6:29 PM
CYBERPISTOL!
No more of merely clicking people in the eye, go for the gusto with the manly CYBERPISTOL!
Be the envy of every 11-year-old on your block, with the newest in cock-wagging inventions! CYBERPISTOL!
No home is safe with CYBERPISTOL!
No home is safe without CYBERPISTOL!
Your wife will love you again with CYBERPISTOL!
20% less bad things when you use CYBERPISTOL!
[zzz]
The dim bulbs have found solace in the internet, because it validates their existence: there are other people just as dumb as them.
"When did ignorance become a point of view?" may have to become my new national anthem.
"cock punch" just popped into my head, and I think it's because that's what this Thomas Foley needs- delivered by a bratty kid, maybe one of his own.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | July 16, 2008 6:29 PM
"If the crackers aren't just lying around, how come people are having such an easy time getting them? The people who've sent them to me haven't mentioned having to disrupt anything."
As I'm sure PZ knows, to get a consecrated host, all you have to do is go to any Catholic Church during Mass, wait until communion, then walk up in the procession, and when the priest or eucharistic minister holds up the host and says "The Body of Christ" say "Amen" (that is -- say "yes, that's what it is"). Then the priest or minister puts it in your hand. In a large enough Church, with a lot of people receiving communion, if you don't immediately put the wafer in your mouth you probably won't be noticed and no disruption will take place. Of course in all this there is the understanding that you are a Catholic, have come to the Church with the intention of consuming the Host, and so on, and by processing in the line and saying "Amen" you are agreeing to this, implicitly. But yes, it's easy to get consecrated hosts this way if you're willing to be, shall we say, somewhat duplicitous, and a bad guest to boot. But never mind those niceties -- it's all fun between friends, isn't it?
On the other hand, it is also possible to steal them outright:
http://www.caller.com/news/2008/jul/15/eucharist-taken-cathedral-tabernacle/
If you should receive any hosts from Corpus Christi, TX or environs (yes, that's right, Corpus Christi) you might be receiving stolen goods.
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 6:30 PM
Oh, for god's sake, you can get those silly wafers anywhere. Do they get delivered by armored trucks now?
http://www.kaufers.com/productcart/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=108
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 16, 2008 6:31 PM
Take it, take the damn cake. That's just...I summon Truth Machine to deal with this stoopid...I can't even make fun of it it's so burningly stoopid.
Posted by: craig | July 16, 2008 6:31 PM
Every time someone tried to claim that criticizing ideas is bigotry, we have to fight back and continually explain that it can never be bigotry to criticize ideas.
To claim that it is cheapens the experience of victims of true bigotry, and frankly I don't think these people are doing this by accident. I think it's a calculated move.
Posted by: Tom Piatak | July 16, 2008 6:31 PM
In order to receive a host, one must present oneself for Holy Communion. The only people who are supposed to do that are Catholics in a state of grace, i.e., not conscious of grave sin, and they are supposed to immediately consume the host, not keep it. These rules are well known. Those taking the host with the intention of desecrating it are engaged in fraud and theft.
Posted by: Christopher | July 16, 2008 6:31 PM
You don't have to "accost" anybody to get one of the crackers. Just go to mass and hold out your hand...
Posted by: Lago | July 16, 2008 6:33 PM
"Wait, what? I'm armed with a cyberpistol? Is that what we atheist brigands use to rob trucks trundling down the tubes of the internet?"
Hahhahahahahha,,
Oh, Yeah, my name is Paddy Sean and I have no idea how what you said was supposed to be insulting to the irish.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | July 16, 2008 6:33 PM
Because at this point, it seems to be a requirement for being elected as a Republican. You know they're in trouble when the only ones who sound semi-connected to reality are Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan.Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2008 6:33 PM
PZ, since you can't really be sure if your crackers are consecrated or if they are stolen you should mix in some known unconsecrated crackers and then ask Bill Donohue to identify the consecrated crackers that may have been involved in any crimes. Show him the pictures here on your blog. If he can identify the consecrated crackers he can take them and return them to the churches they came from, but if he insists any of the known unconsecrated control crackers are consecrated and/or stolen he looses his cracker taking opportunity.
Also, when you do decide to abuse a consecrated cracker, it might be best to get the "minister of Life" church guy (see first video on my blog post here) to consecrate a cracker you bought so no crime is involved.
Be safe. You may have nothing to fear from crackers, but you might have a lot to fear from loonies with lawyers.
Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 16, 2008 6:35 PM
Project much, Mr. Foley?
A threat to do unspeakable things to a cracker: oh, noes, we gotta have increased security at the Godbots, Oilmen & Plutocrats convention.
Death threats against PZ Myers: yawn.
Sure got yer priorities straight there, fucknuts.
Posted by: jj | July 16, 2008 6:36 PM
Braying:
merican Heritage Dictionary
bray 1 Audio Help (brā) Pronunciation Key
v. brayed, bray·ing, brays
v. intr.
1. To utter the loud, harsh cry of a donkey.
2. To sound loudly and harshly: The foghorn brayed all night.
v. tr.
To emit (an utterance or a sound) loudly and harshly.
n.
1. The loud, harsh cry of a donkey.
2. A sound resembling that of a donkey: "an endless bray of pointless jocosity" (Louis Auchincloss).
Posted by: Kobra | July 16, 2008 6:36 PM
Is a cyberpistol a way to compensate for a small e-penis?
Sorry, I had to say it.
Posted by: Stark | July 16, 2008 6:36 PM
@ Fr.J #37 -
I hate to feed the trolls... but I do have a question for you.
How, exactly, does one tell the difference between "Catholic faux death threats" and real Catholic (or non Catholic) death threats? Are you saying that any death threat made by a Catholic is fake? REALLY? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I can find more than a few instances of Catholics who followed through on death threats should I care to look.
A death threat is a death threat. Period. Unless these threats said at the end of them "Hey, just kidding! Im' really just a big ass!" they are LEGITIMATE threats. A threat doesn't have to be acted upon for it to be a threat - in fact once it is acted upon it's called murder or attempted murder. Get it?
Posted by: J Myers | July 16, 2008 6:38 PM
He also objected to Myers' recent description of Catholic League President Bill Donohue as "braying," which Foley, a self-described Irish Catholic, claimed was "a great insult for the Irish."
A great insult for the Irish? Well, I'm glad you approve, Mr. Foley.
Posted by: Feshy | July 16, 2008 6:39 PM
What's he telling them to do? Consecrated Hosts are not just lying around
Yea, I mean... it's not like they're just handing them out to anyone who walks up or anything, right? Right?
Clearly, we'll have no choice but to use our cyber pistols to demand them. What would that even entail? E-mailing the word "bang" to someone you don't like?
He also objected to Myers' recent description of Catholic League President Bill Donohue as "braying," which Foley, a self-described Irish Catholic, claimed was "a great insult for the Irish."
It was irresponsible
I object to his description of Myers as "irresponsible" because, as a self-described white male, I find it's a great insult to Caucasians.
Wait... why can everyone else get away with that?
Posted by: Zeno | July 16, 2008 6:39 PM
"Fraud and theft"? My goodness! Let's check the law books. Oops! Not there. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Well, the conditions for receiving communion are there, but nothing about fraud and theft. You know, it looks like it's a sin and not a crime. No need to call 9-1-1 after all.
Posted by: Kobra | July 16, 2008 6:39 PM
Just for the sake of injecting irony into the discussion:
http://www.kobrascorner.com/didyoumean-cyberpistol.png
(I don't feel like implementing the workaround right now.)
Posted by: Phillip Allen | July 16, 2008 6:39 PM
@5
Don't leave out the essential running around in circles and shouting "la la la la la" at the top of this voice. If he doesn't do these vital things there's a tiny chance that something like outside information may leak in.
Posted by: Andrew | July 16, 2008 6:40 PM
Baffling.
Posted by: Greg | July 16, 2008 6:41 PM
One would think that, as a Republican, Mr. Foley would be very supportive of a cybergun. After all, isn't the NRA a major contributer to the Republican Party?
The whole thing reminds me of an old joke - If we get electricity from electrons, do we get morality from morons?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 16, 2008 6:41 PM
No, no, you misunderstand. Insulting the Catholic faith is especially insulting to the Irish, because that faith is part of the Irish ethnic identity (as opposed to the heretic Englishmen), as it is of the Polish (as opposed to the heretic Germans and Russians) and the Croat ethnic identities (as opposed to the heretic Serbians and Bosnian Muslims), as Orthodoxy is part of the Russian, Greek and Serbian ethnic identities (as opposed to heretic Croats and Poles, heathen Bosnian Muslims, Turks, Tatars, and so on), and as Islam is part of the Bosnian Muslim ethnic identity (created by the communist dictator Tito in the 1950s or thereabouts) (as opposed to Croats and Serbs).
Religion tends to lead to the most violence where it is regarded as one, or even the only, distinguishing quality of ethnic identity. In the absence of violence, you get ridiculous statements like the one you are replying to here.
Nobody did that, especially not Webster Cook, who is himself a devout Catholic and wanted to show the host to a friend who, in his words, "was curious about the Catholic faith".
How many thousands of comments did you simply skip in the last few days?
Wake me up, moron, when PZ starts killing people.
Posted by: Numad | July 16, 2008 6:41 PM
"In order to receive a host, one must present oneself for Holy Communion. The only people who are supposed to do that are Catholics in a state of grace, i.e., not conscious of grave sin, and they are supposed to immediately consume the host, not keep it. These rules are well known. Those taking the host with the intention of desecrating it are engaged in fraud and theft."
Those that consume the host also aren't suppose to eat or drink for one hour afterwards. Also, words don't mean whatever you want them to mean.
Posted by: bio teacher | July 16, 2008 6:42 PM
Fr. J
PLEASE tell my it is a FEDERAL offense to take a consecrated cracker? Pleasepleaseplease!!!!! That may be the funniest thing I've ever heard!!!
Also, as an aside, if I were to be Catholic and want to partake of these awful crackers but can't since I have Celiac disease, how does the church let me stay in the club? Do they make gluten free jeebus crackers? mmmmmmmmm....federally offensive gluten free christ crackers......
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 6:43 PM
I phoned his office a few days ago when I first read this and talked to Foley on the phone.
He is just as much a fool as you would expect telling me that he had reason to fear disruption from atheists. When I told him about posted threats to PZ and asked where were the threats from atheists, he hung up.
Posted by: jj | July 16, 2008 6:43 PM
@37
Hey, when did PZ disrupt any service? It never happen. It makes no sense that just because someone disagrees, and decided to make his option public, makes them a bigot. We are all tolerant of you wackos out there. Just because you tolerate something doesn't mean you have to like or agree with it. You can be tolerant of a crying baby on a plane but it can still piss you off (South Park line rip off).
Posted by: bio teacher | July 16, 2008 6:43 PM
It should say "Fr J PLEASE tell me why it is...."
Posted by: James Goetz | July 16, 2008 6:44 PM
PZ, you're no better that Donahue if you carry out your desecration challenge.
Posted by: Calladus | July 16, 2008 6:44 PM
re: Tom Piatak
Are these legal rules? Is it against the law to accept the host in Mass? Or is that just a Church rule that is enforceable by an eternity in Hell?
I'd hate to go to jail, you see.
Posted by: raven | July 16, 2008 6:45 PM
Cyberpistol??? If you are going to possess imaginary weapons why not go in big? Cybernukes would be a good start.
Real cybers carry cyber rayguns anyway. Which will work well until you meet a Jedi Knight with a cyber lightsaber.
Not too familar with Foley. Is he always this stupid?
Posted by: Metro | July 16, 2008 6:45 PM
I want to state that I disagree with what PZ is doing with respect to the whole cracker business.
Requesting that consecrated hosts be taken out of churches (the only way to get them) by people who normally wouldn't wipe manure of their shoes on a temple doormat, in order to discomfit Catholics, most of whom aren't doctrinaire and find the whole business embarrasing, and show support for a student who seems to have misappropriated a host out of sheer daftness, looks to me like the sort of bloviating we accuse believers of daily.
Most times I'm totally with PZ. Not this time.
However, I need to point out to Mr. Foley that if they tighten security too much, the prostitutes may not make it in. Or perhaps the Republicans can just issue them badges this time?
I once read somewhere that hookers can't be bothered with the DNC because "they just screw each other," whereas Republicans wanted really dirty stuff, all on the down-really-low.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 16, 2008 6:45 PM
A "cyberpistol" on the "tubes" of "the internets". Why do Republicans have absolutely no idea how the internet works?
Actually I recall another Republican named Foley who managed to his the internet quite effectively.
P.S. Cyberpistol would be a kick ass name for a band
Posted by: Platypus | July 16, 2008 6:45 PM
Even at his age of 63, Foley said, he had never "personally encountered such bigotry."
His lack of personal experience with bigotry would be because Mr. Foley is rich, white, male, and a christian. Well, his lack of experience of being on the receiving end, at any rate.
For him to be quailing in terror at the mere possibility of someone thinking him to be a kook is quite simply pathetic.
Posted by: Kobra | July 16, 2008 6:45 PM
Don't hold your breath on that.Posted by: vespera | July 16, 2008 6:45 PM
Fr. J (#37), you are officially completely off your rocker.
The KKK? Really? You don't see "ANY difference" between PZ and the Ku Klux Klan? Threatening a processed food product (and a nasty one at that, as I can attest from an earlier and unfortunate period in my life) is the functional equivalent of arson, rape and murder?
Only someone without even a pathetic excuse for a moral compass could contemplate comparing the two. Now I just wonder if you are a Catholic priest because you are deranged or deranged because you are a priest.
At this beginning of this whole thing, I thought PZ was, frankly, a jackass for making the threat, and said so. But the longer this goes on the more I see his point. The foul-minded Defenders of the Faith who have come crawling out of the woodwork are a disgrace to all people who attempt to be peaceful and reasonable, and their behavior leaves me with no ammunition left to argue that we should respect their inanities.
Fuck them, and fuck you, Fr. J.
Posted by: Zarquon | July 16, 2008 6:46 PM
Oh no, PZ is a Cyberman. Beware of curly haired men with long multicoloured scarves.
Posted by: Brian Fabian | July 16, 2008 6:47 PM
I really don't care about any kind of apparent problem between you and this other person Mr. Foley, my only concern is the fact that you have something that is simply put the center and heart of the catholic church, and respectively hope you return them un-harmed to the closest Roman Catholic Church, these crackers as you put them mean so very much to allot of people and I would hate to see this kind of treatment be broadcasted onto the internet to prove some theory or point...Thank You
Posted by: Kel | July 16, 2008 6:47 PM
PZ Myers, the level 20 Cyberpunk. Maxed out intelligence, charisma and wisdom. Weapon: Cyberpistol
lol, this is getting quite funny. It just shows how much the church and it's followers want to revert to the 14th century when it could mandate conformity through fear. I guess any institution that has lost it's power and relevance occasionally wants to flex it's muscle to see whether it still can.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 16, 2008 6:49 PM
"I thought you referred to Donohue as "braying" because he is an ass."
Probably, but have you ever heard him speak? Ah, never mind, I guess the example I'm going on is that link someone made to his appearance on Hardball with Christopher Hitchens. I can't fucking stand cable news because everyone seems to think they have to yell at me. I'm sitting right here, feet away from the TV with its amplified sound system. Hitch came off well in that interview simply because he was the only person in the room who was speaking in a normal voice.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 6:52 PM
I keep wondering if Donowhore and Foley are covertly being paid by evangelical protestants to do their level best to make Catholicism look ridiculous.
If so, uh, nice job?
Posted by: Friendo | July 16, 2008 6:52 PM
Re: braying
The term "donkey" was historically used by the English to disparage the Irish I believe, as the Irish were/are perceived to have a streak of stubbornness, or so I was led to believe growing up (while I'm Canadian by birth, I have Irish ancestry and citizenship).
If you go to the racial slur database, there is an entry there. And no, I did not know there was such a thing as the racial slur database until I googled it.
And the connection to the slur never crossed my mind when I read PZ's comments. Frankly, our high rate of theopathy is far more hurtful to me then any slur would be.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 6:52 PM
Fr J wrote:
The KKK, as we all should know, is a proudly Christian organisation - and all their bigotry comes straight from the bible. So they're far closer to your mindset than PZ's, Fr. J.
Posted by: Calladus | July 16, 2008 6:52 PM
Instructions:
1) Go to mass one Sunday and observe. You want a Church that hands you the wafer, not one that places it on your tongue.
2) Stand in line and take the Eucharist when it is given to you. Go ahead and eat it. But remember what type it is.
3) Go to a handy online communion wafer dealer and buy a box of the exact same wafer. While waiting for delivery, brush up on your slight-of-hand skills.
4) Attend Mass again, with an unblessed wafer tucked away. When you accept the Eucharist, switch it with the unblessed wafer.
5) Eat the unblessed wafer and go back to your seat. Don't create a stir. As you leave, tell the priest you enjoyed the sermon.
6) Take your blessed cracker home.
7) ...
8) PROFIT!
Posted by: Robin | July 16, 2008 6:53 PM
Googling braying irish or bray irish brings up no enlightening results. The only connections I can see are that Bray is a town in County Wicklow, and that the word 'bray' apparently derives partly from the Old Irish word braigid, "he breaks wind". Which possibly makes it an even more appropriate term for anything Donohue says.
Posted by: Mold | July 16, 2008 6:53 PM
Wonder if SuperCatholic Man was as upset by the boyrapist priests. Attended many services conducted by laypeople over the past 50 years as the priests had to be 'transferred'. Since I lived in 42 addresses during this time, this was a LOT of buggering pervs. I would infer that SuperCatholic Man, along with the rest of the Good Catholic Flock, had more than an inkling of the problem.
But no, he is upset that an atheist dares to speak his mind. I think I'll cut and paste a First Amendment to send over the tubes.
Cyberpistol. What a noob!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 16, 2008 6:53 PM
The use of the word "braying" is offensive to Irish Catholics? Excuse me, but WTF? Me thinks this doofus thought he was asked one thing and replied to that, instead of what he really was asked. "Never personally encountered such bigotry"? Talk about low standards. For someone who grew up in the 40s and 50s, and was in his 20s during the civil rights movement, he's never encountered "such bigotry" as what he's seen here. RIGHT. We're the bigoted ones...sure.
You have to love the hair-trigger defensiveness of the modern republican. Everything is always and evermore a loaded weapon of some sort, and they are forever under constant fear of this vaporous contraption being used on them. Foley is another glory hound looking for limelight in the culture wars, another boy-who-cried-wolf that will concoct a tornado out of thin air.
And Fr. J, go get a job.
Posted by: NJOsprey | July 16, 2008 6:54 PM
Use of the term "braying" when referring to Bill Donohue is indeed an insult and a slur...to mules, jackasses and donkeys. These are intelligent, strong and useful creatures; Donohue exhibits none of these qualities.
Posted by: Aegis | July 16, 2008 6:54 PM
Mr Foley, I present to you a demonstration of the difference between bigotry and criticism:
Bigotry:
"I hate you because you're catholic and believe in god!"
Criticism:
"Your belief in god causes you to try to make a cracker more important than the lives of people, but you have no evidence it's anything more than a cracker. For this, I think you are ignorant and completely detached from reality".
Hope that helps. A belief that your position is special and important does not, after all, make it special or important. Evidence that your cracker is more than a cracker might help your case. I suspect it is not forthcoming.
Posted by: raven most holy subpope | July 16, 2008 6:55 PM
Fr. J is a fake Catholic and a fake priest. How nuts do you have to be to pretend to be a fake priest on a blog?
Is that more nuts than thinking anyone cares what a fake priest says?
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 16, 2008 6:55 PM
Fr. J., it is ok, most of us probably did not believe you when you said you would comment anymore. I mean, why would you start telling the truth now? Why spoil your perfect record?
Oh, and atheists have been on the receiving end of catholic and xtian aggravation since, well, always.
Now, you are more than welcome to post, to comment. This is an open blog where even the most repulsive are allowed to post unless they cross clearly defined lines. You do not come up to most repulsive standards, but you are repulsive enough.
As for my personal feelings toward you, "scorn and defiance, slight regard, contempt".
Pax Nabisco padre
Posted by: Joe Bobd | July 16, 2008 6:56 PM
Foley said he thinks Myers' actions have ended his career. "Who can listen to him lecture on science without thinking 'Polly wants a cracker'?" he asked.
Who can listen to Foley without thinking "Foley wanks a tracker?"?, I ask.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 6:57 PM
But the longer this goes on the more I see his point.
at the risk of sounding condescending, thankyou.
I was getting entirely bored of all the concern trolls who refused to look past the surface and see what the point of all this really was.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 16, 2008 6:57 PM
"Frankly I think the GOP does have cause for concern."
Why?
"What is really nuts is that you, and your allies, believe it's okay to disrupt worship services to protest."
No services have been disrupted. PZ has several wafers in his possession now, and NOBODY knows where they came from. No one noticed. There's no way of even knowing which ones are consecrated, and which ones aren't. The wafers have no power, the priests have no power, you have no power. And this realization has you feeling a bit threatened, I see.
"I would hate to see this kind of treatment be broadcasted onto the internet to prove some theory or point...Thank You"
Proving points is a good thing. You might learn something.
Posted by: Bacopa | July 16, 2008 6:58 PM
He never saw such bigotry before? How is it bigorty to say that the Host is just a cracker? It is just a cracker; Right? If it isn't, they should prove it. And I'm gonna keep saying it's a cracker until they make at least a halfway convincing case it isn't. Once they do I'll back to a position of "While I personally think it's a cracker, there's a pretty good case it might not be; so I won't get all up in their face about it because they've made a respectable attempt at proving their position."
And what's all this about third parties delivering the consacrated host? I've seen a Catholic communion a few times and it seems that part of the magic is that you see it happening in front of you. How could believing that a priest did it somewhere else at an earlier time be enough? Kinda like that Catholic funeral I went to a while back. They had one priest for three little towns in the Mich UP. He had to be at a funeral somewhere else, but performed the rite of unction before he left town. The chapel deacon performed the funeral service the service which was about the same as any other Catholic funeral except the deacon pulled out a sheet of paper written by the priest and read it to affirm the priest had performed unction. Why was this even necessary? Why did she need to read this? The kid had severe mental and physical disabilities, there was no way anyone could say that he had reached the "age of accountability" or that he was capable of any kind of sin-like actions at all. And why wasn't the deacon a priest? Oh, she was a woman, and had done a little fucking too. That sort of thing didn't matter to Jesus when he commanded Mary Magdaline to spread the word of his reseurrection.
And don't think there isn't a bunch of ritualistic mojo among Protestants. A check box at the end of a Chick Tract will save you? Come on now. To avoid the freaky juju you've gotta be UCC, DOC, ELCA, or Unitarian. But these demoninations are just fellow travelers protecting the more authentic Christian right which is attempting to drag our nation into oblivion. If these liberal Christians can't hack that Phelps is right that God hates fags and that women are second rate humans, they should just become atheists as I am.
There's a war in America, and the battlefields are our schools, our armed forces, and our very bodies. And don't think for a second that our side is winning. I have seen my once progressive state of Texas; which desegragated in the most civilized way, became a leader in science education in the 60s-80s, and became a world center for medical research, slide into fundie depravity. I hope we will not slide all the way down. Many overseas corporations have their US headquarters in Houston. Maybe Shell, Lyondell, BP, and other companies will pull some strings so that we can go back the progressive educational system we had twenty years ago.
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | July 16, 2008 6:58 PM
Has the Pope or the Vatican made comment about this or do they even know about it?
Posted by: Science Goddess | July 16, 2008 6:58 PM
I just saw a trailer for the movie "First Sunday" about two black dudes (Ice Cube and Tracy Morgan) who need money fast and decide to rob a church. When they're given the "cracker" they ask for Cheez Whiz.
Question: Are they going to be boycotted? Cybershot? DeathThreatted (is that a word?)
SG
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 6:59 PM
You know, this is actually a contrived plot by the communion wafer makers to drive up sales. You are all falling for it quite nicely.
Posted by: Russell | July 16, 2008 6:59 PM
It's not the only Party having a convention- PZ, focus on the one that's nominating YOU!
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2008/07/if-nominated-you-will-be-served.html
Posted by: Aquaria | July 16, 2008 7:01 PM
It's hilariously easy to get a consecrated cracker, and no one would ever be the wiser for it. Just go to a Catholic service, try to stay awake until the cookies come, get in line, put out hands, and take one. I've never seen anyone denied. I've never seen anyone asked for Vatican ID. I've seen plenty of congregants not eat the awful thing right away. Some of them pray over it at the pew, for some reason I'll never understand. I've been to services all over the country, and never, ever seen the Church deny anyone who went through the motions to get one.
Is it dishonest? Well, no more dishonest than a kid-diddling priest casting his magic spell on the crackers in the first place. Aren't you Catholics the least bit concerned with where that guy's hands have been?
Posted by: Joe Bob | July 16, 2008 7:01 PM
[Correction]
Who can listen to Foley spout drivel without thinking, "Foley wanks his cracker", I ask.
Posted by: wrpd | July 16, 2008 7:01 PM
On the internets gay cyberguys set their cypberpistols on "stunning."
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 7:01 PM
No need to call Truth Machine to handle Friar J. That's like calling out Rambo to deal with a particularly bratty cub scout.
Ignore the troll. He's just an incarnation of Kenny or possibly his slow acolyte.
Foley has has penis envy so he tries to prove he has balls.
Posted by: Joe Fitzsimons | July 16, 2008 7:02 PM
As someone who is actually Irish (I note from Wikipedia that Bill Donohue appears to be 100% American) I don't find the term 'braying' particularly offensive or prejudicial.
On the other hand, actions on both sides of this latest incident have been a little out of order. PZ has every right to say what he did, but I wish he hadn't. It just stirs the sh*t.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 7:02 PM
The KKK, as we all should know, is a proudly Christian organisation - and all their bigotry comes straight from the bible. So they're far closer to your mindset than PZ's, Fr. J.
religionauts, if anything, are always good examples of the utilization of projection as a defense mechanism.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 16, 2008 7:03 PM
I've always wondered why there aren't any machine guns in the Star Wars universe. Probably because the Jedi would be... selected against in that case.
(Yes, the best Western is Django, thank you for asking.)
Why not? Are you afraid of something? Are you perhaps afraid of admitting something to yourself?
Posted by: Kougaro | July 16, 2008 7:03 PM
Corey Schlueter #104 : IMO, the pope, most of the catholics, and everyone else for that matter, don't care. they probably don't give a sh*t about the whole story, because it's so ridiculous.
I find it hard to believe we live in the same world as those fundamentalists.
Posted by: Bill from Dover | July 16, 2008 7:04 PM
Cyberpistol? Yo PZ
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 16, 2008 7:07 PM
I applaud you, PZ. You found a pretty effective avenue by which to flip the switch on their persecution complex. It's freakin' hilarious how unhinged these folks have gotten over a cracker, and it's a sad commentary on how people are actually going to pay any attention the paranoid yelping of these clowns.
Then again, I may have missed the meeting where we planned to break into the RNC to kidnap all those wafery baby Jebuses. Just tell me that, aside from the cyberpistol, you've got some other cool toys like the ones used by Clooney and his gang in Ocean's Eleven.
I just can't understand why more people aren't laughing themselves silly over these folks. Really. This isn't outrage. It's freakin' comedy.
Posted by: demons | July 16, 2008 7:07 PM
"No PZ you are the crackers!"
And then he was the crackers...
Posted by: gir | July 16, 2008 7:08 PM
To be fair, a cyberpistol is more grounded in reality than a christ cracker.
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 16, 2008 7:08 PM
Cyberpistol? Am I doing it wrong???
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 16, 2008 7:08 PM
I suspect the quote was edited. What Foley said must have been something like:
"I have never personally encountered such bigotry since that Parks woman refused to give up her seat to a man only because he was white."
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 7:09 PM
. PZ has every right to say what he did, but I wish he hadn't. It just stirs the sh*t.
You have to stir the shit if you want it to burn completely to ash.
Anyone who served in the military and had the fortune of doing latrine duty could tell you that.
http://www.commando.org/images/shit.jpg
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 7:10 PM
Foley's from Virginia so he knows a cracker when he see's one.
Speaking of crackers, heard about Libby Dole's wanting to name the new AIDS Relief Bill after Jesse Helms? Just when you think the irony can't get any greater...
Posted by: Kimpatsu | July 16, 2008 7:12 PM
Oh no, PZ is a Cyberman. Beware of curly haired men with long multicoloured scarves.
Uh, Zarquon, the Doctor has regenerated since the Tom Baker days. He looks more like a young college professor these days.
But the Cybermen are back ar Xmas.
Posted by: Joe Fitzsimons | July 16, 2008 7:12 PM
Ichthyic: Snappy comeback, but I think it may be stretching the metaphor beyond its limits.
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 7:12 PM
Why not? Are you afraid of something? Are you perhaps afraid of admitting something to yourself?
I have nothing to be afraid of I believe this to be a sacrament to be apart of my life, and I have nothing to admit to myself iam not the one desecrating something that is special to someone else.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2008 7:12 PM
Is it the only way to get them? One could ask a Catholic priest who has turned agnostic or atheist but not yet left the church to consecrate some crackers you bought yourself. For $15 you can become a minister of life pastor and consecrate your own crackers.
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 7:12 PM
Apostrophe catastrophe.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 16, 2008 7:13 PM
We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming for this urgent bulletin:
A wave of crackerjacking has struck US churches, leaving services disconnected for countless households and Homeland Security agents praying for clues...
Prof. Myers has the Vatican? He told us he had a big back yard - maybe it's hidden behind Skatje's old swing set next to the kraken pit?
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 7:13 PM
If a 'normal' priest has the power to turn a wafer into Jesus, who did those convicted pedophile priests turn them into? Charles Manson?
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 16, 2008 7:14 PM
Which includes never once looking in a mirror or listening to the words that come out of his own mouth.
Posted by: Lowell | July 16, 2008 7:16 PM
Bio teacher:
On earlier threads, Fr. J was going on and on about 18 U.S.C. s. 247, which makes it illegal to intentionally "deface, damage, or destroy" "religious real property," which is defined as "any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship."
Fr. J's argument was that the wafers are "religious objects contained within a place of religious worship." He cited no caselaw or other authority in support of that proposition.
As far as I can recall, he had no substantive response to the rather obvious objection that, even assuming that the wafer is a "religious object" within the meaning of the statute, and even assuming that PZ is going to "deface, damage, or destoy" it, by the time that happens the wafer will no longer be "contained within a place of religious worship."
As for Fr. J's claim on this thread that "[t]hose who have stolen consecrated hosts have committed a federal offense," I have no idea what he's talking about. I assume he's just making shit up.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 7:17 PM
but I think it may be stretching the metaphor beyond its limits.
Oh? why?
I rather thought it a rather apt metaphor myself. However, I might be a bit biased, being an anti-theist.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 16, 2008 7:18 PM
And if so, do they really care that much about what a few crazy Americans think about it?
Universal Life is a vaguely Protestant sect, right? In any case they aren't Catholics.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 7:21 PM
PZ
Are you sure it's not psychological projection that you see Donahue and a braying ass?
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between him and you.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 16, 2008 7:22 PM
No it fucking isn't.What is intensely annoying, irritating, and cringe-making for many of us Irish (y'know, the ones who were actually born there) is having wackaloon wankstains like Bill Donahue calling themselves Irish when they're not: we have plenty of our own genuine, home-grown assholes without having a goodly portion of American assholes associated with us too, thanks very much.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 7:23 PM
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between him and you.
That you decided to poke your eyes out because they offended you isn't really relevant to the discussion, troll.
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 7:23 PM
Prof. Myers has the Vatican? He told us he had a big back yard - maybe it's hidden behind Skatje's old swing set next to the kraken pit?
The Vatican is a place the Eucharist is the heart of the Church
Posted by: craig | July 16, 2008 7:23 PM
It just occurs to me. What is the word for taking a host hostage?
Could it possibly be a "crackerjacking?"
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 7:23 PM
"Even at his age of 63, Foley said, he had never personally encountered such bigotry."
No, I can't imagine he has. He probably has staff to turn away minorities and other undesirables before they have a chance to get near him - unless they're carrying a campaign contribution.
Posted by: Max Verret | July 16, 2008 7:24 PM
Lets see what the damage has been so far:
1. The President of the U. of Minnesota has removed PZ's blog reference from his university web site.
2. The President of the U. of Minnesota, Paul Brinkinks, has written a letter stating clearly that the University
disavows any association with Dr. Myers' hate filled messages.
3. PZ and/or his minions have managed to get one hard working lady who was trying to help support her three children, and whose only fault was that she was married to a thoughless husband, fired from her job.
4. PZ has one RNC delegate calling for something just short of activation of the Minnesota National Guard for Convention security. I'm sure the good people of Minnesota
just love that kind of publicity. For them, It must bring back memories of the Chicago Convention in the '60s.
And, I suspect that before its over Sherman's march to the sea may look like a cake walk of destruction by comparison.
Nice going PZ, that's not a bad week's work. I can't wait to see what next week brings
Posted by: amphiox | July 16, 2008 7:24 PM
The defining aspect of human intelligence it seems, is the ability, possessed by no other organism on this planet, to, through a conscious act of will, render oneself dumber than an amoeba.
I give you Thomas Foley. . . .
Posted by: Jupiter BFPOE | July 16, 2008 7:25 PM
PZ, I'm absolutely sure that you have the power to say magic gobbledygook and transform crackers (saltines, ritz, wheat thins whatever) into real life cyberpistols (which look and taste exactly like crackers but we'll know the "truth"). Your minions can then use these "cyberpistols" use to attack the RNC. As one of your minions I await your command Oh! Great Cat Herder.
I think the leader-follower mindset of Mr. Foley and the Catholic League is interesting. Of course they can't fathom the possibility that people can read PZ's blog and think for themselves. No, they are sure those who agree with PZ will do whatever he says just like good Catholics.
(Actually I think it would be really great if there were a bunch of "followers" at the protest area of the RNC doing nothing but throwing crackers in the general direction of the Xcel Energy Center. No chanting, no yelling, no signs, just throwing crackers)
Posted by: Dreamer | July 16, 2008 7:25 PM
Wait, what? I'm armed with a cyberpistol? Is that what we atheist brigands use to rob trucks trundling down the tubes of the internet?
Yeah, now I've got an image akin to Mad Myers Tube Warrior... that one's gonna keep me grinning all day.
What a sheltered life this guy has got to have lived if this is the greatest personal 'bigotry' he's experienced First, he's got serious issues if he's unable to tell the difference between an act of protest/expression and actual bigotry. Offence is not sufficient, while malicious intent is required (Myers motivations strike me as mischevious, hardly malicious).
Semantics aside, I'm almost a third his age and I can think of at least two incidences of personally experienced anti-Catholic bigotry. They weren't all that bad, but I could say that I detected malice. Funnily enough, the perpetrators in both cases were other christians... let him choke on the fact that while Myers dislikes what he stands for, that dislike pales in comparison to the contempt his own evangelical 'allies' hold Catholics of all persuasions in.
Posted by: NC Paul | July 16, 2008 7:25 PM
The only thing that really insults me as an actual Irishman born on the island of Ireland is the number of Irish-American conservative blowhards who bring the name of our fine island into disrepute.
Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Donaghue, Thomas Foley and others like you - please do not use your ancestry to try to legitimise your authoritarian braying (there, I said it too - am I insulting myself?).
I feel nothing but contempt for your political, social and religious opinions. They are yours not mine. Leave Ireland out of it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 16, 2008 7:25 PM
"Why not? Are you afraid of something? Are you perhaps afraid of admitting something to yourself?"
Afraid to admit that......the cracker is a lie?!
(I can't be the first one to have said this.)
Posted by: The502 | July 16, 2008 7:27 PM
It's a fucking cracker!!
Posted by: MZ | July 16, 2008 7:27 PM
I look at atheism the same way that you look at religion (Catholics especially apparently). The big difference being that if I met you on the street I would still treat you and your beliefs with basic human respect. Which you and a vast majority of your posters have failed to do. I'm a Catholic and proud of it. While that obviously repulses you it is my choice and right in this country. We deserve basic human respect whether you agree with us or not. What you (as well as those people who take the Eucharist) do is sacrilege to us. It's hateful, disrespectful, and wrong. You don't have to believe to show some basic respect.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 16, 2008 7:27 PM
And for the record, Donohue doesn't bray. Stop saying that. He whispers.
He whispers things like:
"Those evil atheistses won't desecrate you, my preciousss..."
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2008 7:28 PM
James Goetz wrote:
Maybe when they do the inevitable South Park episode...
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 7:28 PM
the Eucharist is the heart of the Church
"From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
something tells me these "victimized" catholics got the wrong message from Melville.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | July 16, 2008 7:28 PM
Hey, In a society where Food Not Bombs can be considered a terrorist organization , anything is possible. (Food fight! Food fight! Food fight!)
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 7:28 PM
#441 Posted by: Max Verret | July 16, 2008 7:24 PM
It would appear that Max aspires to be a kroll.
Posted by: jj | July 16, 2008 7:29 PM
@#141
"3. PZ and/or his minions have managed to get one hard working lady who was trying to help support her three children, and whose only fault was that she was married to a thoughless husband, fired from her job."
NO her husband did that. Don't use a corporate email to send threats, actually you shouldn't use a corporate email for anything other than work related communication - That's a policy almost ALL companies use. That's because they (1800flowers) are responsible for everything that is sent from their servers.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 16, 2008 7:29 PM
Max Verret
"3. PZ and/or his minions have managed to get one hard working lady who was trying to help support her three children, and whose only fault was that she was married to a thoughless husband, fired from her job."
Dumbass, in what way did PZ and/or his minions manage to get M. Kroll fired? Her stupid troll of a husband managed to do that.
Posted by: Brian | July 16, 2008 7:29 PM
I wouldn't underestimate the power of our cyberpistols guys:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html
Apparently this guy called 1-800-Flowers to inquire about the death threat the person sent from one of their e-mail addresses and they just informed him she's been fired. Apparently businesses don't take kindly to employees using their e-mail servers to send illegal death threats.
Posted by: Penguin_Factory | July 16, 2008 7:30 PM
WTF? Braying is insulting to the Irish? Since when? I've lived in Ireland since I was seven and I can report with absolute certainty that that is a load of crap.
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 7:31 PM
Hi Ronny, you little self-hating closet case.
You snipe like a chihuahua, but you don't have the balls to be open about your lack of faith. If you really are an atheist.
I think you're just a lying conservative poser trolling while he fondles his shriveled excuse for a prick. You probably long to suckle Kay Bailey Hitchison's wizened tits while being buggered by Dick Army and Phil Graham.
Little Ronny, the sniveling petulant troll. Oh, what nasty things are you gonna call me now, widdle mewly mouthed Ron Ron?
Posted by: Blondin | July 16, 2008 7:32 PM
That Corpus Christi story at #51 has to be a joke, right? Doesn't Corpus Christi mean "body of christ" in latin?
Somebody stole the body of christ from body of christ?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 16, 2008 7:32 PM
-A Catholic, comparing PZ's cracker call with the lynchings of the KKK.The fact that you cannot see a difference is why I will fight tooth and nail to make sure you and your kind are safely sequestered where you can no longer infect children with your stupidity.
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 7:32 PM
Why not? Are you afraid of something? Are you perhaps afraid of admitting something to yourself?"
Afraid to admit that......the cracker is a lie?!
(I can't be the first one to have said this.)
Prove to me its a lie and I will prove to you that it is real and maybe sometime in the next century we will agree to disagree, that's not the point the point is why do this, what benefit does it give, people will see this stunt and could care less but Catholics who believe in the sacrament will be hurt by it. What does it do, iam pretty sure we are not going to stop believing that the host you have is the body of Christ himself.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 7:32 PM
EV
And the attack of the hateful mindless sycophants begins....
Posted by: AlanWCan | July 16, 2008 7:33 PM
Wait, he's a 63-year-old catholic and he has never "personally encountered such bigotry"? Did he miss all the catholic rants against protestants and jews? gays? Did he miss out completely on the joy that was (and is) the fucking IRA? How about special dispensation requested by the churches to be allowed to discriminate against whomsoever they damn well please?
Let's see:
1. bomb busload of schoolchildren...check A-OK with us catholics
2. prevent loving couple from adopting child in need of loving family because said couple have the same chromosome complement...check A-OK with the catholics
3. repressed sexual predator uses asymmetrical power relationship to facilitate molestation of young children...check A-OK with the catholics
4. But mess with the crackers and all hell breaks loose!
Posted by: jj | July 16, 2008 7:33 PM
@152
"Hey, In a society where Food Not Bombs can be considered a terrorist organization , anything is possible. (Food fight! Food fight! Food fight!)"
Kind of scary isn't it? Got a friend who was on the post 9/11 FBI 'watch list' for distributing food to the poor and homeless in Fresno. Maybe he was giving away jeebus crackers...
Posted by: d'George | July 16, 2008 7:34 PM
According to V.S. Ramachandran quoting lord Reith
"There are some people whom it is ones duty to offend"
Thank you Dr. Myers for doing your duty.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 7:35 PM
MZ wrote:
You deserve basic human respect. Your beliefs are open to criticism - as are PZ's, mine and everyone else's. Some of your co-religionists chose to place the belief above the well-being of an actual person; PZ strongly disagrees with that and chose to make an example of the belief in question (the eucharist) to bring it to the attention of as many people as possible.
Posted by: unicow | July 16, 2008 7:35 PM
The big difference being that if I met you on the street I would still treat you and your beliefs with basic human respect. Which you and a vast majority of your posters have failed to do.
This man speaks the truth! I was walking down the street today and saw him (I recongized he was Catholic by his halo) and thought "Hmmm that guy must be 'MZ' who trolls on Pharyngula."
Then I totally disrespected his beliefs! It was great!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 16, 2008 7:36 PM
Friendo @ # 90 - Surely I wasn't the only one dismayed to find that the URL you gave for the irreplaceable Racial Slur Database ("Helping make the world a better place.") actually leads to a European enterprise whose slogan - "RSDB is an organisation of services providing companies that transform the communication expressions of their customers - with value added - into printed and multimedia productions." - implies that slurs would cost significantly extra, though they'd be well-packaged.
Posted by: MikeM | July 16, 2008 7:37 PM
I have a cyberpitchfork, and I'm not afraid to use it.
I'd say you could explain to them that, really, you were just being irreverent, but I don't think they'd even understand that.
Posted by: Brian | July 16, 2008 7:38 PM
"3. PZ and/or his minions have managed to get one hard working lady who was trying to help support her three children, and whose only fault was that she was married to a thoughless husband, fired from her job."
Maybe she shouldn't have sent an illegal death threat using her employers property. Companies don't take too kindly on that sort of thing.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 16, 2008 7:39 PM
FrJ,
You screwed up one of your sentences. I'll assume it was just merely a typo, because surely no one could be dumb enough to make the statement you did...
Those who have stolen consecrated hosts
havehave not committed a federal offense...Actually, I'd be fooling myself if I thought you understood the legal system enough to determine what is and isn't a crime, especially when you claim that there is a law - and a federal law at that! - that makes it a crime to steal consecrated wafers.
In the case of the recent theft from a Texas church's tabernacle, I can guarantee you that the defendants in that case will be facing charges ranging from breaking and entering to petty larceny, but the theft they will be charged with will be limited to the container the wafers were in at the time. Communion wafers, consecrated or not, have absolutely NO monetary value at all.
Until you start putting substance behind your claims - which in this case would mean citing the statute that actually says that - you really should stay out of the grown-up conversations.
Posted by: Teddy | July 16, 2008 7:39 PM
Another Catholic opines
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 7:39 PM
Max-- You can add a #5 to that. He managed to get a woman with three children fired from her stay-at-home job by releasing the details of a hateful email sent by her husband unbeknown to her. It was a typically thoughtless move in a week that has seen PZ right back to his brashest and most vulgar and offensive. As with the Expelled conference call it was simply a case of "act now - think later".
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2008 7:40 PM
Brian F wrote:
Wait, you really believe that PZ has "the body of Christ himself" in his basement?
Do you think you could tell which crackers are "the body of Christ himself" and which aren't if PZ showed you some crackers?
Posted by: jj | July 16, 2008 7:40 PM
"I will prove to you that it is real"
DO it, right now. Lets do DNA analysys of the cracker, and then we can clone Jesus!
Question, if you have celiacs disease are you pretty much doomed to eternal hell fire because the body of jesus will make you insides cramp up and cause excruciating pain?
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 16, 2008 7:41 PM
"Even at his age of 63, Foley said, he had never personally encountered such bigotry."
It's so hard being a white Christian male in a society dominated by white Christian males for hundreds of years!
Posted by: AlanWCan | July 16, 2008 7:42 PM
OK, so I just posted over there. Somehow I doubt this is true:
Posted by: KC | July 16, 2008 7:43 PM
As an offspring from a fiercely Irish-American family (I add the hyphenation there to mollify those of the Irish-Irish who get noisy about the point, while rejecting their argument in entirety as a matter of semantics), I've never heard anything of the sort about `Braying.` I've heard a lot less than nice things, but nothing donkey related.
You should reply saying that the US Supreme Court recognized an individual right to bear cyberarms. If they don't like it, they can take an weblawsuit to the internetCourt to get you iDisarmed.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 7:44 PM
Pete Rooke, #173:
He managed to get a woman with three children fired from her stay-at-home job by releasing the details of a hateful email sent by her husband unbeknown to her. It was a typically thoughtless move by her husband, who is a moron - since what he did is against the law, and contravened his wife's employment policy.
Fixed it for ya.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 7:45 PM
If a 'normal' priest has the power to turn a wafer into Jesus, who did those convicted pedophile priests turn them into? Charles Manson?
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 7:13 PM
Well... the priests did eat those kids...
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 7:46 PM
Wait, you really believe that PZ has "the body of Christ himself" in his basement?
Do you think you could tell which crackers are "the body of Christ himself" and which aren't if PZ showed you some crackers?
175 entries and we are just now understanding that cathloics beleive that a consegrated host is actually the body of christ, of course it is why do you think iam on here defending it, if were a piece of bread why would we care.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 7:49 PM
if were a piece of bread why would we care.
if you really think it the body of a christ, why not file kidnapping charges?
seriously, go out and hire a lawyer, right now, and file federal and state kidnapping charges against PZ.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | July 16, 2008 7:49 PM
I am Catholic, and I denounce all death threats against PZ Myers. They are possibly criminal acts and definitely reflect badly on those who make them even if not meant seriously. I believe my views on the matter are those of almost all American Catholics.
At the same time, again with, I think, most American Catholics, I deplore PZ's threats to desecrate the Eucharist.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 16, 2008 7:49 PM
...He's loaded a cyberpistol and he's cocked it and he's left it on the table...
Ah, yes. The triumph again of the conveniently malleable metaphor.
See how it's done? It's so picturesque. Cocking a cyberpistol... it sounds so much more menacing than does 'well, he told off a buncha wankers who were hassling a kid over a cracker and roundly mocked people who actually believed certain foodstuffs become portions of a deity at regular weekly intervals'. This is the point: it serves a political purpose, same as does all the CL's windy noise on the subject... the fact that the metaphor bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually happened here is, of course, of no concern. So hey, he wins this one. These are the rules of politics, and of the conveniently malleable metaphor. It's his metaphor, he can do with it as he wishes. Mocking an arcane and bizarre belief is officially now menacingly cocking a 'cyberpistol'. You cybercrazed cybergunman, you...
Fortunately, however, we've still got Foley dead to rights, too... Seein' as transparent grandstanding demagoguery of this stripe is hereby officially declared to be cyberbeating up cyberlittle old ladies and cyberorphans for their cyberpensions 'n cyberalms...
That cyberbastard.
Posted by: jj | July 16, 2008 7:50 PM
"that cathloics beleive that a consegrated host is actually the body of christ"
The concept of a metaphor has escaped Catholicism completely
Posted by: firemancarl | July 16, 2008 7:51 PM
PZ ought to hold the cracker at cyber gunpoint. That'll teach those Catholics. Ransom the damn thing too.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2008 7:51 PM
Brian F wrote:
Why would you believe something like that?
Is there any sane reason to believe something like that?
Because you're doing parody and satire? Because you're a concern troll?
Posted by: BobC | July 16, 2008 7:51 PM
"What's he telling them to do? Consecrated Hosts are not just lying around," he said to CNA, noting that the only other possible way to secure a Host would be to accost a priest, nun, or layman taking the Sacrament to the sick.
Nuns visiting the sick in hospitals will now need armed guards, thanks to PZ.
I'm looking forward to PZ carrying out his threat to cause serious harm to a cracker. Then the Catholics will really go nuts.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | July 16, 2008 7:52 PM
Blondin @#159
Follow the link -- it is no joke, though it is a curious coincidence. Somebody stole consecrated hosts from the tabernacle in the Cathedral in Corpus Christi, Texas. Really.
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 7:53 PM
"that cathloics beleive that a consegrated host is actually the body of christ"
The concept of a metaphor has escaped Catholicism completely
Read the Bible and maybe you will understand that there is not use of a metaphor here
Posted by: firemancarl | July 16, 2008 7:53 PM
Wait! I thought the Reps. were all about gun ownership.
Posted by: freelunch | July 16, 2008 7:53 PM
Could they open up a fake convention somewhere in Minneapolis for the RNC idiots who don't even know where they are going?
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 16, 2008 7:53 PM
Lets see what the damage has been so far:
1. The President of the U. of Minnesota has removed PZ's blog reference from his university web site.
It's his personal blog. I think it's questionable if the link even belonged there in the first place. What's the damage?
2. The President of the U. of Minnesota, Paul Brinkinks, has written a letter stating clearly that the University
disavows any association with Dr. Myers' hate filled messages.
Of course they do. Any public entity would do the same. PZ could have suddenly started ranting about how much he dislikes [noun], thus pissing off lovers of [noun] and the U would have the same stance. Religion, puppies, whatever...it's the reaction of the opposition that garners the response. Again, what damage?
3. PZ and/or his minions have managed to get one hard working lady who was trying to help support her three children, and whose only fault was that she was married to a thoughless husband, fired from her job.
You don't think the husband might, just maybe, be at fault for sending the email in the first place? It's unfortunate that she's married to a rube but can't see how it's PZ or any his "minions" fault. Certainly some harm here but it's certainly not anyone here's fault that the mail was sent.
4. PZ has one RNC delegate calling for something just short of activation of the Minnesota National Guard for Convention security. I'm sure the good people of Minnesota
just love that kind of publicity. For them, It must bring back memories of the Chicago Convention in the '60s.
Actually Bill Donohue crying wolf created this. As for publicity this entire episode has more or less been online only. Ask the average Minneapolis or St. Paul resident on the street about it and they'll have no clue what your talking about. If you want to call this damage (which it isn't) the only one to blame is Bill Donohue...and perhaps the overreaction of one GOP delegate.
They've been talking about trying to get more security for well over a month now, long before this whole situation even came up.
And, I suspect that before its over Sherman's march to the sea may look like a cake walk of destruction by comparison.
I lol'd. I really, really hope you're kidding about that. Comparing this stupid internet squabble to the Savannah Campaign is beyond idiotic. Talk about overreacting...
Posted by: frog | July 16, 2008 7:54 PM
Well it's not just the religious imbeciles who are calling PZ a bigot, and equating rudeness with bigotry. See http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/07/on_pz_don_imus_atheism_and_ath.php
for Nisbet's take on this: he posts Andrew Sullivan's mutterings to say exactly that with a bit of plausible deniability (being an academic in communications, he absolutely knows that such a move is Propaganda 101).
Of course, my comment reflecting on that was bounced -- I tried to be polite, but it was a bit too close too home I guess.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 7:54 PM
Brian F wrote:
For your non-existent god's sake Brian, do you open a book (if you and your kind haven't burned them all) at the middle and start
readinglooking at the pictures from there?If you go back to the original thread from last week you'll find that the concept has been explained dozens of times. We know what you think happens to the cracker. It's just that we a) don't believe that it happens, and b) don't care that you do believe that it happens.
Not agreeing or caring is not the same as not understanding.
Posted by: NC Paul | July 16, 2008 7:55 PM
#173 - So by your logic if I report a crime that results in the perpetrator (or, to tailor the analogy more precisely, an accomplice) being punished, I'm the bad person?
In summary:
Sending a threatening e-mail (from your wife's work address no less) - OK;
Snitching on the threatening e-mailer - not OK.
Pete - it strikes me that your moral compass might not be reading true North on this.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 7:55 PM
4. But mess with the crackers and all hell breaks loose!
what's really funny is all the fake victimized catholics, who claim that PZ wouldn't ever do the same to Muslims, when he actually did do just that:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php
what's more amazing, he didn't receive death threats from Muslims for that post, or have a shitstorm of insanity arise from it.
so, I begin to wonder which group has the larger number of radical, insane, fundamentalists willing to do violence at the mere mention of exposing one of their ridiculous notions.
so far, the Catholics are winning by orders of magnitude on the "insane threatening others" front.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 7:56 PM
EV
And the attack of the hateful mindless sycophants begins....
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 7:32 PM
And the senseless comments from the sock puppet troll continue...
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 7:57 PM
Why would you believe something like that?
Is there any sane reason to believe something like that?
If you are someone that is open to normal conversation and has a bible handy i can explain it easy, but if you dont beleive in the bible or are open to a different point of view then I would just be wasting my time
Posted by: Dave Wisker | July 16, 2008 7:57 PM
They are braying because they aren't used to anyone challenging their world-view so openly. They should sit, pipe down for awhile, and get used to it.
Posted by: freelunch | July 16, 2008 7:58 PM
No doubt the average resident of The Cities would tell Donohue and his cowering horde that Morris was practically in the Dakotas and that Donohue was an idiot.Posted by: jj | July 16, 2008 7:58 PM
"Read the Bible and maybe you will understand that there is not use of a metaphor here"
No my point is that these things in the bible are metaphors, remember its a simile that uses "like" or "as", so a metaphor would look like a 'literal' statement, and any rational person would notice that it isn't, due to how far from reality it is.
Example:
Simile - "I'm hungry as a wolf"
Metaphor "I'm a hungry wolf"
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 7:59 PM
for Nisbet's take on this
*sigh*
I had hopes that eventually, Matt would settle down and stop trying to play up the fallacy of the golden mean.
..but no, he seems very intent on burning the house down to aggrandize his failed agenda.
I think most of us have decided to wash our hands of him at this point.
bye Matt.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 8:00 PM
@ Wowbagger
We Catholics can rely on a moral text that governs our behaviour. Were you to as well you would realize that you punish the sinner and not the sinned against. Those children do not deserve the pain and cramps that could arise from not eating tonight. They do not deserve to make do with shoes stuffed with newspapers, and borrowed from their father, during P.E. because they couldn't afford to purchase a new pair. They do not deserve having to stand in the "reduced lunch" line at school because they can no longer afford the full rate of $2.50 each day. Actions have consequences and PZ - as a scientist - should know this. He doesn't though possibly because he has no moral guidance. That's not to malign all atheists as I'm sure some are perfectly decent people and have an atheist acquaintance who I have conversed with without any trouble or pause.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 16, 2008 8:01 PM
"Hokey religions and ancient Republicans are no match for a good cyberpistol at your side, kid."
Posted by: jj | July 16, 2008 8:02 PM
The end of my example got cut off
BUT - Nowhere in the metaphor do I state that I am not a wolf, but a rational person would understand that I am not a wolf.
Posted by: frog | July 16, 2008 8:02 PM
Michael Kremer: I am Catholic, and I denounce all death threats against PZ Myers. They are possibly criminal acts and definitely reflect badly on those who make them even if not meant seriously. I believe my views on the matter are those of almost all American Catholics.
At the same time, again with, I think, most American Catholics, I deplore PZ's threats to desecrate the Eucharist.
I might have missed some, but that is the first sane Catholic response I've seen so far. Measured, rational, and appropriately insulted in perspective. Michael points out, first and foremost that the death threats are unacceptable. Only after that, as a side-note, does he point out that he's deeply insulted --- which is reasonable and appropriate. That's life --- I wouldn't expect someone who believed in magic to not be insulted, to not dislike PZ and refuse to invite him over for a dinner party.
One out of thousands of posting. Hurrah to Mr. Kremer --- but unfortunately, he is the exception that proves the rule. I would change my opinion on this if I saw the Catholic hierarchy take such a stance --- clearly tell the imbeciles in their congregations that it is more un-Catholic to threaten an opponent with death than to desecrate a cookie. Then I might be able to believe that they have the faintest glimmer of a ghost of a sense of morality.
Posted by: Katie | July 16, 2008 8:03 PM
I don't understand why it hasn't occured to this Foley guy that you can get a "consecrated" communion wafer by going up for communion and then pocketing the cracker instead of putting in in your mouth. You don't need to ambush any nuns.
Although maybe he can't imagine a world where a non-believer would dare go to mass under false pretenses. Maybe he expects non-believers to be struck down as soon as they step inside the church?
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 8:03 PM
No my point is that these things in the bible are metaphors, remember its a simile that uses "like" or "as", so a metaphor would look like a 'literal' statement, and any rational person would notice that it isn't, due to how far from reality it is.
Example:
Simile - "I'm hungry as a wolf"
Metaphor "I'm a hungry wolf"
But when he said this at the last supper, desciples actually left because of what he was saying and the fact that they could not beleive it, this is why we take it as written
Posted by: Aquaria | July 16, 2008 8:03 PM
#199...
You're going to use the Bible to prove something to people who, on average, think the whole thing is a bloodthirsty Fairy Tale?
You're dumber than you look.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 16, 2008 8:04 PM
Why is it Republicans are such chicken shit cowards? Can someone explain why there is always a bogeyman right around the corner that these warmongers are so fucking afraid of? Why is the party of tough talk is also the party that starts running for more security guards and cops the moment they get a little scared? What's the deal with these Big Strong Men of The Lord also being the biggest pussies in the country?
Posted by: vespera | July 16, 2008 8:04 PM
MZ (#148),
Let's talk a little bit about the issue of the religious and respect. For instance, it's a common trope in U.S. politics that you can't be a "true American" without believing in God. This is not even a controversial position; prominent politicians say things like that all the time and suffer no consequences whatsoever, because most oh-so-respectful religious people AGREE with this.
Of course I don't know you, but I would not be surprised if you nod along when you hear this type of sentiment.
Also, as a Catholic you probably believe that I deserve to be tortured for ETERNITY for not believing as you do, which also doesn't seem respectful to me.
When people who believe in God aren't yelling "one nation UNDER GOD" in my face -- and rebuke those who do -- then maybe I'll worry more about your unleavened bread.
And Ichthyic (#102), I'm afraid your condescension did come through, though I'm not sure I understand the reason for it. As a long-time lurker in what is supposed to be a community of freethinkers I was surprised at how quickly I was branded a "concern troll" for disagreeing with everyone else. I didn't even disagree all that MUCH -- I agreed that PZ had the right to do what he did and wrote a letter in support of that right -- I just said I personally didn't think it was the right approach. But that was all it took for "nonconformists" to call me a name instead of arguing with me.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 16, 2008 8:05 PM
What? As a belief in supernatural agencies without any empirical evidence? You have a funny definition of atheism and religion!
This isn't the street, it's a blog. As a human being, you have certain rights which nobody here would seek to violate. Your beliefs are entitled to no such respect, including your belief that a cracker turns into a bit of a Levantine Jewish zombie when a man in a dress says "hocus pocus" over it: this is patently absurd and deserves nothing but derisive laughter.
We all have our cross to bear.
Again, your person has rights including expressing your beliefs, no matter how absurd, but your beliefs do not, of themselves, have any rights whatever.
Nobody has done anything. Even if they had, it'd be your tough shit: last time I checked, your religion's particular notion of "sacrilege" wasn't a crime any more than not wearing a burka.
No, it isn't. I think your beliefs are nonsensical and absurd, but there is simply no hate involved Yes, true, I have no respect for your beliefs. No, getting your panties in a bunch because a kid wanted to show a cracker to his buddy is stupid, saying that it's stupid isn't wrong.
Nobody has shown any disrespect toward persons except the Catholic Taliban who threatened violence and death. Asinine nonsense like transubstantiation is an insult to human intelligence and deserves no respect: don't confuse respect for an idea with respect for a person.Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2008 8:06 PM
Brian F wrote:
What do you mean "if you dont beleive in the bible"? I believe there is a Bible, but I don't think you can move a mountain with faith by telling it to move nor do I believe your faith will let you walk on water. I also don't think you have any special power drink poison or handle snakes... things the Bible seems to claim.
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 8:06 PM
You're going to use the Bible to prove something to people who, on average, think the whole thing is a bloodthirsty Fairy Tale?
You're dumber than you look.
Can you see me???
Posted by: BobC | July 16, 2008 8:07 PM
I just visited the blog of Matthew C. Nisbet where he was criticizing PZ and I suggested he live in a theocracy if he doesn't like free speech. I noticed he reviews all comments before publishing them, which means he really is against free speech. From what I have heard about Nisbet, he sounded like an asshole. Now I'm sure he's an asshole.
Posted by: Tulse | July 16, 2008 8:07 PM
"He managed to get a woman with three children fired from her stay-at-home job by releasing the details of a possible felony abetted by her violation of her employer's IT policies."
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 8:08 PM
Brian F wrote:
Again, Brian, if you read through all of the comments on all of the posts on this topic since this affair began you might realise you are correct - but not for the reasons you will automatically assume.
Some particular well-versed and eloquent posters have spent hours explaining to us the history and justification for the eucharist within the Catholic church and what they believe are the compelling arguments for Christianity.
Almost all of them have been better at it than you're likely to be - I don't mean that to be insulting; it's just a fact - and it hasn't made a difference.
Go back and read what almost all of us have read. It's going to take you some time. If, once you've done that, you have anything new or interesting or different to add, feel free. If not, you are - as you say - 'wasting your time'.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 16, 2008 8:11 PM
This is getting way too craaaaazy. How come every almost freaking US American politician is crazy?
He's not crazy. He's looking for an "issue" he can get some press time about, which won't involve any large government expenditures and will allow him to say he "took a strong stand" and "did the right thing" blah blah blah.
Politicians love nonissues like this because they can turn them into issues, and distract the vast dumb flock from the real issues - which are not solvable with soundbites and handwaving. Because this tactic works, we wind up with a political system whose public face is driven by soundbites and handwaving.
Posted by: NC Paul | July 16, 2008 8:12 PM
#204 - You know, you're right - no child should have to live through such melodramatic Dickensian poverty because their father was an idiot and posted a threatening e-mail on their mother's work mail account. Perhaps we should have the kids taken into care by social services.
Extreme - I know - but as mad as it sounds, it makes a whole lot more sense than blaming the guy the threatening mail was aimed at, who's terrible crime, according to you, was reporting that he'd been threatened.
Posted by: Noadi | July 16, 2008 8:12 PM
What sort of pathetic Irishman think braying is "a great insult for the Irish." Seriously, the Irish have some of the most creative insults I have ever heard, if you think "braying" is bad visit an Irish pub sometimes and you'll be quickly re-educated on that point. If any happen to be from the Gaelteacht they can insult you in English and Irish (Gaelic).
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 16, 2008 8:13 PM
@204 "Actions have consequences"
Much like using your spouses business email account to send threatening emails has a consequence.
Nice attempt to drum up sympathy though. It certainly is unfortunate if that family falls on hard times due to the husband being an irrational fool.
"We Catholics can rely on a moral text that governs our behaviour. Were you to as well you would realize that you punish the sinner and not the sinned against."
Threatening to beat in someones skull isn't against your holy text? Impressive.
Or is it more of a sliding scale thing, one offensive more heinous then the other so the lesser one doesn't count?
I'll leave your comment on "moral guidance" from text to someone else, it's something of a dead horse around here.
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 8:13 PM
I'm not looking to change anybody's mind I just wonder what posting a person desecrating a host on the Internet does
Posted by: BMurray | July 16, 2008 8:17 PM
She *is* the sinner -- she violated the contract of her employment.
If you have children who will have to stuff newspaper in their shoes should you lose your job, it behooves you to be careful about keeping your job.
Posted by: dcb | July 16, 2008 8:17 PM
Shorter Thomas Foley:
"Meyers shouldn't be allowed to say that."
Perhaps Mr. Foley thinks free speech should be reserved for people who agree with him.
Tedious.
Posted by: BobC | July 16, 2008 8:18 PM
Matthew C. Nisbet quoted Andrew Sullivan: "It is one thing to engage in free, if disrespectful, debate. It is another to repeatedly assault and ridicule and abuse something that is deeply sacred to a great many people."
Apparently Nisbet thinks everyone should respect crackers, especially holy crackers. Nisbet is willing to throw out free speech to protect the feelings of people who worship crackers. Nisbet wants to muzzle PZ so that people who worship crackers are not offended by scientists.
Nisbet, if you are reading this, go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 16, 2008 8:20 PM
I'm glad that delegate Foley agreed that there were so many comments from bigots.
I've only seen trolls do pretty sad impersonations of "militant atheists" who all seemed very preoccupied with a particular sect of christianity for non-believers. And then there was a bunch of bigots calling for heads to roll over a cracker.
Terrible stuff indeed.
Posted by: Ted D | July 16, 2008 8:21 PM
Brian F @223
To me? Nothing. But then, I already know that it's just a cracker. You obviously need a demonstration.
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 8:23 PM
To me? Nothing. But then, I already know that it's just a cracker. You obviously need a demonstration
Demo for people that beleive that it is not a cracker will not change a thing
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 8:25 PM
Pete Rooke, #204
She was fired for letting him use her work computer. If her husband had sent a threatening email to anyone else and they'd complained then the result would have been the same. If he'd downloaded porn or file-shared music and the company had been informed the result would have been the same.
I also feel bad for Melanie Kroll, and especially for her children - since they do not deserve to suffer for either the carelessness of one parent nor the complete stupidity of the other. The appropriate punishments, i feel, would be a warning to Melanie Kroll - and at least a well-publicised trial for her husband, even if no conviction occurred.
I guarantee that most, if not all, the regulars here also feel bad that she's lost her job. That's right. Compassion from amoral atheists. Are you shocked? I can guarantee you most of what you've assumed about atheists is wrong.
Anyway, the only person who should feel guilty about this is her husband. He chose to violate her employment policy. He chose to break the law by sending a threatening email to PZ.
Plus, as catholics, they have the ultimate safety net. Don't you believe in a just and loving god? Surely he will redress the balance if there is a need.
Posted by: Brian F | July 16, 2008 8:27 PM
Thanks for the debate....Good Bye
Posted by: Fez | July 16, 2008 8:28 PM
What is it with Republicans named Foley and dicks? They're either trying to stick them into teenage boys or acting like one.
Posted by: John | July 16, 2008 8:28 PM
What utter foolishness.
The failed moral compass belongs to the father of the three shoeless and starving children. A Catholic who decided that the way to defend his faith was with an almost illiterate death threat that he sent from his wife's business e-mail. Now that is impress moral guidance, that one must assume was taught to him by the Church.
If you want to try to lecture someone I recomend get your facts straight and then look elsewhere.
Posted by: J Myers | July 16, 2008 8:28 PM
Also, as an aside, if I were to be Catholic and want to partake of these awful crackers but can't since I have Celiac disease...
There's no gluten in zombie meat, bio teacher; you're good.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 8:28 PM
Brian, did you even read anything that was posted here? For your own enlightenment, do as I suggested - go and read the older posts and the comments on them.
Posted by: Piscean Rubble | July 16, 2008 8:31 PM
I have trouble putting into words what I think of this whole things since it began. But to sum it all up, I think "insane" would do just fine. I can't believe that people have this much time on their hands to worry about what one person did with a cracker. I think perhaps the atheist movement is having a stronger affect than we may have realized. It would seem that Catholics are feeling a little touchy about the ligitmacy of their religion. If you're sure that a cracker is the body of Christ, what the hell do you care what anyone says about it? Just go on and keep eating your crackers...wait...you're eating Christ!!! That poor guy just wanted to walk with Christ!! Aren't there more important things going on in the world to get all up in arms about (literally) ... real injustices, torture, starvation, brutality...get a grip people!
Posted by: dt | July 16, 2008 8:31 PM
PZ,
Don't be surprised by this latest press development. It's all part of the discredit and demonize game played by theocrats. Because Melanie/Chuck Kroll's vulgar, ignorant and violent email to you (and her subsequent dismissal) is now being relayed through several media outlets, they are going on the offensive.
They aren't going to mention that both you and the student who absconded with the communion wafer have received death threats. Instead, they are going to say that they are afraid of you, because you may have violent tendencies. I am surprised that you haven't been called a terrorist - yet.
Stay strong. And if you haven't already, I would forward the threats you have received to the police.
They will continue to ratchet up the press war.
Posted by: Ted D | July 16, 2008 8:32 PM
Brian F:
Let me reply with a quote from yourself.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 8:32 PM
I just posted this at Nisbet's blog. It is in blog purgatory waiting for his approval.
Let me see if I've got this straight.
It is OK for Christians, be they Catholic or whatever, to consistently claim that an atheist like myself is condemned to an eternity in hell if I do not believe in their fairy tales, but dare atheists point out the ridiculousness of the rituals that perpetuate this true bigotry, we are somehow rude and sophomoric.
And Nisbett is twisting the frame when he holds up Sullivan as an example of an atheist... he is not, he is Catholic. "...it springs from my Catholic faith, which, despite the best efforts of the Catholic hierarchy, endures. The inherent dignity of all human beings is something I believe is a reflection of God's will through the revelation of Jesus Christ." Granted, he declares he is not crackpot "Christianist", but to imply he is some sort if polite enlightened atheist is intellectually dishonest at best.
Posted by: Chris P | July 16, 2008 8:32 PM
#204 - Peter Rooke
So is this like saying we shouldn't report priests for molesting people because they might go to jail and suffer.
I know they don't have wives or children but laws don't change if you have a wife and kids - just the consequences of stupid actions become worse.
This means you have to be more responsible. The religious people I have seen seem more interested in buying the biggest SUV and having the most kids to impress their fellow churchgoers without thought to how it affects the planet.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2008 8:33 PM
Brian F wrote:
It might if there were still a smidgen of sanity left to latch on to. Many of us atheists here used to be Christians until something got us thinking about how crazy the things we were asked to believe were.
Posted by: Luke | July 16, 2008 8:33 PM
You should take the crackers, and glue them together in your favorite Athiest logo - like the "A" with the atoms flying around it.
Or glue them together in the shape of an octopus
:)
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 8:33 PM
Thanks for the debate....Good Bye
ass-door-etc.
Posted by: Tom | July 16, 2008 8:36 PM
Okay, add my confusion to the pile. Why in the world do they need to tighten security at the Republican National Convention against people who want to misappropriate consecrated hosts? Might as well ask for extra police protection at an International House of Pancakes because they heard some guy was intent on getting his hands on some horseshoe nails.
To quote Hermione Grainger, "What...an...idiot."
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 8:36 PM
Many of us atheists here used to be Christians until something got us thinking about how crazy the things we were asked to believe were.
some Catholics even realize the insanity of it all, and have posted their recognition here:
(from the very first thread)
Why people are making such a huge deal about this, I have no idea. They've got nothing else on the go I suppose.
Josh is wise, for a Catholic.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | July 16, 2008 8:38 PM
Brian F., I know a few analytical chemists. If you tell me how the Eucharist differs from a pre-blessed wafer, I can have those chemists look for the differences and prove you right. If either you can't describe the differences, or there proves to be none, then logic dictates that the Eucharist is a sham. This is the way evidence based philosophies like science operate. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, in this case, anyone, including you, who insists the Eucharist has special powers. At some point, with the crowd here, you are either going to have to put up or shut up. I suggest you retire from the fray.
Posted by: Max Verret | July 16, 2008 8:38 PM
Re: Brian #170
"Maybe she should not have sent an ellegal death threat using her employer's property."
As I appreciate the facts, she didn't send an illegal death threat; her husband did and there is no indication that she even knew about it until she was called down by the company. The only possible negligence she could possibly be guilty of, aside from marrying a thoughless husband, was in not securing her company's email account. But in marriages there is a certain amount of trust and one does not anticipate that the spouse would do what he did. At any rate, her negligence doesn't seem to rise to the level of a firing offense and apparently PZ and some of his minions realize that belatedly. The company, of course, had been alerted to the incident by scores of PZ's minions who were all too eager to notify them after PZ had published the information they needed. PZ, realizing the injustice that had been done, recanted and reversed his decision to do that in the future. Several of PZ's minions have posted breath-beating regrets. Little good that does for the poor lady who was only trying to support her three children
Posted by: Chris P | July 16, 2008 8:39 PM
#183 Michael Kramer
I deplore Catholics taking over the pledge of allegiance and having meaningless unprovable stuff put in it.
I deplore Catholics who encourage people to have large families and overpopulate the planet.
Crackers are meaningless in comparison.
Posted by: Neural T | July 16, 2008 8:42 PM
We're not bigots. We hate the irrationality, not the irrationalists.
And Foley is being a bit melodramatic, isn't he? So far the death threats have come from only one side. You know, the side that speaks for Jesus.
Posted by: genesgalore | July 16, 2008 8:43 PM
you pistol packing, cracker blasting, cyberbray you.
Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 16, 2008 8:44 PM
Well I've read about 3,000 posts now on this subject and for the first time in post #183 I have finally heard a catholic renounce the death threats.
Since we have people actually claiming that taking a wafer (handed to you) is either stealing or abduction I hope someone gets arrested. Would bail be a box of Ritz?
I see the beginnings of a new musical - Less Miserables. "...that I may find him, Safe behind bars, This I swear by the Stars".
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 8:47 PM
Damn, I was out for dinner and missed the fun.
These idiots are completely without any semblance of proportion. I guess worshipping a cracker throws off other rational faculties.
Posted by: Ted D | July 16, 2008 8:47 PM
Max Verret @247
I'm sorry, do you need help getting back to your own dimension? Because the way you are appreciating facts, they seem to bear little resemblance to what is going on in this one.
What constitutes a "firing offense" is surely up to her company to decide. And do please explain how notifying the company of the offence, major or minor, is wrong. Oh, I have some sympathy for her, but the only one who has done anything actually wrong here is her husband.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 8:47 PM
@ Chris P
It's fashionable for young ladies to wear something called "mini"-skirts these days. They do not come anywhere close to covering the knee roll. Now if I were to tell my daughter not to wear a mini-skirt, coupled with a low cut blouse, because it made her more vulnerable to sexual assault she would still bear absolutely no responsibility for - God forbid - being raped. Yes she would have been ill-advised and careless but the blame - in the eyes of your Godless law no less - would rest solely with the assailant.
So yes, Kroll may have been too trusting and careless but the blame (and punishment) should rest solely on Mr. Kroll.
Posted by: d | July 16, 2008 8:48 PM
Re: Max Verret
The only possible negligence she could possibly be guilty of, aside from marrying a thoughless husband, was in not securing her company's email account.
Melanie Kroll has posted comments on Greg Laden's blog about the email her husband sent. She is not remotely apologetic for the content of the email. She is only sorry that her husband sent it from her work account. And then she goes on to make a number of excuses for his threats.
She is not a poor lady.
Posted by: SC | July 16, 2008 8:49 PM
Nisbet:
Echo chamber - this from a man who heavily moderates comments. This hypocrite doesn't have a cyberpopgun. And Orzel doesn't have a cyberspitwad.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 8:49 PM
An atheist thinks the religious world-view is whacko, therefore they're bigots. A religionists world-view has "infidels" burn in hell forever and they're not bigots?
That sounds pretty accurate. After all, ever hear anyone call Pope Nazinger the vile anti-gay bigot he is?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 8:51 PM
@vespera:
As a long-time lurker in what is supposed to be a community of freethinkers I was surprised at how quickly I was branded a "concern troll" for disagreeing with everyone else.
I'm sure I don't recall your specific related entry, but if it was like the rest of the similar: "I don't see the point of why PZ is being so mean" posts, that you "disagreed" with what PZ was doing was not the reason for labeling such a post "concern trolling".
But that was all it took for "nonconformists" to call me a name instead of arguing with me.
aside from the fact that this is a non-sensical statement, are you absolutely sure nobody pointed out the flaw in your reasoning, or that someone hadn't already pointed out the general flaw in the reasoning you were using in the dozens of other posts that missed the point of what PZ was doing?
Did you perhaps post your comment very late in a thread, and fail to notice the dozens of posts that were likely just like yours above it that had already been responded to?
seriously, my post you responded to here was not meant to be condescending.
This one, however, does indeed have a condescending overtone. Intentionally, just to be clear.
Posted by: Larry | July 16, 2008 8:52 PM
#37
When PZ starts pulling crackers out of their houses in the middle of the night and lynching them, we'll talk. Until then, get a fucking grip on the fastly receding sense of reality you have.
Posted by: Greg | July 16, 2008 8:52 PM
re Max #247
Prove that it wasn't her that sent the threat. All we have is somebody claiming that she had no knowledge of the email and blaming a husband who may or may not exist.
I know that in my company the computer usage regulations are spelled out very clearly and, as an employee, I have a responsibility to maintain a secure computer. It is also stated in my company's computer policy that failure to comply with the regulations can be cause for disciplinary actions up to and including termination.
As I only have empirical proof for my own company, I can only theorize that it is similar in others. That being said, I believe that this lady's problems go beyond her computer.
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 8:52 PM
Brian F: "Read the Bible and maybe you will understand that there is not use of a metaphor here."
How is it that some Christians think the communion wafer is truly the body of Christ, while others don't believe in it at all? What kind of loose-ass religion is this, anyway? Can't you guys get this right after 2000 years?
Which side is Jesus supposed to choose, and why? Explain why Catholicism is correct while all other forms of Christianity are heresy. Go ahead - we'll listen.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 16, 2008 8:52 PM
Pete Rooke at #204 - Wow, you have have an atheist acquaintance? Far out, do you know some black people too, or gay people, or black atheist gay people? I am so impressed by your tolerance of others.
Oh, and the rest of you apologists, not you Pete, we have heard the cracker story from you, you can stop.
An open question for the group, why is it that none of the xtian blogs allow open posting? Pharyngula is open to all, even the vile and repulsive like Fadda Guido, err, Fadda J. How about some reciprocity, or is your faith too weak, your god too small?
Finally, at least for this post, I will be glad to help any xtian who wants to shake the shackles of imaginary friends. I will even give you a real email and write back in real time - contact me at my blog. I will not even respond to the hateful attacks with the contempt they deserve, although I may post them, names and addresses omitted, on here for fun. However, I will delete them, again, once I have read them.
Pax Nabisco y'all
Posted by: Bert Chadick | July 16, 2008 8:53 PM
PZ has followers? Readers, sure.
I think you should put one of those crackers in a sealed box, and at that point, unobserved, it is both desecrated and pure at the same time. Woo! I think I could start a religion based on that.
Posted by: paradoctor | July 16, 2008 8:54 PM
PZ: you'll find it difficult to out-blaspheme the original ceremony. After all, they _eat_ the wafer. That's natural if it's just a cracker, but if it's a transubstaniated gobbet of man-god flesh, then eating it is the most disrespectful, sacreligious, and degrading possible thing to do with it. This was well understood in Roman times, but 2000 years of ritual and rationalization have leached all the flavor out of Jesus's over-the-top jest.
I say that the only way to satirize a rite so deeply self-satirical is to play the straight man. What would _you_ do if someone gave you a wafer of flesh? Bury it decently, of course; or better yet, cremate it and scatter the ashes. So that's what I suggest that you do.
Put the wafer in a little coffin and read the obsequies over it. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. All with a straight face, of course.
Not only would this be respectful; it would reveal, by contrast, how disrespectful the original ceremony is.
That way Mr. Donohue could make no profit off your jest.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 8:54 PM
I guess worshipping a cracker throws off other rational faculties.
not exactly.
it's forcing a false faith in the idea of a cracker as something sacred and magical in the face of every other sense and sensibility telling one otherwise that throws off rational faculties, necessarily.
that level of dissonance requires the utilization of very strong defense mechanisms to maintain it.
Posted by: genesgalore | July 16, 2008 8:55 PM
"we are somehow rude and sophomoric." .....well, when one considers what we are dealing with it might be the only to communicate effectively with the. so here goes: NANA NANA BOO BOO. STICK YOUR HEAD IN DOO DOO. JESUS CAN'T DO EMAIL. JESUS CAN'T DO EMAIL......he just whispers in to the ears of the chosen few because the rest of us are not worthy.
Posted by: vespera | July 16, 2008 8:58 PM
God, now we have people whining "Won't somebody think of the children?"
Spare me. We have no reason to think the kids are going to wind up stuffing their shoes with newspapers -- people have overactive imaginations. And even if they were ... it's because their moron Dad sent a death threat, which Catholics posting on this thread don't seem too bothered by.
Apparently it's much worse to admit to receiving a threat, if he's an atheist, than make one, if he's a Catholic.
Chuck Kroll seems like a foul human being and I have no sympathy for him. I do have some sympathy for his wife ... but, she married the guy and it was her responsibility to protect her email. The kids ARE the victims here, though I think having Mr. Kroll for a parent is likely to do more damage than anything stemming from this uproar.
Posted by: Geral | July 16, 2008 9:00 PM
"What I think he has done, he's loaded a cyberpistol and he's cocked it and he's left it on the table. He may have set something in motion that no one can stop. It was irresponsible, a hell of a thing to do."
The irony is this guy will probably defend the second amendment quite literally to tooth and nail, yet he's worried about PZ's cyberpistol? PZ might as well be squirting a water gun, but hey - it burns..
This whole thing is a joke. I can't believe it got this big.
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2008 9:01 PM
OMG this thread!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 9:01 PM
On the internets gay cyberguys set their cypberpistols on "stunning."
Only the out gays. The Republican ones hide theirs in airport restrooms.
Posted by: SteveM | July 16, 2008 9:01 PM
@72:
Those that consume the host also aren't suppose to eat or drink for one hour afterwards.
I was raised Catholic and I don't remember that. I do remember you were supposed to be fasting before receiving communion. But then, that was back before you were allowed to even touch the wafer with your fingers.
[sorry for skipping over a few hundred comments, but they are just coming too fast]
On another note, does anyone else think the "Fr. J" has completely abandoned all pretense at appearing to be a priest and has decided to just revel in his trollness?
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 9:02 PM
@#261 - Too slow to the (cyber)draw. Brian already left.
I guess we'll never find out why there are so many contradictory sects of Christianity (let alone all the other forms of religion)...
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 9:02 PM
#254
Just about anyone who works for a company that uses IT has to undergo IT training. Upon completing said training, you are responsible for upholding the company's IT policies. Such policies include IT security, securing your passwords, e-mail, etc.
Even if you didn't have "training", you are still responsible for the IT policy.
At the very least, Mrs. Kroll IS at fault for not properly securing her COMPANY e-mail. If this has happened before (i.e. if the hubby has been using her e-mail account with her consent), then she can be held accountable for messages sent from her COMPANY account.
Is that a firing offense? That's really a company policy.
Is the husband a douche? Yes. Are death threats illegal? Absolutely.
I don't think I've seen anyone who thinks Mrs. Kroll is some sort of evil mastermind in a plot to harass PZ. But as many MANY posters have pointed out, neither is she pure as the driven snow in this.
She failed to secure her company e-mail. That is totally her fault. It's not as huge as death threats. But that part of it is. Her. Fault.
Would I have fired her? Probably not (retaking the IT training would be a must though). But the policy may not have any flexibility in it. Sucks, but the company has a right to reduce it's liability when someone sends death threats from their server.
Blaming the posters who alerted the company to a death threat? Let me call the waaaaahmbulance for you.
Posted by: Geral | July 16, 2008 9:03 PM
"What I think he has done, he's loaded a cyberpistol and he's cocked it and he's left it on the table. He may have set something in motion that no one can stop. It was irresponsible, a hell of a thing to do."
The irony is this guy will probably defend the second amendment quite literally to tooth and nail, yet he's worried about PZ's cyberpistol? PZ might as well be squirting a water gun, but hey - it burns..
This whole thing is a joke. I can't believe it got this big.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 9:03 PM
Maybe all the prayers other catholics will be saying for the benefit of the Kroll children will inspire god to do something about it.
Wanna take bets?
What's more likely, though, is that the decent people amongst the catholics in their area will reach out and help them. Which, of course, will be touted as a 'miracle' or the sort of thing only christians could achieve in the face of such overwhelming atheist persecution.
That, or a book deal.
Posted by: J Myers | July 16, 2008 9:03 PM
mayhempix, #239: Nisbet wrote "fellow atheists and free speech advocates" before quoting Sullivan, so he was likely citing him as a representative of that latter, so-broad-as-to-be-nearly-meaningless category. Though the juxtaposition was a bit confusing, and Nisbet's post was especially asinine... for a review of Sullivan's hypocrisy on this matter, see bad's post here.
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 9:05 PM
"What would _you_ do if someone gave you a wafer of flesh?"
If that flesh was Jesus? I'd nail the fucker to a cross, that's what I'D do!
Posted by: raven | July 16, 2008 9:08 PM
Death threats are a federal offense, a felony. People routinely get sent to prison for these. Cameron Moore threatened someone from his workplace at Agilent, got convicted and sent to prison. He also got sued and owes his victims 1.1 million dollars. Agilent itself is being sued.
The flower company is potentially liable for millions of dollars in damages for colluding and enabling the commission of a felony.
PZ is being extraordinarily nice here. He could file a complaint with the FBI cybercrimes unit. With the amount of evidence available, Chucky would end up in prison.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 9:09 PM
We Catholics can rely on a moral text that governs our behaviour. Were you to as well you would realize that you punish the sinner and not the sinned against. Those children do not deserve the pain and cramps that could arise from not eating tonight. They do not deserve to make do with shoes stuffed with newspapers, and borrowed from their father, during P.E. because they couldn't afford to purchase a new pair. They do not deserve having to stand in the "reduced lunch" line at school because they can no longer afford the full rate of $2.50 each day.
You people just can't keep your stupidity and hypocrisy to yourselves, can you? You want people to respect you because you're so fucking stupid and dishonest that you blame PZ for the consequences of someone else sending him a death threat -- consequences enacted by the guy's wife's employer? You yourself shit all over your "moral text" by claiming that it justifies your own blatant immorality.
Posted by: frog | July 16, 2008 9:09 PM
Icthyic: it's forcing a false faith in the idea of a cracker as something sacred and magical in the face of every other sense and sensibility telling one otherwise that throws off rational faculties, necessarily.
It's actually an interesting question. I took a class long, long ago with Rappaport, who studied religious ritual ("Pigs for the Ancestors"). He thought that an irrational belief was necessary for the function of ritual.
Recalling long-ago hazy days, the idea was that religion functions as a kind of context for Austen's performative utterances (things like "I thee wed", where the statement is not a statement of fact, but a statement that creates a fact). Underneath that is required a guarantee of honesty, of the fact that you accept the ritual as being efficacious, and not simply "play". In general, underneath all language there has to be something at least pre-rational --- after all, language is about a real world, it isn't the real world itself.
So, an irrational belief at the heart of a religious ritual is kind of a loyalty test -- it guarantees that you've agreed not to analyze the ritual as a series of statements of fact, or some kind of imaginative play, but as directly linked to the underlying reality. When I say, I thee wed, It Is So -- I've done it in front of the magic fairy.
You believe it in your bones, because otherwise you couldn't claim The Magic Fairy; as a rational statement the "before God" could be a lie, but it would be an obvious lie, so therefore it isn't a rational statement at all, and the concomitants are therefore not rational statements of fact since they're based on a clearly irrational statement; "I thee wed" then is beyond Truth and False, but just is, it becomes a pre-rational (or irrational) statement that causes reality.
Or that's what I got. I guess us seculars have had to replace the irrationality of Fairies with more human irrationalities --- "I love you forever unconditionally" would be an example, since it's obviously not a statement that could possibly true, or more concrete insanities like "America: Right or Wrong," another insane statement with a religious flavor.
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 9:10 PM
"Those that consume the host also aren't suppose to eat or drink for one hour afterwards."
'Cause you're not supposed to eat in church. You'd still be sitting there waiting for the priest to finish up his sermon on the logic behind the Holy Trinity. Duh!
Posted by: CrypticLife | July 16, 2008 9:12 PM
"I deplore Catholics taking over the pledge of allegiance and having meaningless unprovable stuff put in it."
Resoundingly seconded! Add forcing my kids to say it into that!
Croatia, at the urging of the Catholic church, has recently passed a law requiring businesses (other than flower shops, newsstands, and bakeries) to close on Sundays.
The Catholic church has absolutely no problem with oppression.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 9:13 PM
We Catholics can rely on a moral text that governs our behaviour.
Have you executed your child for talking back yet? Do you make your women separate themselves from the men when they're menstruating? Shun men who have sex with those women during that time of the month?
Posted by: D | July 16, 2008 9:13 PM
"The people who've sent them to me haven't mentioned having to disrupt anything"
How how many do you have now?
Posted by: Max Verret | July 16, 2008 9:13 PM
Re: Tulse @217
"Releasing datails of a possible felony abetting violation of her employer's IT policy."
Maybe TZ should see that the authorities prosecute her and send her up for a few years. Then he would not only have deprived her of her job but deprived her three children of a mother.
What a GREAT GUY.
However, in light of the breath-beating and contrition in some of the posts, I don't think that's going to happen. Even in the deepest recesses of the atheist mind there must be some modicum of compassion.
Posted by: johnpreiss | July 16, 2008 9:14 PM
Hey you made the front page of my site. You are not supposed to eat and drink one hour before Mass, to post 281. Where did our soul come from??
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 9:14 PM
or more concrete insanities like "America: Right or Wrong," another insane statement with a religious flavor.
Here's the sane version:
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1641.html
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 9:15 PM
However, in light of the breath-beating and contrition in some of the posts, I don't think that's going to happen. Even in the deepest recesses of the atheist mind there must be some modicum of compassion.
Posted by: Max Verret | July 16, 2008 9:13 PM
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: hje | July 16, 2008 9:16 PM
I guess the outraged Foley has Chekhov's gun in mind:
"If you say in the first chapter that there is a cyber-pistol hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. "
Posted by: Numad | July 16, 2008 9:17 PM
"'Cause you're not supposed to eat in church. You'd still be sitting there waiting for the priest to finish up his sermon on the logic behind the Holy Trinity. Duh!"
Then they really shouldn't put vending machines at the back!
Posted by: BadMA | July 16, 2008 9:17 PM
Have any of these trolls actually met Dr. Myers? He's such a nice guy in person. He doesn't come across as the kind of person they think he must be.
(It's good they haven't met his readers, though. All those tentacles, big bulging muscles, and evil gazes would send them running!)
Posted by: Harry Sigerson | July 16, 2008 9:17 PM
"Insulting to the Irish!!"
Did I miss something, the man is an American. Speaking as a Scot, born to a Dublin girl, who spent a lot of his childhood in Ireland; who is total at home in both countries and who knows Ireland quite well thank you very much, I have no idea how braying can be described as.... Gaelist??? (would that be the word?)
Even if it were insulting to the Irish... again he isn't Irish!
Come to think of it I've come across not a few braying Irish men in my time, usually staggering out of O'Rourke's in Blackrock, Co.Dublin on a Friday night. Usually in my company!
Posted by: Dahan | July 16, 2008 9:17 PM
Tom Piatak at 55,
Yeah, I know, a long time ago. Hard to keep up.
"only people who are supposed to do that are Catholics in a state of grace, i.e., not conscious of grave sin, and they are supposed to immediately consume the host, not keep it. These rules are well known. Those taking the host with the intention of desecrating it are engaged in fraud and theft."
So, if someone is a Catholic (they keep you on the records forever, you know) but no longer believes in god, so doesn't believe in "sin", they pretty much can do what they please with it. The "state of grace" is just as much a made up construct as "the host". It's like these girls that are "reclaiming their virginity". OK, whatever.
Obviously, it's difficult for you to understand that this is a mind crime, not a real one. Eat it and shit it? Fine, but only as long as you're thinking holy thoughts. If I took it and was thinking "fuck you catholic church" as it dissolved, you'd probably also call it a crime. You aren't very convincing.
Pathetic, really.
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 9:18 PM
#162Wonny in Hooston
Whatsa' matter Snoogums? We all know you're a Concern Troll.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 9:19 PM
Maybe TZ should see that the authorities prosecute her and send her up for a few years. Then he would not only have deprived her of her job but deprived her three children of a mother.
What a GREAT GUY.
Maybe Max Verret should torture kittens. Then he would have made all the children cry.
What a GREAT GUY.
Posted by: Neural T | July 16, 2008 9:19 PM
You all might want to read this:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1461
They have quotes from PZ criticizing the Danish cartoons, and say, "He even went so far as to say that Muslims 'have cause to be furious.'"
Does make him look hypocritical.
Posted by: frog | July 16, 2008 9:20 PM
Pete Rook: t's fashionable for young ladies to wear something called "mini"-skirts these days. They do not come anywhere close to covering the knee roll. Now if I were to tell my daughter not to wear a mini-skirt, coupled with a low cut blouse, because it made her more vulnerable to sexual assault she would still bear absolutely no responsibility for - God forbid - being raped. Yes she would have been ill-advised and careless but the blame - in the eyes of your Godless law no less - would rest solely with the assailant.
So yes, Kroll may have been too trusting and careless but the blame (and punishment) should rest solely on Mr. Kroll.
Pete, you have the temerity to compare a woman being raped, and it's "justification" that she was tempting "men" (scare quotes appropriate) by wearing a short skirt, with someone being fired because they didn't follow explicit company policies?
Wow, another example of the moral monstrosity that is bred in these "churches". My God, what a scum-bag you must be to believe these two cases are at all analogous.
Since you are obviously a cretin, let me spell it out for you. In the first case, someone with the perfect legal right to wear whatever the hell she wants to wear is assaulted and given possibly permanent psychological and physiological damage due to the perverse fantasies of someone else, that have in actuality nothing to do with the so-called "underdress" but is broadly understood to be due to actualizing fantasies of power and abuse.
In case two, someone agreed to a set of policies as a precondition of employment --- aka, signed a contract. She was found in breach of that contract, and the contract was terminated. In essence, no different from getting your car repo'd because a check you put in the bank bounced. Yes, too bad, but no "punishment" is involved, it is simply a question of contractual obligation.
Really, only someone who is completely blind, beyond autistic, could possibly come up with such an offensive analogy.
Posted by: JoJo | July 16, 2008 9:20 PM
Max Verret #285
Who's TZ?
The thing you forget, Max, is that the woman's husband committed a felony. Because she likely violated company policy by allowing, intentionally or unintentionally, her husband to commit a crime using company property, the company fired her. She is an accessory to a crime. Mrs. Kroll became a liability to the company. That's why the company fired her.
Regardless of what Foley may think, it wasn't atheists who sent death threats.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:20 PM
Chuck Kroll seems like a foul human being
even his notpology was disturbing.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 9:22 PM
Does make him look hypocritical.
Yes, well, that's what the quote mining and mischaracterizations are intended to do ... or are you saying you actually swallowed it?
Posted by: wrpd | July 16, 2008 9:24 PM
max verret:
"It's fashionable for young ladies to wear something called "mini"-skirts these days. They do not come anywhere close to covering the knee roll. Now if I were to tell my daughter not to wear a mini-skirt, coupled with a low cut blouse, because it made her more vulnerable to sexual assault she would still bear absolutely no responsibility for - God forbid - being raped. Yes she would have been ill-advised and careless but the blame - in the eyes of your Godless law no less - would rest solely with the assailant."
Right. And my late mother-in-law should have known better than to wear that too-sexy flannel ankle-length nightgown the night someone climbed in bed with her and said,"You know you want this."
You are a fucking moron, max.
Posted by: BobC | July 16, 2008 9:24 PM
Dlux in #261 asked a good question: "Which side is Jesus supposed to choose, and why? Explain why Catholicism is correct while all other forms of Christianity are heresy."
In Catholic grammar school the nuns drilled into us that Catholics and only Catholics go to heaven. Everyone else, including non-Catholic Christians, go to hell. I have heard Fundamentalist Christians say Catholics go to hell, including Mother Theresa.
This is why I'm convinced the religious people who think they have the best moral values, because their morals came from Mr. God, have no moral values at all. Nothing could be more disgusting than a belief that your cult and your cult only escapes the wrath of the Magic Man.
Posted by: frog | July 16, 2008 9:24 PM
PeteRook: And I almost missed it --- you put your own daughter in this fantasy. That somehow, the punishment of your daughter via rape for disobeying you was analogous to someone losing a job for not following company policy.
Lord, I hope your daughter gets out of that house quickly.
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 9:26 PM
#286: johnpreiss "Hey you made the front page of my site."
This?
http://johnpreiss.wordpress.com/god-given-roles-of-husband-and-wife/
"The vocation of most women is motherhood. Guiding girls to prepare for a working career is harmful when attention should be given to prepare them to be full-time homemakers."
That's quite a site.
Posted by: George | July 16, 2008 9:26 PM
One searches in vain for an adult among PZ Myers' amen chorus.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 16, 2008 9:27 PM
truth machine regarding your #287, I am reminded of another quote about right or wrong, Mark Twain wrote about the US actions in the Phillipines:
"Against our traditions we are now entering upon an unjust and trivial war, a war against a helpless people, and for a base object -- robbery. At first our citizens spoke out against this thing, by an impulse natural to their training. Today they have turned, and their voice is the other way. What caused the change? Merely a politician's trick -- a high-sounding phrase, a blood-stirring phrase which turned their uncritical heads: Our Country, right or wrong! An empty phrase, a silly phrase. It was shouted by every newspaper, it was thundered from the pulpit, the Superintendent of Public Instruction placarded it in every schoolhouse in the land, the War Department inscribed it upon the flag. And every man who failed to shout it or who was silent, was proclaimed a traitor -- none but those others were patriots. To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, "Our Country, right or wrong," and urge on the little war. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation?"
Strikes a cord in several ways with me.
Pax Nabisco
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:27 PM
Does make him look hypocritical.
beware of quotemining.
tell me, after you read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php
whether or not PZ is being hypocritical.
Posted by: kmerian | July 16, 2008 9:29 PM
Dr. Myers, check what you have recieved. If any of them are postmarked "Corpus Christi, Texas" you have recieved stolen property. The Cathederal in Corpus Christi was entered and the tabernacle (where the Eucharist is stored) was vandalized and broken into.
Other than that, turn the Eucharists you have recieved over to the nearest Catholic Church and get a life.
Posted by: Rahne | July 16, 2008 9:31 PM
CYBERPISTOLS ARMED AND READY SIR
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 9:32 PM
Thought: Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage.
-Woody Allen
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 9:32 PM
you have the temerity to compare a woman being raped, and it's "justification" that she was tempting "men" (scare quotes appropriate) by wearing a short skirt, with someone being fired because they didn't follow explicit company policies?
I will concede that she may also have been tempting "women." These days you just don't know.
She was fired for being careless and not logging out (presumably). I was not trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two acts but rather commentating on the responsibility of each individual.
Say for instance I left the keys in the car and had it stolen. My insurance would not cover the cost because I violated my contract. My mistake, yes. However, the ultimate responsibility rests with the thief (in this case the husband).
The point was PZ was extremely negligent in that he posted the email with all accompanying information for his acolytes to harass and abuse the sender, irrespective of their culpability. As usual he failed to think before he acted in an effort to court controversy and reap revenge for some admittedly nasty emails.
Posted by: DaveL | July 16, 2008 9:32 PM
Oh, come on! Obviously Foley isn't afraid of violence from PZ. He just wants to have a bunch more security guards around the RNC. Security men. Big... Strong... Strapping... Men! ;)
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2008 9:32 PM
@296:
Indeed, it does make Bill Donohue look hypocritical.
Look at the bottom of the release:
Hoping for more death threats, no doubt.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Posted by: E.V. | July 16, 2008 9:34 PM
One searches in vain for an adult among PZ Myers' amen chorus.
Posted by: George
Hi Ron. Sockpuppet much?
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 9:34 PM
EV
Seriously, stop. You already look like a fool.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:34 PM
Say for instance I left the keys in the car and had it stolen.
say, for instance, that the issue in front of us is quite clear and simple enough that it doesn't actually require hypotheticals for comparison.
Posted by: raven | July 16, 2008 9:35 PM
Standard fundie dogma is that the Catholic church is the church of Satan and the Pope works for the Antichrist. They say it often. Hagee, the Texas bigot for Jesus just came out with another anti-Catholic tirade a few months ago. Jack Chick says it in comics.
The Catholics all say the Protestant churches are fake. Ratzinger just said that again a while ago.
Apparently no one cares much these days. After 400 years of horrific war, they just got tired of endless rounds of murdering each other.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 9:35 PM
Oh, come on! Obviously Foley isn't afraid of violence from PZ. He just wants to have a bunch more security guards around the RNC. Security men. Big... Strong... Strapping... Men! ;)
Has Foley been hanging out with former VA Congressman Ed Schrock (phone sex line), former FL Congressman Foley (we know the chat messages) or Senator Craig (I still think Miss Richfield needs tours of the MSP Craig Loo) or Senator Graham?
Posted by: DaveL | July 16, 2008 9:36 PM
As for what to do with the wafers he's received, might I suggest PZ transubstantiate them into the true substance and essence of George Carlin?
Posted by: Neural T | July 16, 2008 9:36 PM
Ichthyic #307
In light of new evidence, I adjust my beliefs.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:36 PM
You already look like a fool.
I'm wondering if Ron is at least half parrot?
since that's what we've been telling him for days now.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 9:36 PM
Dammit EV, you are clever.
You just proved I was a "concern troll" for caring if you look like a fool.
OK, how about this go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Dlux | July 16, 2008 9:38 PM
"Other than that, turn the Eucharists you have recieved over to the nearest Catholic Church"
Better yet, call the Church Police!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dehAiSJHZM
Posted by: BobC | July 16, 2008 9:38 PM
"turn the Eucharists you have recieved over to the nearest Catholic Church"
kmerian, did you elect yourself to be the policeman of scienceblogs? Go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 9:38 PM
kmerian,
No doubt unconsecrated crackers have been sent to PZ as well. Are you claiming to be able to tell the difference between 'just a cracker' and the eucharist?
Can you explain how you'd go about that?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 9:39 PM
However, the ultimate responsibility rests with the thief (in this case the husband).
The point was PZ was extremely negligent
The point is that you're a hypocritical pile of rotting garbage trying to pass itself off as a human being.
Posted by: Keith B | July 16, 2008 9:39 PM
This box of holy crackers cracks me up.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 9:39 PM
Ichthyic
WTF is a parrot?
OK I'll be a full parrot and parrot my previous post.
Go fuck yourself.
Awk. Polly want a cracker.
Posted by: Josh | July 16, 2008 9:41 PM
Here's my (attempted) post at
Polly Prissypants'Matt Nisbet's blog. I highly doubt the Framer in Chief will let this kind of candid criticism sully his electronic stoop, but here's hoping I'm wrong:Mr. Nisbet:
1. You wrote: "Even fellow atheists and free speech advocates are troubled. Here's what Andrew Sullivan has to say"
You know that Sullivan is a Catholic, right? And no, the "and free speech" phrase doesn't mitigate your mistake.
2. You wrote: "In a recent interview on the podcast Point of Inquiry, host DJ Grothe asked PZ if he worried that scienceblogs.com was becoming better known as "atheistblogs.com." It's a question that merits serious consideration, especially in light of recent events."
You realize that PZ gave a cogent (even if you disagree with it) answer to DJ on that question, right? You were going to acknowledge that, rather than disingenuously pretending that PZ offered no reasonable response, right?
3. You wrote: "What alarms me the most about the incident, however, is the major perceptual hit that the scienceblogs.com community and brand continues to take because of PZ's antics."
And that brings us right to the heart of why so many people - people who would otherwise listen to the points you make - have tuned you out. You display all the classic signs of a ethically bankrupt salesman and demagogue:
a. You're never "angry," or "outraged," you're merely "alarmed," or "concerned," or "troubled." Anyone who gets angry is never justified in your worldview; they've failed in Framing World.
b. You claim to care about the substance of issues, but your rhetoric gives the lie. You talk incessantly of "perceptions" and "brands." You consistently fail to address direct, relevant criticisms from your opponents. When they challenge you to define the line between massaging rhetoric to draw in consensus (a reasonable approach) and selling out to win fair weather friends, you don't respond.
c. You are - there's no subtle way to frame this - an insufferably prissy hand-wringer. You fret and worry and twist your hankie into a knot over the actions of outspoken, vocal opponents of religious nonsense. You simper about how alienating and, gosh, just mean we all are. All the while, you ignore the fact that your conciliatory (and that's being kind) approach has accomplished absolutely zero in affecting public discourse on important scientific and church/state separation issues.
Come on, surprise me, Mr. Nisbet - let this post go through.
Posted by: llewelly | July 16, 2008 9:41 PM
PZ, this is really important. You need to get a hold of some erector set parts, and some old PCI cards from a dead computer - or any kind of circuit board with chips on it - and screw the mess together into a vaguely assault-rifle looking thing. That's the 'cyberpistol' . Then, pose your beautiful octopus as holding the 'cyberpistol', pointed at a christ cracker. Photo the result for us to enjoy. If you have a good friend who takes good photos, have them take the photo.
(P.S. Since Foley seems to think the RNC is threatened - does that mean the RNC is a cracker? Or does Foley think he is Christ? I'm confused.)
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 9:42 PM
#325
And what would happen if a priest thought that one of the crackers wasn't consecrated, and consecrated it again?
Super-concentrated extra-holy Jesus flesh(TM), that's what! Twice the Jesus, half the fat!
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 16, 2008 9:43 PM
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 8:00 PMI'm glad you have a book that tells you how to be a good person. We free-thinkers have figured out how (and why) to do that all on our own, so we threw out the user's manual.
If you need a book to tell you what is moral or immoral, right or wrong, and good or bad, then maybe you wouldn't do well out on your own anyway, so it's probably for the better that you have someone dictating your morality to you.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 9:43 PM
One searches in vain for an adult among PZ Myers' amen chorus.
Posted by: George | July 16, 2008 9:26 PM
That's what happens when you wear a god bag over your head George.
Blindness is a given.
Posted by: poke | July 16, 2008 9:43 PM
Are you sure the crackers you're receiving have been turned into Jesus?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 9:44 PM
Super-concentrated extra-holy Jesus flesh(TM), that's what! Twice the Jesus, half the fat!
Oustanding! Does it work to give Michelob Ultra any taste?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:44 PM
In light of new evidence, I adjust my beliefs.
no problem. I'm sure you'll be able to do the same for me tomorrow.
that's the wonder of embracing reason instead of superstitious nonsense.
WE get to adjust our thinking as new evidence arises.
I do hope that at least a few of the religionauts can see the value of that, embrace it for themselves, and begin a slow descent back to reality.
I'm encouraged by the few that have posted in these threads, claiming to be Catholic, that apparently have been stimulated to try (I have posted a good example several times now).
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 9:45 PM
@ "the truth machine, OM"
"...Put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another..." Colossians 3:8,9
Here are some things that we can do without in this life. When we put on the new man through Christ, then we can put off the old man with all his evil deeds.
"Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil." Psalms 37:8
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 9:45 PM
You are a fucking moron, max.
You're right, wrpd, but for the wrong reasons ... Max didn't write that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:46 PM
Are you sure the crackers you're receiving have been turned into Jesus?
exactly as sure as the Catholics are, I'm sure.
Posted by: Everbleed | July 16, 2008 9:46 PM
Well I just bought a 1,000 Cavanagh communion bread wafers on eBay. Thanks miui!!!!!!
Now if I can just find a priest for sale...
I nominate Snickers Bars as the thinking persons communion wafer. Even though Kit Kat bars are really more "wafer" like, "Snickers Really Satisfies".
If I get my Cavanagh wafers consecrated and have my wife lay one each into the bottom of her delicious stuffed mushrooms, do they become Magic Mushrooms?
What next. I say go for the wine/sherry/blood... whatever.
Man, I'm gettin' hungry!
I will post pix of me desecrating the consecrated wafers in solidarity with PZ. Can a Deacon consecrate wafers?
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 9:46 PM
Oustanding! Does it work to give Michelob Ultra any taste?
Then would it be liquid Jesus? Because that makes my brain go to a dark place.
Posted by: JoJo | July 16, 2008 9:46 PM
Pete Rooke #311
What is it with these concern trolls? This one can't be a conservative, because conservatives are down on coddling criminals.
A guy threatens to kill PZ. Besides being the antithesis of giving a warm, fuzzy feeling to PZ, communicating a threat over the internet is a crime. This particular crime is not a "slap your wrist, you're a bad boy, pay $50 and court costs" misdemeanor. It's a "you can spend years in substandard housing with some very nasty neighbors" felony. So why is Pete Rooke whining about PZ's negligence? Does he automatically give every criminal a Get Out of Jail Free card? Or only the Catholic criminals?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:47 PM
Super-concentrated extra-holy Jesus flesh(TM), that's what! Twice the Jesus, half the fat!
LOL
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 9:48 PM
@Pete Rooke
You think your stupid godbotting is going to get you respect? You're a fucking troll piece of shit with not an honest bone in your body. You would do yourself a favor by leaving this place; you could pretend that you're following your bullshit "moral text" and turning the other cheek.
Posted by: DaveL | July 16, 2008 9:48 PM
What does Dick Cheney have to do with this?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:49 PM
Then would it be liquid Jesus? Because that makes my brain go to a dark place.
*resisting......*
*gives up*
Jesus enemas?
Posted by: llewelly | July 16, 2008 9:50 PM
Alejandro, #27:
I have a brother who is convinced that some of them secretly smoke meth. 'I mean, look at the Patriot act. Only meth can make you that fucking paranoid.'
Posted by: Tom P. | July 16, 2008 9:51 PM
We deserve basic human respect whether you agree with us or not. What you (as well as those people who take the Eucharist) do is sacrilege to us. It's hateful, disrespectful, and wrong. You don't have to believe to show some basic respect.
The Catholic Church uses its hateful teaching to take away a woman's right to choose. The Catholic Church uses its hateful teachings to deprive gays and lesbians of their basic human rights. When the Catholic Church stops being hateful, disrespectful, and wrong to those who disagree with them then they can start complaining about the actions of others towards them.
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 9:51 PM
Jesus enemas?
I was thinking putrefied flesh, but I've been watching too much Bones lately.
Also: ew.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 9:51 PM
Ah, Pete Rooke. The guy who writes about getting his guide for behavior from the Bible, and about rape as punishment for his daughter disobeying him. Well, offering up your virgin daughter for a gang rape is the action of a Godly man in the Bible, so really thinking your daughter is at fault for dressing in a short dress and low-cut top (even if you deny that feeling) is a Godly action. He should have brought her over to the rapist to really show his devotion to God.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 9:52 PM
c. You are - there's no subtle way to frame this - an insufferably prissy hand-wringer.
LOL
disagree or not as to what Nisbet's actual motivations are, I rather like that.
...and no, I'd bet money he won't post it.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 16, 2008 9:54 PM
Are you sure the crackers you're receiving have been turned into Jesus?
How can one tell? What objective scientific test would allow an observer to determine whether or not a given cracker has been consecrated or not?
Posted by: bellerophon | July 16, 2008 9:54 PM
Arguably the Catholic League and Foley have little to disagree. Reminds me of how Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now says:
"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!"
Just remembered that out of the blue. Oh and by the way, PZ, remember to charge your cyberpistol mega5000xx! Be kindly reminded though, when they do it, it's freedom of speech; when you do it, it's hate crime. Mm-hm..
Posted by: frog | July 16, 2008 9:54 PM
PR: "Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil."
Pete, I guess your deformed and perverse conscience has blinded you to the actually meaning of these lines.
You're not to repress your anger (and thereby release it with perverse rape fantasies and self-justifying familial abuse). You're supposed to stop being angry.
That latter is much harder. Doing the former is much, much worse than just expressing your anger --- it turns you into a inhuman monster. It's particularly bad when you fantasize that magic has released you from anger --- since then you can't actually judge your own anger without destroying your self fantasy.
What an evil ideology. Get thee to a therapist before the damage you're producing get worse.
Posted by: Max Verret | July 16, 2008 9:55 PM
Re: wrpd #301
Your daughter's attire might be considered a mitigating circumstance at trial. So, where the law would place blame, neither of us knows.
You referred to me as a f*****g moron. In Christian charity, I cannot return the invictive.
Posted by: JoJo | July 16, 2008 9:58 PM
Besides being a fucking moron, you're a prissy prig.
Posted by: mandydax | July 16, 2008 9:58 PM
.____. xuu$``$$$uuu. . $``$ $$$`$$$ dP*$ $ $$$ $$$ ?k $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ ":$ $ $$$ $$$ N$ $ $$$ $$$ $$ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $$#$ $$$ $$$ $$'$ $$$ $$$ $$`R $$$ $$$ $$$& $$$ $$$ $#*$ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$$ @$$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $B$ $$&. $ $ $D$ $$$$$muL. $ $ $Q$ $$$$$ `"**mu.. $ $ $R$ $$$$$ k `$$*t $ @ $$$ $$$$$ k $$!4 $ x$uu@B8u$NB@$uuuu6...$$X? $ $(`RF`$`````R$ $$5`"""#"R $ $" M$ $ $$ $$$ ? $ $ ?$ $ T$ $$$ $ $ $F H$ $ M$ $$K $ .. $ $L $$ $ $$ $$R. "d$$$$Ns. $ $~ $$ $ N$ $$X ." "%2h $ 4k f $ *$ $$& R "iN $ $$ %uz! tuuR$$: Buu ?`: $ $F $??$8B | '*Ned*$~L$ $ $k $'@$$$ |$.suu+!' !$ $ ?N $'$$@$ $*` d:" $ dL..........M.$&$$ 5 d"P ..$.^"*I$RR*$C""??77*? "nu...n*L* '$C"R ``""!$*@#""` .uor bu8BUU+!` '*@m@. *d" *$Rouxxd"```$ R*@mu. "#$R *$ ! *%x. "*L $ %. "N `%. ...u.d!` ..ue$$$o.. @ ". $*"""" .u$$$$$$$$$$$$beu... 8 .mL % :R` x$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$WmeemeeWc |$e!" "s:k 4 d$N"`"#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> $$ "N @ $?$ $@ ^%Uu.. R#8buu$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> ```""*u$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> #$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> "5$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> `*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> ^#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> "*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> `"*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> ^!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> `"#+$$$$$$$$$$$$$$> ""**$$$$$$$$> ```""PROOF OF PROF. MYERS' CYBERPISTOL! THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF HIS WEAPON OF CHOICE!Posted by: NAB | July 16, 2008 10:00 PM
Desecracating a consacrated Host will call more courses upon you! To both you and those who will give it(them) to you.
Those who are protesting are doing it out of reverance for their Lord, love for him, the Church and you. However you make the last choice.
The Lamb of God takes away the sins of the humble but his wrath is upon the wicked ones. It is interesting why would anyone do violence to a lamb!
He does not need anyone's defense. He has conquered. To those who are frustrated, here are consoling words for them:
"Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."
May he have mercy on your soul.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever Amen.
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 10:01 PM
I can't even draw a pistol freehand. How did you do that?!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 10:02 PM
Desecracating a consacrated Host will call more courses upon you!
PZ, will you be able to pick up an extra class per semester?
Posted by: 386sx | July 16, 2008 10:02 PM
"The LORD shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming."
Does the LORD laugh at peple because he knows they're gonna get tortured?
"For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be."
Those are from Psalms 37 too! For yet a little while! 3000 years ago! No worries!
Posted by: IceFarmer | July 16, 2008 10:03 PM
HOLY SHIT! I'm afraid that evil PZ Meyers will come for other religious symbols next!
BE WARNED MY PASTAFARIAN BRETHEREN! HIDE YOUR MERCATO AND ATLAS PASTA MACHINES, LEST THE ILK OF MYERS BREAK INTO YOUR HOMES TO ABSCOND WITH THE HOLY ITEMS THAT ALLOW US TO BRING FORTH THE NUTRITIONAL EMBODIMENT OF OUR LORD FSM!
We too shall contact the authorities demanding more protection from these most vile of bigots! Perhaps we should arm ourselves for further protection! Stock up on flower and bullets now!
Holy crap PZ, what a bunch of hipocritical f'ing nutjobs! How diluded and twisted are these fundies?
Posted by: Canuck | July 16, 2008 10:04 PM
"... and his followers"? WTF?? I've been an atheist since I was a teenager and I'm now 50. Just because I read this blog doesn't mean I'm a "follower" of anything or anyone. I don't think PZ seeks disciples, and I doubt that anyone here feels like someones follower. These Republican morons make me so glad that I don't live in the US. Scary place since the fundies took over the administration.
I do completely support the keeping of church and state separate, and the keeping of ID and creationist nonsense out of the classroom. And I do like watching the fireworks generated on this blog. Hell, I wasted a huge chunk of my weekend reading the bazillion comments in response to crackergate. The idiocy of humanity truly amazes me.
I think there is one thing that atheists here and elsewhere fail to understand about true believers. When we criticize their beliefs, and ridicule things like transubstantiation, we just don't have the capacity to absorb the fact that anyone could take that nonsense seriously, so we don't get what the big deal is when we ridicule it. To us it's probably not much more serious than saying their pet dog is ugly. They don't have the investment in it to make it matter "that much". But for these people, when you criticize their beliefs you may think it's "just the beliefs", but you are actually casually rejecting and ridiculing something on which they base their lives, and for the very religious, it's the core of their existence. I'm pretty sure that we don't grasp the gravity of the situation for them, because to us it sounds like batshit craziness. But they don't separate the beliefs from themselves. It defines them. My inlaws are like this, and they could no more separate their beliefs from the core of their lives than they could fly to the moon. I think that on the subject of religion they are nuts, and they know I don't believe what they do (and they know their daughter doesn't either), but to keep some civility we just leave it alone. I'm not going to change them and they aren't going to change me. You choose the battles you have a chance to win.
I'm not suggesting that we stop pointing up the nonsense for what it is. It's time for atheists to get out of the closet. But I am saying that if you toss darts at these people, you should expect the kind of reaction you saw. Religious wars haven't started over a golf game gone wrong. They start because people are totally invested in the insanity of faith in some mythology or other (with a heaping spoonful of tribalism, usually). I've spent a lifetime debating these people. They wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit them in the ass. It's a waste of time. They believe, and that trumps rationality.
One last comment. I agree with the people who have said that all the swearing and name calling is casting us in a bad light. I played rugby for many years, so it's not like I have sensitive ears, but the vulgarity detracts from any points you are trying to make. And please stop using the word "cunt" as a pejorative. It happens to be a most lovely part of the female anatomy, the source of new life, the power center of the species. Give it a bit of respect. If you must stray from intelligent use of language to the arena of vulgarity, find more appropriate terms to degrade them. A cunt is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 10:04 PM
NAB,
Please ask your god to bless you with greater typing/spelling skills and reading comprehension.
Posted by: SteveM | July 16, 2008 10:05 PM
I can't even draw a pistol freehand. How did you do that?!
google "ascii art"
There are online programs that will convert photographs into ascii.
Posted by: frog | July 16, 2008 10:05 PM
llewelly: I have a brother who is convinced that some of them secretly smoke meth. 'I mean, look at the Patriot act. Only meth can make you that fucking paranoid.'
I read it was the prescription sleep "aids" a lot of politicians use so they can go days with out sleep and then catch up quickly -- the combo of Ambien and Halcion, with some uppers to get them going again.
Meth is for poor folks. The real shit you get with prescriptions.
Posted by: raven | July 16, 2008 10:06 PM
Rooke is a delusional moron. His book doesn't make Catholics any better than anyone else in the world, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Didn't do Chuck any good, for example. The big problem with xianity today especially in the USA is not that xians are no better than anyone else, but that some of the sects and some of the members are far, far worse.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 10:06 PM
I wonder if anyone has ever assembled a complete Jebus out of the wafers.
That would be one helluva an entree. I remember the artist who made one out of chocolate. Donawhore wasn't too happy about that either.
It reminds me of an Outer Lim deceased's its episode called The Sin Eaters who eat food placed around the body to absorb the sins. The mother tricked her son to eat the food around her dead husband by starving him for days. It turned out the father had been an official Sin Eater and was full of everyone else's sins. As he eats the kids eyes roll up into his head as he takes them all in. Now that's what I call concentrated sin.
And remember, it might Jebus you swallow, but who is it when it exits the lower orifice?
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 10:07 PM
There are online programs that will convert photographs into ascii.
And here I thought all this time that the ascii stuff was a work of typing genius. The world makes a little more sense now.
But it's still awesome. :)
Posted by: qedpro | July 16, 2008 10:08 PM
You can have my cyber pistol when you pry it from my cold dead cyber fingers!
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 16, 2008 10:08 PM
To all the xtians and catholics who spew hatred on this blog, or in emails to any of the participants in this sad little story of oppression. Try reading you own bible about love and what it means. I don't have much truck with the Bible, and certainly not with Paul, but I like this piece from Corinthians, not sure how it got past the censors. Not given the reference numbers, assume you can read on your own.
Oh, yeah, I know, satan can speak scripture, thanks in advance for that quote.
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
Pax Nabisco and off to bed.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 10:10 PM
#368 Sorry about the cut and paste error... here it is again:
I wonder if anyone has ever assembled a complete Jebus out of the wafers. That would be one helluva an entree. I remember the artist who made one out of chocolate. Donawhore wasn't too happy about that either.
It reminds me of an Outer Limits episode called The Sin Eaters who eat food placed around the body to absorb the sins. The mother tricked her son to eat the food around her dead husband by starving him for days. It turned out the father had been an official Sin Eater and was full of everyone else's sins. As he eats the kids eyes roll up into his head as he takes them all in. Now that's what I call concentrated sin.
And remember, it might Jebus you swallow, but who is it when it exits the lower orifice?
Posted by: Badger3k | July 16, 2008 10:11 PM
Wow. I am not sure why that idiot (Foley) would want to compare the Irish with jackasses, which both he and Donahue are, but...whatever rocks your boat.
If I wanted to, I know that I could "score" a consecrated host without any problems, and causing no disruption or harm to any human. It's not hard. I have no desire to to so, but it could be done quite easily.
I think I understand the post at #358 - if you take a consecrated host, you will start to realize what BS the superstition is, your mind will open up, and you will take more courses and get educated.
Sounds good to me.
Posted by: SteveM | July 16, 2008 10:12 PM
What puzzles me about this whole thing is that even if PZ posted a video of some wafers be "desecrated" somehow, why would anyone even believe that they had benn consecrated? Seems to me that if you are capable of believing in transubstantiation, you'd be capable of believing PZ is lying about the wafer being consecrated.
And I also can't understand how it can possibly be a criminal offense to destroy something that is supposed to be destroyed (by eating) anyway?
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 16, 2008 10:12 PM
Pete Rook: Atheists the cause of starving children? The rich want and need the poor to give alms so they feel better. Maybe there are just too many people on the planet?
We should give thanks to the Pope and his mindless followers for his absurd stance on contraception. Overpopulation is going to destroy our civilization by famine, pandemics, and war. The religious wingnuts will welcome it as the Rapture.
Posted by: Everbleed | July 16, 2008 10:13 PM
I'm down with Canuck. Figures a Canadian would have something sensible to say. Damn hosers, they're always so rational and peaceful. And they do love their pussy.
Posted by: Charlie | July 16, 2008 10:14 PM
LIVE STREAMING SQUID DISECTION
FYI. Just in case you're interested, yaknow.
Posted by: LanceR | July 16, 2008 10:14 PM
Miracles aren't enough for you? You have to ask the impossible, too?Sheesh. <grin>
Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 16, 2008 10:15 PM
Just to inject a little levity into the glum despair Catholics must feel here on this thread i present the following reminder of the value of the Catholic Faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Posted by: Diane | July 16, 2008 10:16 PM
There is absolutely nothing you can do to the Body of Christ. There is nothing that could be worse than what He suffered during His Passion and what He continues to suffer today at the hands of His children. What you do, you do out of vanity and ignorance. Far more troubling to me are the persons who have provided you with the Host - especially if they call themselves Catholic. Far more troubling to me are those Catholics who receive the Body and Blood unworthily either knowingly or unknowingly. Your stunt is no more than satan's temptation of Christ to test God. Your stunt is no more than the shouts of the crowd who cried out, "He saved others; himself he cannot save." You offer nothing new or original. However, Christ can save even you. I most sincerely forgive you and pray for your soul. Don't worry, I know you don't believe. I do. That is enough.
Pax vobiscum,
Diane
Posted by: craig | July 16, 2008 10:17 PM
"Desecracating a consacrated Host will call more courses upon you!"
Wait... you mean if we don't properly and reverently eat the jesus cookie, god's gonna keep coming back until we do? How many courses? Is the main course lasagna?
Because if I can get lasagna by first passing up the jesus cracker and the jesus salad, that's what I'm gonna do!
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 10:18 PM
"There is absolutely nothing you can do to the Body of Christ. There is nothing that could be worse than what He suffered during His Passion and what He continues to suffer today at the hands of His children."
Then why are your panties in a bunch?
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 10:18 PM
I wonder if anyone has ever assembled a complete Jebus out of the wafers.
I had to go digging for the quote, but I found it!
Eddie Izzard:
"All right: eat this cheese it is my central nervous system, all right? All right, all right, listen to this: eat these chicken drumsticks, they are my legs. Eat these carrots, they are my arms. Eat this tomato it is my head. And eat these oysters, they are my kneecaps."
"If you do that, dad, your holy communion is going to have priests going round with lots of trays going, 'Who ordered the body of Christ, then?' "
Posted by: Canuck | July 16, 2008 10:19 PM
@ Everbleed #376
Thanks. Our national animal is the beaver. The "pussy lovin' " just comes naturally.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 10:19 PM
PZ Myers' lack of professional ethics has become so flagrant that it merits your complete attention. First things first: PZ has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter on the subject of religion. He insults that which he fails to understand preferring vulgar snarks to meaningful and substantive debate. No doubt there will be no apology forthcoming despite eventual censure at the hands of UMM.
PZ ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. His insults represent the most socially inept form of moral turpitude conceivable. And judging from the comments although the irascible wonks are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are increasing in size and fervor.
PZ engages in pietistic babble that nauseates even some of my more religious friends. In short he worships at the alter of Darwinism (or Scientism - call it what you will). We must prevent PZ's sinister convictions from spreading like a malignant tumor.
PZ's patsies are too lazy to teach deranged windbags about tolerance. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that PZ maintains wholly offensive and abusive positions on the value and place of religion.
PZ fails to mention that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia (or any other atheistic regime), where the state would be eager to condition the public or, more precisely, brainwash the public, into believing that he has his moral compass in tact. Not yet, at least. But he twists every argument into some sort of struggle between two parties. PZ unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. The facts are in: There is no question that if Prof. PZ Myers opened up his mealymouthed mind just a teeny-weeny little bit, maybe he could understand that.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 10:20 PM
#380 Diane:
Do you realize that you are a whackaloon?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 10:20 PM
. I most sincerely forgive you and pray for your soul.
And a hearty "Fuck you" right back atcha
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 10:21 PM
I think there is one thing that atheists here and elsewhere fail to understand about true believers. When we criticize their beliefs, and ridicule things like transubstantiation, we just don't have the capacity to absorb the fact that anyone could take that nonsense seriously, so we don't get what the big deal is when we ridicule it.
Speak for yourself. Oh, wait, you're the great one who understands all this but is explaining it to all us ignorant atheists who don't. Sorry, your grand pomposity, but you're off target.
Posted by: C | July 16, 2008 10:22 PM
Max,
ok. You think PZ has at least partial blame for the woman being fired. You might be right. But do you genuinely believe that he has greater blame than her husband? The guy who write a death threat using his wife's account? I really need to know.
Posted by: David Carson | July 16, 2008 10:22 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster.
Be gentle.
Not sure if this the right place to post my suggestion. And I apologize in advance if someone else has offered this (I think I've only read 3-4000 of the 5-6000 post, over a dozen threads, on this topic).
I think I have a unique way of dealing with the crackers that P-Zed (sorry..Canadianism) has received. And that is to go overboard on the "respect."
Set a place at the table for the cracker.
Take it to the beach (with some Barbie-sized sunglasses).
Or the zoo, or anywhere you go on vacation.
Bring it to work and give it its own chair and computer (but not access to your own email account).
Bring it shopping, and to the park.
Take it for a walk around the block.
Or the movies (is Expelled still playing?)
Tuck it in at night.
And, of course, videotape the whole thing and post it on youtube.
It could be a unique take on those garden gnomes that get taken on around-the-world trips ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_gnome_prank ).
I can't see how there can be a complaint if the whole thing is done with a serious mien.
Besides I'm sure jesus would like to see a bit of the world outside of the Middle East.
David
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 10:23 PM
@Pete Rooke
[blah blah sin lies hypocrisy anger hatred putrescence blah blah blah]
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 16, 2008 10:23 PM
It is interesting why would anyone do violence to a lamb!
There's lots of good eatin' on them things.
There's the priest who figured out he gets to eat the burnt offerings once the seekers have left the place he's claimed is holy.
Once, Abraham was convinced by the voice in his head he had to gut his own son Isaac out on Highway 61, but figured the voice in his head wasn't heartless enough to make him go through with it fer shursies, so, after conferring with another voice in his head, decided it was OK for him to kill a helpless widdle lamb instead.
Ritual human sacrifice. It's not just for breakfast anymore!
NAB worships a bloodthirsty Asshole who says lambs are for slaughtering, doing the bidding of priests and P.R. flacks who figure sheep are for shearing.
Never give a seeker an even break.
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 10:25 PM
We must prevent PZ's sinister convictions from spreading like a malignant tumor.
Because don't forget:
1) PZ has the power to force people to read his blog.
2) The internet is serious business.
Posted by: foxfire | July 16, 2008 10:25 PM
OH NOES! Thomas Foley of Virginia wants to deny PZ his second amendment right to own a cyberpistol? The horror.....
This whole crackergate non-issue is beyond belief.
IT'S A FRELLING CRACKER.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 10:27 PM
I know you don't believe. I do.
In a fairy tale. But obviously it's not enough for you, else you wouldn't be blabbering here.
Posted by: Canuck | July 16, 2008 10:27 PM
And look at the gift. I try to make a point and along comes Pete Rooke at #385 to corroborate it. He shows you clearly that he hasn't caught, much less digested, a single point made in any rational argument posted in the 4000+ Crackergate comments. He says "we don't think", "we don't understand", blah, blah, blah, and more inanities.
Truth is HE BELIEVES and that makes him blind to anything that doesn't line up with his belief. We might as well bark at him like a dog. He's not listening. He's not hearing. Save your typing fingers. I am. I'm out of here to go find the wife and see if there's some of that Canadian symbol on offer. :-)
Posted by: Mark B | July 16, 2008 10:28 PM
You know, Cyberweapons of all sorts can be dangerous. Why just yesterday, I was RickRolled. And you know how dangerous that be!!
Well, maybe not dangerous, but annoying.
Posted by: mandydax | July 16, 2008 10:29 PM
Yeah, Sharon, SteveM's right. Google ascii art pistol and the first result had a whole page of them. That one was stylish, though.
Oh, how about this? Instead of a Cyberpistol, how about a Cyberknife? Not as clumsy or random as a Cyberpistol; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
http://www.cksociety.org/
Posted by: craig | July 16, 2008 10:29 PM
Anyone who argues that the writer of an unsolicited email has some right to anonymity is an idiot.
Anyone who argues that the writer of an unsolicited email that contains a death threat has some right to anonymity and who comes to the defense of the threatener is an immoral idiot.
Posted by: raven | July 16, 2008 10:29 PM
Rooke is crazy and just babbling without worrying about whether it makes sense or not. Just reposting his contradictory nonsense that shows he isn't in contact with reality. Not going to spend any more time with the mentally ill.
I give you till the first of the month, get that resignation in cunt
Rooke is a delusional moron. His book doesn't make Catholics any better than anyone else in the world, regardless of religion or lack thereof. Didn't do Chuck any good, for example. The big problem with xianity today especially in the USA is not that xians are no better than anyone else, but that some of the sects and some of the members are far, far worse.
Posted by: qedpro | July 16, 2008 10:30 PM
Diane,
Instead of your self-righteous condescending prayers for us, pray for something useful.
Here's a good one to pray for. The catholic church is an international organization that has systematically aided and abetted the rape of children for centuries.
Why don't you pray no more children be raped by your leaders. I know that's a tall order, but don't you agree its so much more useful.
I can't speak for atheists but I know that I would gladly burn for eternity if that prayer was answered.
Have a nice day and remember pray for the children.
Everytime you pray for us, a child is raped because you wanted to be a self-righteous condescending bitch.
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 10:30 PM
Better RickRolled than Goatsed.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 16, 2008 10:31 PM
"It is interesting why would anyone do violence to a lamb!"
Question is: Does Jesus go well with mint sauce?
(Because every mention of lamb must be followed by one of mint sauce)
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 16, 2008 10:32 PM
RickRolled?
Paradise.
Why, in our day, we were goatsed and grateful for it!
Posted by: Reynold Hall | July 16, 2008 10:32 PM
Those stupid idiots are repeating history; they hate Myers because he's "threatened" to "desecrate" a wafer.
That was one of the charges that christian anti-semites used to level against Jews:
Desecration of the Host - Anti-Semitic claim of medieval Christians that Jews would steal consecrated host wafers and desecrate them by stabbing them to make them bleed. According to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which became dogma at that time, a consecrated host wafer becomes the flesh of Jesus Christ. It was thus believed that Jews would steal and desecrate these wafers to reenact the crucifixion of Christ. In numerous cases Jews were executed in horrible ways for this imaginary "crime." In the 19th century it was shown that the red color often found on the wafers was due to a fungus.
Posted by: Mark B | July 16, 2008 10:34 PM
Words to live by.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 10:34 PM
"... If you do that, dad, your holy communion is going to have priests going round with lots of trays going, 'Who ordered the body of Christ, then?' "
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 10:18 PM
I've ordered this before on an earlier thread but you have worked up my appetite so...
One Big Jesus with cheese to go please, easy on the nails and hold the cross.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 10:34 PM
Pete Rooke wrote:
Er, what 'person' did PZ attack? Funny, I've been reading these posts since the beginning and at no point has he advocated attacking any 'person'.
Ideas about beliefs, on the other hand - believing in a god, believing in magic, believing that a priest can perform magic to turn a cracker into god, believing that it's okay to make threats against someone who doesn't follow a set of rules that apply only to people who choose to adhere to them (as opposed to laws that apply to everyone) - he has attacked.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 10:34 PM
@ Raven (I understand that is the bird of choice for those engaged in occult practices)
I agree with you that there is definitely a continuum of sorts and some religious groups are far worse than others.
I place militant atheists near the bottom.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 10:34 PM
And here I thought all this time that the ascii stuff was a work of typing genius. The world makes a little more sense now.
Welcome, traveler from the 19th century.
Posted by: JAM | July 16, 2008 10:35 PM
You are a dangerous man, PZ. ;)
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 10:36 PM
"Never Gonna Give You Up"
Now I have that damn song in my head.
Posted by: BobC | July 16, 2008 10:37 PM
#380: "Your stunt is no more than satan's temptation of Christ to test God."
Lots of Catholic wackos been coming here lately.
Diane, you believe in Mr. Satan? This is why Catholics are ridiculed. They blindly believe everything the pope tells them to believe. If the pope says it's OK, there is no belief too idiotic for a Catholic.
Diane, have you ever considered the possibility that Satan, magical crackers, the Resurrection, and the other Catholic miracles, are just made up stories and inventions? Have you ever once in your life used your brain to think for yourself? Have you ever had an original thought or an original idea? Probably not. Thinking is a sin, so why risk torture in hell from your loving God.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 16, 2008 10:39 PM
One Big Jesus with cheese to go please, easy on the nails and hold the cross.
When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?
Posted by: Patrick O | July 16, 2008 10:39 PM
He's Right - the horror the horror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2YpoiFddXs
Posted by: craig | July 16, 2008 10:39 PM
"I agree with you that there is definitely a continuum of sorts and some religious groups are far worse than others.
I place militant atheists near the bottom."
That would be because you're a shithead.
Atheists shooting abortion protesters? Doesn't happen. Atheists suicide bombing non-atheists? Doesn't happen.
Atheists issuing death threats to non-atheists over a fucking cracker? Doesn't happen.
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 10:40 PM
"I place militant atheists near the bottom."
Quite so. They do so many evil things.
Flying planes into buildings, blowing up federal buildings and abortion clinics.
Rioting over cartoons and teddy bears.
Sending death threats over a cracker.
Oh wait.....
pete, you are a moron.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 10:40 PM
"Never Gonna Give You Up"
Now I have that damn song in my head
Let's just hope Iran never gets that kind of technology.
IranRick's in ur heads, rollin ur minds.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 16, 2008 10:41 PM
"One Big Jesus with cheese to go please, easy on the nails and hold the cross."
Can I get the Blissful Meal? It comes with Crucifix Fries and a 42-ounce Diet Christ.
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 10:41 PM
Welcome, traveler from the 19th century.
Don't tell people that! Now they'll want to know where I stashed my time machine!
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 10:41 PM
I place militant atheists near the bottom.
We so care.
Can you pause for even one moment to count up the number of commands from your "moral text" that you're violating?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 10:42 PM
I take it you missed the 20th century horrors then craig. Not heard of Mao, Stalin or Nazi Germany.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 10:42 PM
Catholic readers, don't you go listening to BobC - all that talk about 'thinking', well that's just Satan talking, trying to do to you what he did to Eve with the fruit from the tree of 'knowledge'. That's the dead giveaway - 'knowledge'. A good christian shouldn't want 'knowledge'. Faith and the bible - that's better than nasty 'knowledge'.
Read your bibles! Don't think for yourselves! Your church leaders will make your decisions for you!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 10:43 PM
Nazi Germany
under Catholic Hitler?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 10:44 PM
I take it you missed the 20th century horrors then craig. Not heard of Mao, Stalin or Nazi Germany.
We've all heard it here, repeatedly, and refuted it, repeatedly, trollbreath. What you're too stupid to understand is that, when you write this sort of thing, you simply establish that you're stupid, ignorant, illiterate, unread ...
Posted by: craig | July 16, 2008 10:45 PM
"In a fairy tale. But obviously it's not enough for you, else you wouldn't be blabbering here."
Yep.
Any time someone takes time out of their day to seek out people who don't believe in their fairy tale in order to proclaim how much they believe in their fairy tale, it's their doubts talking.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 10:45 PM
#390Posted by: David Carson | July 16, 2008 10:22 PM
David's post reminds of high school where they would make the young women carry around a 10 lb bag of sugar for a month as a surrogate baby to teach them the importance abstinence. Problem was that too many of them had sex right in front of the bag of sugar and still hadn't been told about the virtues of birth control.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 16, 2008 10:45 PM
I take it you missed the 20th century horrors then craig. Not heard of Mao, Stalin or Nazi Germany.
What? God is dead? Quick, let's ban Darwin and establish Lysenkoism. Adolf, nice Gott mit uns belt buckle.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 10:46 PM
Not heard of Mao, Stalin or Nazi Germany.
*sigh*
so, so tired of the mental midgets with their Darwin->Hitler meme.
James Kennedy is DEAD.
get a fucking clue already.
just because it needs to be here:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 10:47 PM
Where's that post with all those photos of Catholic priests attending Nazi rallies and giving the Nazi salute? I think it was maybe Damian or JeffreyD who posted it.
Posted by: Zeno | July 16, 2008 10:47 PM
As ignorant of history (and several other things) as he is, Pete Rooke want to blame Nazi Germany on atheists. I'm sure that's why the belts on their uniforms said "Gott mit uns." It's funny and sad at the same time!
Hey, did you hear the one about Hitler being Catholic? (Not a particularly good one, I admit, but Mao and Stalin were pretty lousy atheists, too.)
Posted by: DaveL | July 16, 2008 10:48 PM
I do believe that is entirely the point. There is nothing PZ Meyers can do to the body of Christ because he is not in posession of it. All he has are some bread wafers.
Sure, you may believe this bread is actually the body of a god, but that is incredibly stupid. It may shock you that someone could stand up and state flat out how incredibly stupid this belief is, but that just illustrates how important it is to say it. A stupid idea that cannot be questioned is an unbelievably dangerous thing to any society that fancies itself free.
Posted by: craig | July 16, 2008 10:49 PM
What's with these Popes who were in the Hitler youth?
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 10:49 PM
I saved the link TM
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 16, 2008 10:51 PM
Diane @380 Do you ever get out of the house? Do your male relatives keep you shrouded in a burka? Most people don't believe in that version of crap.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 16, 2008 10:52 PM
Joseph Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."
According to historian Michael Rissmann young Adolf was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and Darwinism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.[3] Georg Ritter von Schönerer's writings and the written legacy of his Pan-German Away from Rome! movement, which agitated against the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the 19th century, may have influenced the young Adolf Hitler.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 10:52 PM
Diane @380 Do you ever get out of the house?
Does she isolate herself when menstruating until she's been certified "clean"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 10:55 PM
I saved the link TM
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/priests-salute.jpg
now, why does that ring a bell...
catholicism and authoritarianism, like peanut butter and chocolate.
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 10:56 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
and if we continue quoting the wiki article instead of stopping there, we get these quotes:
Hitler claimed that during the time he served in World War I, he had a religious awakening; specifically when he was in the hospital, temporarily blinded from an enemy gas attack in October 1918. This religious awakening may be attributed to a hallucination, possibly induced by a Dr. Forster.[5] Another alleged incident was that a mysterious voice told Hitler to leave a crowded trench during a minor barrage. Moments after he left the area, a shell fell on that particular spot. Hitler saw this experience as a message that made him believe that he was a uniquely illuminated individual who had a special task to fulfill.
At some point, people just have to agree that Hitler was seriously messed up in the head, and stop invoking Godwin's Law.
Posted by: Miami | July 16, 2008 10:56 PM
PZ is looking for media attention, nothing more nothing less:
"LOOK AT ME - IM AN ASSHOLE AT A SECOND RATE THINKER AT A SECOND RATE COLLEGE WITH NO MEDIA RECOGNITION!"
PZ - you are not Dawkins or Hitchens.....or even Dennet.
The rest of you atheists on here look like assholes, too.
So, congrats to all of you atheist sheep-thinkers and your attention whore "professor!"
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 10:57 PM
I take it you missed the 20th century horrors then craig. Not heard of Mao, Stalin or Nazi Germany.
Just to recapture context for a moment, you lying sack of pus, but by "militant atheists" you were referring to people here, none of whom had anything to do with those things. So at the very least you should distinguish between "militant" in dictionary sense 1, "vigorously active and aggressive", and in dictionary sense 2, "engaged in warfare; fighting". But, being the dishonest immoral low filth that you are, you won't.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | July 16, 2008 10:57 PM
Hey, look, everybody! I'm the Ron with tits and a surname! And not in Houston!
Just thought I'd make that clear first.
I can't believe no one here has figured it out yet, from Mr. Foley's* big clue.
The Repubs are expecting a surprise celebrity appearance by God Him/Her/Crackerself! Obviously, their security has to be very very good for the convention. Can't run the risk of Jesus' being (at this coinage every knee should bend) crackerjacked.
*As I'm a used nurse, I think "catheter" every time I see the name "Foley." If that other braying mackerelsnapper wants free-association to be a criterion for job fitness, he'd better change his name or at least deflate his balloon.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 10:58 PM
Posted by: Miami | July 16, 2008 10:56 PM
blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 16, 2008 10:58 PM
Nabacanazer wrote:
The man has obviously never had a good gyros.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 10:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
somehow, I rather think you might have missed reading the rest of that article, plus you might want to check the discussion page.
However, as long as you insist on quotemining:
Posted by: Aerik | July 16, 2008 10:59 PM
Why are there jesus wafers floating around the republican national convention?
Posted by: Dan | July 16, 2008 11:00 PM
Cyberpistol?? Those fools! They should know that it is instead your cyberfrisbee (ala Tron) that should be feared. It can ricochet!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 11:01 PM
The man has obviously never had a good gyros.
or the lamb lawand here
Posted by: wrpd | July 16, 2008 11:01 PM
My apologies to Max.
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 11:01 PM
Why are there jesus wafers floating around the republican national convention?
It's like the balloons at a graduation ceremony. Don't let Jesus hit the ground, that's a party foul.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 11:03 PM
Joseph Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."
But that doesn't support your point, fuckhead, which was about militant atheists doing evil things.
And you want respect? Is there any Catholic reading here who thinks that this shithead Rooke deserves that?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 11:04 PM
It's like the balloons at a graduation ceremony. Don't let Jesus hit the ground, that's a party foul.
Is it like letting the flag hit the ground?
are we supposed to burn them or bury them 13 feet underground?
Posted by: David | July 16, 2008 11:05 PM
Wow. You folks are appallingly full of yourselves. No wonder there is no room for intelligent discussion here.
One commenter after another has scorned the religious for their supposed irrationality, yet not one of the comments I've read has been reasonable - save, actually, those written by theists. You aren't reasonable at all! For Christ's sake, you all rival the apes with your childlike stupidity! You're venomous, hateful, and unreasonable. You consider for not one moment the point your chosen opponents are making. You will not even concede that your chosen opponents - i.e., the commenting theists - are capable of making worthwhile points. All I see here are many vitriolic and hypocritical atheists excusing themselves from rational discussion by ridiculing their Great Enemy. Impressive, really!
I am a Catholic, and although my perennial frustration with this religion is driving me away from it, I never want to become like any of you. All I have learned here is that an atheist is a self-impressed pig. Bravo.
Posted by: Jenny | July 16, 2008 11:05 PM
I wonder if you can take your cyberpistol into Washington DC now?
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 11:06 PM
A new place to go for lunch!
Thanks MAJeff
Posted by: Sharon | July 16, 2008 11:06 PM
Is it like letting the flag hit the ground?
are we supposed to burn them or bury them 13 feet underground?
Well, if you wait 3 days and then burn them you can say they rose again and went to heaven.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 11:06 PM
are we supposed to burn them or bury them 13 feet underground?
That depends, is Jesse Helms wrapped in it?
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2008 11:06 PM
@436: You mean you take the writings of the Nazi propaganda minister over a bunch of actual photographs?
Wow.
Posted by: Mark B | July 16, 2008 11:07 PM
Well, we are apes, after all. Even you. Realizing that is a nice first step on the road to rationality.
Posted by: Zetetic | July 16, 2008 11:08 PM
Wow. Just when I thought it couldn't get any crazier. These Catholics just don't realize how nutty this is making them look, do they?
I think PZ's "followers" (someone needs to make t-shirts and membership cards now) need to stay far away from this RNC. If even one person were to make a scene there it'll only seem to justify the hysteria and need for extra security in the minds of some. Stay away and they look like the big idiots they are.
...Or they just say that the extra security measures obviously worked and frightened everyone away. Dammit, we can't win for losing. Ah, well. Still better to take the high road.
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 11:08 PM
If I may.
Posted by: David | July 16, 2008 11:05 PM
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 11:08 PM
A new place to go for lunch!
Thanks MAJeff
I don't know if they do lunch. If you're going for dinner MAKE RESERVATIONS!!!
The lamb is wonderful. The pumpkin, though--that's some amazing shit (and get it without the meat sauce, trust me). The bucklawa actually made me cry.
(I think it's actually owned by members of the Karzai family)
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 11:10 PM
No Lunch?
Then after work it shall be.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 11:10 PM
No wonder there is no room for intelligent discussion here.
There's plenty of intelligent discussion when troll filth like you and Pete aren't around.
Posted by: Numad | July 16, 2008 11:11 PM
This is like the Trollolympics.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 11:11 PM
Ron Sullivan
Huh? You're nuts. I suppose I might have a case of man boobs, but I wouldn't call them tits.
Not in Houston? Are you nuts. Here, I'll act like a bona fide redneck. Come down here and I'll put a boot in your ass.
Want me to quote more Toby Keith?
You're as delusional as the people you criticize.
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2008 11:11 PM
David @453, you have read the 10000 odd comments in the various threads, then, that you pass judgement?
No, I thought not.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 11:12 PM
yet not one of the comments I've read has been reasonable - save, actually, those written by theists.
you mean like the one your theist buddy Kroll wrote?
Posted by: spurge | July 16, 2008 11:13 PM
"Want me to quote more Toby Keith?"
No thanks.
Hearing anything more by that jingoistic moron is unnecessary.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 16, 2008 11:14 PM
David @453
"I am a Catholic, and although my perennial frustration with this religion is driving me away from it, I never want to become like any of you."
Happily, David, as an atheist, you don't have to.
There are no dogma, doctrines or Popes. All you have to do is lose your belief. Sounds kinda like you already have.
Don't worry. Lots of us go through a period where we recognize that we aren't buying it any more, but aren't quite ready to embrace the 'A' Word. That's okay. Nobody has the right to tell you how to act. Only you get to decide.
And the rest of us will treat you accordingly, as appropriate. Don't expect that from the still-religious, though.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 11:14 PM
You consider for not one moment the point your chosen opponents are making.
In fact, each of the points made by Pete Rooke and scum like him have been considered and, if appropriate rebutted.
You will not even concede that your chosen opponents - i.e., the commenting theists - are capable of making worthwhile points.
Au contraire, they are certainly capable of it, which makes them culpable when they fail to do so.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 11:15 PM
"So, congrats to all of you atheist sheep-thinkers..."
Posted by: Miami | July 16, 2008 10:56 PM
Gee... from Florida... what a surprise.
Someone needs to explain to Miami that the flock of sheep thing is about christians, not atheists.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 11:17 PM
David, #453, wrote:
They're making the point that they believe their magic ceremony literally turns a cracker into god, and that the magic god-cracker is more important than civil liberties and life.
Which should not be a point anyone even vaguely rational should consider.
That an atheist may be a self-impressed pig has nothing to do with atheism. One does not become an atheist in order to become a nice person. One becomes an atheist when one realises there is/are no god/s - there are no other conditions.
Posted by: Dustin | July 16, 2008 11:18 PM
Re: More Hitler shit from the Catholic trolls.
For a good time, point your url here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
Then open up your browser's find feature, and search for Christianity. Then hit "next", "next", "next", "next",....
You'll get tired of reading quotes before you run out of them.
Posted by: inkadu | July 16, 2008 11:18 PM
Hi, David.
It's rather shocking to talk to people who think your ideas are very, very silly, isn't it?
I think if you take a step back, that is what this is whole thing is about. Can we say that your ideas are stupid? Can we say it loudly? Can we say it in ways that bother you? Or is the idea of offending religious ideas so horrific that people who pocket communion wafers should be expelled from school, professors who support such students should be fired, and that anyone who makes death threats against the anti-religious should be giving a free pass?
Because underneath all the sturm and drang, that's really what this is about. I, and I think most of PZ's supporters (and maybe even some non-supporters), are quite happy to support your right to call PZ whatever you want; we just ask for the same right to call your ideas completely stupid without being arrested, fired, or threatened with violence. That's it. That's all this is about. If fundamentalistists understood how a free society worked, none of this would be an issue.
Posted by: Zetetic | July 16, 2008 11:19 PM
Ok, who brought up the Nazis first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 16, 2008 11:20 PM
"I am a Catholic, and although my perennial frustration with this religion is driving me away from it, I never want to become like any of you."
If the Catholic Church leaves you frustrated, and you don't want to become like any of us, you may have to learn how to think for yourself. Of course, that isn't the way to be offered a loving cup and the opportunity to sing Gabba Gabba with the rest of us freaks, but hey, whatever blows yer skirt up, pal.
Posted by: Dustin | July 16, 2008 11:24 PM
I do not give a peanut-ridden shit about Godwin or his stupid law.
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2008 11:24 PM
Ron in Houston, thank you so much for informing me that you have man-boobs and consider yourself a redneck.
I wouldn't want to get the wrong impression of you, nossir!
Posted by: dkew | July 16, 2008 11:24 PM
Verret:
What would there be to apologize for? Crackergate started when a Catholic student had his life threatened for not eating a cracker immediately, and PZ pointed out the idiocy of transubstantiation and treating the cracker as important. Who did PZ insult, other than the gasbag Donohue? Really? More than priestly child molesting and cover ups? Crackers cannot be insulted.What the hell is "breath-beating"?
Rooke:
What is there to debate? The atheist position has been spelled out clearly on this blog for years - it's hardly a surprise that most of us think all gods are imaginary, and most religious practices stupid. You are not required to read it. Sounds like the pot calling the magnifying glass black.
Posted by: Neural T | July 16, 2008 11:25 PM
Christ, have we hit Godwin's Law already?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 11:27 PM
For you, Ken:
http://www.olgabaclanova.com/pictures/freaks/browning_and_freaks_med.jpg
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 11:28 PM
Oh, everyone knows all those Hitler quotes are made up by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy™.
The atheists are so clever they managed to infiltrate Germany - a predominately Christian country, with a similar proportion of Christians in the government and military - and make them do those horrible things against their will. They obviously did the same with Italy (a predominately Catholic country) who were their allies - and the Vatican (all Catholic - presumably), since they fully supported Hitler at the time.
This, of course, had nothing to do with historical German antisemitism of the sort espoused by Luther and supported by other branches of Christianity.
Posted by: arensb | July 16, 2008 11:30 PM
I find it oddly amusing that today, Archie McPhee introduced the Angry Mob Play Set. If you put little GOP stickers on the Glow-in-the-Dark Flesh-Eating Zombie Play Set, you can have your very own Republican convention diorama in your living room.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 11:30 PM
John Morales
Yep. Texan with "man boobs" and at least by inheritance a redneck.
I'm also an atheist.
I make a fine poster child don't I? Maybe PZ and I can make a poster.
Come on PZ? What you don't want to be associated with a Texas redneck with man boobs? WTF? I thought you people were freethinkers?
Posted by: David Carson | July 16, 2008 11:31 PM
re: #427 Posted by: mayhempix | July 16, 2008 10:45 PM
Good point. I guess satire is sometimes a little too subtle.
Sometimes one may need to be metaphorically whupped upside the head with that bag of sugar.
Still, Travels with your host, Jesus, or Putting on the Ritz or From Crackers to Krakatoa might be a funny little travelogue.
David
P.S. Momentarily taken aback when I saw the comments directed at the other David.
No relation!
Posted by: inkadu | July 16, 2008 11:32 PM
Given the complicity of the church in the Holocaust, I'd think Catholics would stay well clear of that entire discussion.
It reminds me of conservatives who like to trot out Reagans resolution of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, confident in the fact that only 3% of the American public will remember that the Reagan administration went on to sell weapons to the Ayatollah.
Posted by: spam spam bacon spam | July 16, 2008 11:33 PM
let me get this straight...
They serve COOKIES in church?
WTF? I would've been there years ago if I'd have known that...
Do they have chocolate chips? I love chocolate chip cookies. Also sugar cookies, and oatmeal cookies, but not the hard kind...they gotta be soft and squishy...real fresh.
Can Melanie Kroll bring her kids to church and fill everybody up on cookies?
Posted by: Rob H | July 16, 2008 11:34 PM
So this has most likely been said by atheists at some point in *ahem* discussions like these but I think it's an important point: It does not matter if you think all atheists are arrogant pigs and all people of faith are pure and humble, you cannot conclude anything about their arguments from how well you like someone.
Think PZ was an insensitive jerk? Fine but that has nothing to do with atheism as a philosophy. Think Christopher Hitchens is a drunkard with silly views on the war in Iraq? That doesn't say anything about his scathing commentaries of religions. A similar fallacy is attributing the characteristics of one member of a group to all, such as Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot for atheists arguments or even George W for conservatives.
These fallacies, while tempting to make, are easily recognizable by both sides and will not gain you traction at all.
Posted by: Dustin | July 16, 2008 11:34 PM
Doesn't matter. Godwin's Law is Nazi bullshit.Posted by: efrique | July 16, 2008 11:35 PM
What precisely do they imagine PZed is going to do?
Look at them sideways?
Reveal all their illegal activities? Oh, wait, that could be it; it would scare the crap out of them.
Posted by: pcarini | July 16, 2008 11:36 PM
In re: Mark Foley - I guess if you really, truly believe in ghosts you shouldn't be surprised when you start seeing them in the shadows.
Posted by: craig | July 16, 2008 11:36 PM
"It reminds me of conservatives who like to trot out Reagans resolution of the Iranian Hostage Crisis,"
Quick worker, that Reagan, seeing as the hostages were being released right as he took the fucking oath of office.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 16, 2008 11:36 PM
How sweet! Thanks, TM! Loves me some cast pics from Freaks. Johnny Eck is a favorite; an old girlfriend got a chance to speak with him on a phone call arranged for her by Forry Ackerman. He performed in a "saw the volunteer in half" magician's illusion where, having been "restored" he stood on the shoulders of a midget in pants until they "split" and the bottom half and the top half ran around separately to much merriment and mayhem among the panicked marks. What made the trick stick was that Johnny had a close to identical fraternal twin who played the volunteer. The magician may very well have used the magic words, "Hocus, Pocus!" I wonder where they came from?
Missing from that pic is Harry Earles, who also appeared as a member of the Lollipop Guild.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 11:37 PM
Dustin, what's your point?
Posted by: Muzz | July 16, 2008 11:38 PM
I know little of Matt Nisbet's work or qualifications and I find myself sympathetic to his stated cause, as a liberal arts/lowly humanities sort myself. But my scanty glances at his writing always give the same impression: that he's not talking about Science Communication he's talking about Science Marketing.
Now, I've always felt that Comms Studies always copped too much stick from the right wing and from the hard sciences for what is a harmless little discipline with an at times interesting look at the world. But I did feel, back in the day, that it was such a hybrid discipline (prone to borrowing other ideas and using them as metaphors) it would have trouble, philosophically, standing on its own two feet. What gets written on Matt Nisbet's site makes me think that, in the years since I took it, it has finally succumbed.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 11:41 PM
the Reagan administration went on to sell weapons to the Ayatollah.
...and to the precursor of what became the Taliban (and gave them military training, to boot).
...and that's just scratching the very outermost surface.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 11:42 PM
All I have learned here is that an atheist is a self-impressed pig.
Wow. Which one?
Posted by: chibi curmudgeon | July 16, 2008 11:45 PM
To be honest when I heard the word cyberpistol, my mind superimposed PZ's head on Rambo's and then it cut to a little montage of him shooting in the wild jungles of the internet. Did this happen to anyone else?
No, but I did snort tea out of my nose when I read this. Come on, someone make an animation!
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 16, 2008 11:47 PM
Dustin
That is the finest (and funniest) piece of satire I've seen in a long, long time.
If I had an award to give you, I'd do it.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 16, 2008 11:47 PM
oh! Look! A Bishop calls the trauma suffered by a priest's rape victims "dwelling crankily on old wounds"!
Cassock wearing scum.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 16, 2008 11:56 PM
oh! Look! A Bishop calls the trauma suffered by a priest's rape victims "dwelling crankily on old wounds"!
If I've learned anything about the religious over the last 30 years, it's that they simply cannot resist shooting themselves in the head, given even the slightest opportunity to do so.
this is just another straw in the giant haystack.
Posted by: Ray | July 16, 2008 11:57 PM
Reading this post by the bigot Myers and the ensuing responses goes a long way in exposing the outright hatred and distain toward anything Christian. I challenge any of you to be as hateful toward anything muslim. No? I thought not.
Posted by: arensb | July 16, 2008 11:57 PM
efrique @#491:
Look at them sideways?
Don't you know that PZ always keeps an eponym hidden under his alacrity? He might start firing off litotes or something!
(This comment dedicated to Casey Luskin.)
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:00 AM
Ahh, you have Koran envy. Don't worry. We'll pray for you.Posted by: Gary | July 17, 2008 12:00 AM
The most ironic thing about all this is that if the catholic response had been "We disagree with and don't condone Myers' views, but it's his right to say what he wants on his private blog", the catholics would've come out of this looking morally and ethically superior to Myers.
But they didn't. They're the ones who kicked up the shitstorm, and now they're trying to blame Myers for it. Also, just for the lulz, I'd look into pressing libel charges against Donahue for describing you as a racist, Myers. I'd love to see that go ahead.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 12:01 AM
Ron in, I couldn't care less what your attributes are - you seem to be the one taken in by the genetic fallacy.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 17, 2008 12:01 AM
"I challenge any of you to be as hateful toward anything muslim."
Here's a free tip, Ray: look through PZ's previous posts, and READ THEM. I know reading is one of those things that guys like you are adverse to, but you'll get used to it. Some of the posts even have pictures!
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 12:01 AM
Ray,
Yeah, we've never heard that claim before.
DO SOME FUCKING READING BEFORE YOU POST YOU FUCKING IGNORANT PIECE OF SHIT!
Posted by: clinteas | July 17, 2008 12:02 AM
Charlie Foxtrot,
all good,let them self-destruct !
I find it rather excellent that the pedophiles and rapists in the CC think whoever criticizes them on their acts is spoiling the great fun were all having rejoicing in WYD,its so gtotesquely unconnected to reality that they are just constantly shooting themselves in the foot !
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 17, 2008 12:03 AM
hmmm, not just any old mitre-wielding coverup-artist either... but the Bishop organising the whole "World(as-long-as-you-count-only-Catholics-as-'theworld') Youth Day" cracker-feasting dead-guy adoring extravaganza.
I love his whole "lets just focus on how nice we all are this week" attitude
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:04 AM
Wowbagger,
Your response just proves what a world without God produces...hatred, violence, and vulgarity...it is YOU who is ignorant my friend....change your ways while you still can....I will pray for you.
Posted by: Steve | July 17, 2008 12:04 AM
"Reading this post by the bigot Myers and the ensuing responses goes a long way in exposing the outright hatred and distain toward anything Christian. I challenge any of you to be as hateful toward anything muslim. No? I thought not."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php
Bam!
Have fun.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 17, 2008 12:05 AM
#486 Posted by: David Carson | July 16, 2008 11:31 PM
I can see how the David issue could be a bit disconcerting.
That's why I chose a name that would be hard to confuse with another one.
Many of the god trolls and krolls use Biblical names.
Lots of Davids, Johns, Peters, etc.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:05 AM
I challenge any of you to be as hateful toward anything muslim.
Got a Koran handy for me to piss on?
Posted by: clinteas | July 17, 2008 12:06 AM
HeHe,
Wowbagger,
got the royal treatment there from Ray,LOL.
Ray,
I pray for your mother and sister mate.
Posted by: pcarini | July 17, 2008 12:07 AM
Er, in #492, that should be Tom Foley, not Mark Foley... so hard to tell the corrupt bastards apart.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:08 AM
Gary,
Myers is a bigot, not a racist. The problem is this...if Myers (or any of you) choose not to believe, that is your choice....but why must you do all you can to belittle and hate all those that choose to believe...just go about your business...why do you feel it necessary to desecrate the Holy Eucharist....compensating for something, perhaps?
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 12:08 AM
Around here you've gotta be quick to post that for PZ, desecration is an equal opportunity hobby.
Jesus, Mo, Shiva, Zeus, they're so hard to tell apart and so equally imaginary.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:09 AM
clinteas,
My mother and sister are fine, mate, thank you. They are practicing and believing Catholics which ensures that their souls are heaven bound. But I do thank you for your concern.
Posted by: David | July 17, 2008 12:10 AM
Those who have said in reply to my earlier post that an argument or a philosophy should be evaluated on its own merits and not the personal merits of its advocates are correct. Regrettably I made some of my first remarks out of anger rather than reason. But that is the point I intended to make, since I failed to make the point clearly: what I see here are lots of people who claim to give reason pride of place while they ridicule those whose views are opposite their own. What, exactly, is reasonable about that? Some of you who responded to me pointed out my use of the ad hominem fallacy, but there are plenty of so-called "people of reason" here who have done precisely the same.
Posted by: Rob H | July 17, 2008 12:11 AM
Ray @ #518
That's pretty rich coming from a group of people that say atheists will suffer eternal torment for not "choosing to believe" what they assert is infallible, then insist on teaching anti-science in science classrooms. Are you saying that Christians are just "going about their business"?
Posted by: inkadu | July 17, 2008 12:12 AM
icthyic:
the Reagan administration went on to sell weapons to the Ayatollah.
...and to the precursor of what became the Taliban (and gave them military training, to boot).
No, no, no. The Taliban was created retroactively by Bill Clinton when he failed to kill Osama bin Laden when given the chance. It's one of those time travel paradoxes.
Ray - No matter how many pigs Mohammed had sex with during his lifetime, it doesn't make the existence of a historical Jesus any more likely.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:13 AM
Your response just proves what a world without God produces...
But I thought you believe that the God is in the world?
See, the thing is that it's hard to respect people who don't even make a minimal attempt to exercise intelligence or intellectual honesty.
I will pray for you.
Fuck you too.
Posted by: Gary | July 17, 2008 12:13 AM
Ray,
You're spot on. I desecrate eucharists because I have a small penis. In fact, every time I crush a cracker, I hope with all my heart that the part of Jesus' body that was in that cracker was his wang.
I'll be damned if a fictional son of God from 2000 years ago is having a bigger penis than me.
Posted by: Kel | July 17, 2008 12:13 AM
Wow, hopefully that shuts up all the Catholics asking him to desecrate the Koran instead.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 12:15 AM
Ray wrote:
No, retard, my response proves that I'm tired of idiots coming to the thread and making stupid comments that mean they haven't bothered to read anything before posting. Starting at the middle is fine when you're enjoying crayon-time with your colouring-books, but in most cases you have to begin at the beginning. If you'd shown up any time before the last half-hour you might have experienced any number of my more polite, peaceful and reserved posts.
But, right now, I'm tired of idiots like you showing up and making statements that add nothing to the dialogue in progress.
In the immortal words of Walter Sobchak, you're out of your fucking element.
Yeah, you pray for me. I'll think for both of us. At least one of us will be doing something constructive.
Posted by: Catherine | July 17, 2008 12:15 AM
Yeah, Ray. Keep your sky daddy out of my child's classroom and maybe we'll talk. Until then, STFU! GOD IS IMAGINARY!
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 17, 2008 12:16 AM
"why do you feel it necessary to desecrate the Holy Eucharist?"
So I guess "Holy Eucharist" is code for death-threats now?
"but why must you do all you can to belittle and hate all those that choose to believe"
You just don't get it. Disagreeing with you isn't "hate". Getting a bunch of like-minded dudes together to talk about how dumb your beliefs are isn't "hate". YOU came into this blog of your own free will and engaged us in conversation; nobody forced you here to investigate and read every little heretical tidbit.
Here's the bottom line: we're going to continue calling your beliefs idiotic. You'll do the same to us, which is good, because we don't care. You may want to shut down all criticism, but some of us are secure enough in our beliefs to allow criticism to occur.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:18 AM
Some of you who responded to me pointed out my use of the ad hominem fallacy, but there are plenty of so-called "people of reason" here who have done precisely the same.
where.
nowhere has anyone said that all arguments from catholics are ridiculous because they believe in transubstantiation.
instead, all we have put forward (relevant to the subject at hand) is that the concept of transubstantiation itself is ridiculous.
that is NOT ad-hominem.
In fact, several of us have repeatedly noted Catholics who HAVE had a more sane response to their precious "beliefs" being ridiculed.
so far, you don't qualify.
care to try again?
finally:
please STOP equating reason with reasonable.
really not the same thing.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 12:18 AM
Ray, when you say "I will pray for you" to an atheist, you are only convincing the atheist you're an asshole and batshit crazy.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:18 AM
Hey Charlie Foxtrot,
Thank God for world youth day and the Pope's participation. With the millions of worldwide youth that are attending, we can only hope that the next generation will stamp out the angry, hate-filled atheistic voices such as PZ Myers and the respondants we see here. The Spirit is alive!!
Posted by: Cujo359 | July 17, 2008 12:18 AM
The Foley quotes in that CNA article are the craziest thing I've seen since Ted Stevens tried to explain how the Internet works.
Posted by: Dahan | July 17, 2008 12:19 AM
Max at 141,
"4. PZ has one RNC delegate calling for something just short of activation of the Minnesota National Guard for Convention security. I'm sure the good people of Minnesota
just love that kind of publicity. For them, It must bring back memories of the Chicago Convention in the '60s."
As a "good person from Minnesota" I indeed do love this publicity. Thanks for pointing it out. Oh, and the over reaction of those in power during the 1960's? Yep, Shows that there are still those same problems.
Funny, when I started reading your post I thought I was gonna disagree with you, but no, you're right. This really does show the true colors of the far right, and they're as ugly as ever.
Posted by: Matt | July 17, 2008 12:20 AM
Who cares what Bill Donahue thinks about this? For that matter, who cares what other Catholics think about it?
But you should know that you're taking a risky gamble, Dr. Myers. The desecration of the Eucharist, the body of the one God, is extremely imprudent, regardless of what you believe or what point you are trying to make. There are things unseen at work, the consequences of which you do not know.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:20 AM
what I see here are lots of people who claim to give reason pride of place while they ridicule those whose views are opposite their own. What, exactly, is reasonable about that?
The burden is on you to show that it isn't reasonable. In fact, it's quite reasonable to ridicule people who espouse bullshit and do it dishonestly ... who do it employing every possible fallacy, who do it in a self-serving fashion. These people aren't just ridiculous, they are disgusting.
Now, what's reasonable about your trolling?
Posted by: Robert Thille | July 17, 2008 12:21 AM
So, if I started a religion, where adherents felt their excrement was sacred, actually "of god" (hey, isn't god everywhere?) and needed to be saved, dried and displayed on an altar until the person dies, then they are buried with the body.
Can we then claim that the practice of all non-believers flushing their poop is horribly offensive to us believers?
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:21 AM
BobC,
That's funny....when an atheist says "there is no God" or "the Holy Eucharist is just a cracker" I am convinced that the atheist is an asshole and batshit crazy. Guess we have something in common after all.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:22 AM
There are things unseen at work, the consequences of which you do not know.
How do you know? And why should anyone believe you?
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:22 AM
Ray prays for his dog and his mother. He should pray off, and go pray for himself.
Posted by: inkadu | July 17, 2008 12:23 AM
David:
But that is the point I intended to make, since I failed to make the point clearly: what I see here are lots of people who claim to give reason pride of place while they ridicule those whose views are opposite their own. What, exactly, is reasonable about that?
I'm typing slowly so you can understand:
Crackers do not turn into people.
Let me say it again:
Crackers do not turn into people.
Now go back and review your comments. Look at the word reason and think about what it might mean in the conext of this discussion. Thank you.
Posted by: Zarquon | July 17, 2008 12:23 AM
There are things unseen at work, the consequences of which you do not know.
Prove it.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:23 AM
Robert Thille,
You can do whatever you want....I'm not going to hate you for it....why must you atheists hate Christians for practicing their beliefs?
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 12:23 AM
Matt wrote:
But you should know that you're taking a risky gamble, Dr. Myers. The desecration of the Eucharist, the body of the one God, is extremely imprudent, regardless of what you believe or what point you are trying to make. There are things unseen at work, the consequences of which you do not know.
Woooooooo-oooo-oooooo! Scary Christian ooga-booga! Watch out PZ!
Matt, you're an idiot.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:24 AM
Guess we have something in common after all.
No, BobC isn't trolling. (And he's right, and makes sense.)
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 17, 2008 12:24 AM
@Ray
Seriously - "god" "yahwaeh" "allah" are all just the same fairytale dreamt up by some goat-herders who looked up at the infinite universe and shat themselves.
Ha! Oh, for a second there I thought you were actually going to do something!I consider them all the same ego-delusion. A 'mind-virus' force-fed to each generation with the only goal of self-preservation.
I sincerely hope my children, or maybe their children, only have to read about religion in history books - and shake their heads in wonder.
Posted by: Kel | July 17, 2008 12:25 AM
Wait, you actually believe that a cracker can turn into the body of Christ through the priest saying a few words?
Would you care to put this view under a double-blind experiment?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:25 AM
why must you atheists hate Christians for practicing their beliefs?
your definition of "hate" must be much broader than a sane person's.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 17, 2008 12:25 AM
"we can only hope that the next generation will stamp out the angry, hate-filled atheistic voices such as PZ Myers and the respondants we see here"
*cue whining* Waaaah, why all the hate?? Why can't you just like us silently so we can slam you? Stop being mean, you big ugly meanies!
Get a life, Ray, as well as a cure for that hypocrisy o' yours.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Soylent Jesus is made of people!
Well, imaginary people...
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Hey inkadu,
I'm typing slowly so you can understand:
All the known matter in the universe could not have been contained within an atomic nucleus without the power of God.
Let me say it again:
All the known matter in the universe could not have been contained within an atomic nucleus without the power of God.
Now go back and review your comments. Look at the word reason and think about what it might mean in the context of this discussion. Thank you.
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Ray, learn how to use an ellipsis or cut off your right pinky. I don't care which.
I'll pray for you! =)
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Shhshhhh.
aaah.... too .. late!
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Posted by: DLUX | July 17, 2008 12:27 AM
RAY: "They are practicing and believing Catholics which ensures that their souls are heaven bound"
Where by 'souls' he means 'money' and by 'heaven' he means 'Vatican Molestation Legal Defense'.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:27 AM
why must you atheists hate Christians for practicing their beliefs?
Why must you lie? And Why must you troll?
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 12:27 AM
Ray, there's a big difference between an atheist saying "there's no sky fairies" and your "I will pray for you". When a Christian says "I will pray for you" he really means "My invisible friend will torture you because you don't believe in my childish fantasies".
Christians really do sound like assholes when they say that.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 12:28 AM
"But why must you do all you can to belittle and hate all those that choose to believe..."
We don't hate all those that believe, we hate all that you believe, but keep posting fatuous nonsense, and we'll get around to loathing and despising you, too, personally and in great detail. That isn't bigotry, it's informed disdain for flesh-dissolving stupidity that buuurns.
I hope someday you'll realize that an organized mental virus whose victims value a magic cracker over a human being, whose hordes of automatons try to get a student expelled because he wouldn't eat a magic biscuit, represents a problem for the rest of us who want to use the very few years we have together on the planet to not have to watch out for people with profoundly sociopathic beliefs. I have to drive, sharing the road with people who expect angels to do their driving for them while they answer their cell phones. At least in California, there are plenty of nutjobs running around all 5150, but because I don't want to join in the most popular consensual hallucination, I'm the guy that's crazy because I don't believe in supernatural bullshit.
Posted by: Larry | July 17, 2008 12:28 AM
Are you honestly trying to scare a group of people who don't believe in "things unseen" with "things unseen". Well, bring it on, Matt, m'boy. Turn over your cards, lets see what ya got.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 17, 2008 12:28 AM
"Would you care to put this view under a double-blind experiment?"
Oh come on. EVERYBODY knows that the whole empirical world of science and nature are just lies concocted by Satan to turn us from the Path, meaning Satan created the universe and... and... Ahh, my brain just melted.
It's hard thinking like an idiot.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:29 AM
Let me say it again
You can say it all you want but you are still wrong, ignorant, stupid, intellectually dishonest, and trolling.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:30 AM
DLUX: Please tell me this is not the GAFFL DLUX?
I suppose you are as equally critical of the National Education Association, which is harboring and protect thousands of child abusing teachers...or do you not have a hatred against that group?
Posted by: inkadu | July 17, 2008 12:30 AM
Robert Thille is cribbing off Orson Scott Card. Which is fine. That one was a good story.
Matt:
There are things unseen at work, the consequences of which you do not know.
Indeed. Eldritch horrors, etc. Give your soul Cthulhu and pray for a quick death.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 12:30 AM
"Blah Blah Blah without the power of God."
Translation: "I don't understand so I invoke Magic."
Posted by: Max Verret | July 17, 2008 12:31 AM
Re: C at #389
It isn't a question of greater or lesser blame. The husband is totally to blame for sending a threatening email. PZ and his followers who did his bidding are partially to blame for getting her fired. Also to blame for her firing is 800-Flowers which could have exercised other options. The lady is least to blame since all she did was fail to secure the email account in her own home. If I did not secure my email account, which I do not, I would not expect my wife to do something so stupid and thoughtless as her husband did.
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:31 AM
Ray, if you have Koran envy, convert. If you have union envy, join one. You do have penis envy, but I can't help you with that one.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 12:31 AM
David @ 521
what I see here are lots of people who claim to give reason pride of place while they ridicule those whose views are opposite their own.
The comment threads on Pharyngula are not a forum for rigorous discourse. There are places for that, but for many of us, this just a place to have fun and let our frustrations out. At least, it is for me.
If you want to have a formal debate, and you're willing to pay for transportation and an honorarium, I can debate the merits of Catholicism, atheism, God, or whatever else you want, with you.
Somehow, I don't think you will be satisfied with the results.
Posted by: splendidmonkey | July 17, 2008 12:31 AM
@#149: Donohue is the "Cracker Whisperer"
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 12:32 AM
Ray,
I'll try to make this simple for you, Ray. Sorry I can't draw any pictures for you to make it easier.
Read. The. Entire. Post. From. The. Top.
I don't hate christians for practicing their beliefs. I hate what happens when christians to force others who don't share their beliefs to do something - like hand over a cracker that that person was given.
I hate it when christians come to a blog and make stupid, ignorant comments without reading things first.
Tolerate the christian, hate teh stupid.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 17, 2008 12:32 AM
"All the known matter in the universe could not have been contained within an atomic nucleus without the power of God."
When was all matter in the universe contained in an atomic nucleus? If you mean the big bang, then you're VERY confused. Do some *gasp* reading in order to *double-gasp* educate yourself.
Also, how do you even go about proving something like that? Did you book your time at CERN to smash several billion subatomic particles? Or are you just making crap up again?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:32 AM
We don't hate all those that believe, we hate all that you believe, but keep posting fatuous nonsense,
hate the sin but not the sinner?
:p
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:34 AM
Hey Ken,
And due to your atheism, I have to live next door to the guy who's watching snuff porn and scoping his next victim. When I complain about this, I'm told "don't watch it" or "turn the channel." Why can't you do the same. Why must you pour your hatred and bigotry upon those of us who choose to save our souls by following the words of Christ?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:35 AM
You do have penis envy, but I can't help you with that one.
maybe he should try for a detachable one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDiILrNbM4
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 12:36 AM
Ray @ 551
All the known matter in the universe could not have been contained within an atomic nucleus without the power of God.
Don't start a physics debate here. You'll lose. As we approach Planck time, the very notions of matter/energy and the fundamental forces break down. We have equations that accurately describe what happens at that point. Your off-the-cuff, uninformed, reasoning-from-intuition remark is simply wrong.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 17, 2008 12:36 AM
"Why must you pour your hatred and bigotry upon those of us who choose to save our souls by following the words of Christ?"
You don't actually read any posts but your own, do you? I'll explain it one more time: disagreeing with you is not hating. Get over it, baby.
"And due to your atheism, I have to live next door to the guy who's watching snuff porn and scoping his next victim."
What a steaming pile of burning stupid. That's all I have to say.
Posted by: Dlux | July 17, 2008 12:36 AM
I can see now that Ray has step up to defend Jesus and the Almighty God against us puny earthlings, it's gonna be a long night.
Off to bed...
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:37 AM
Your neigbor is Mel Gibson? While I am really very sorry for that unfortunate fact, it isn't our fault. In the meantime, I'll pray for you.Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:37 AM
we hate all that you believe
I don't hate any belief; I don't even know how to do that. But I do regret that there are so many people who believe so much nonsense, and that that belief in nonsense has significant negative effects, and I do despise self-serving liars and hypocrites like Ray.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:39 AM
Wowbagger,
If your hero didn't believe in the Holy Eucharist, he should not have gone to church. You say you don't hte Christians, yet you call our Lord a cracker...need I say more. Perhaps I should draw a picture for you. When you belittle the beliefs of another, you are expressing hatred. For Catholics, the Eucharist is sacred....nobody has the right to taek the Holy Eucharist from the church for their own purposes...if you don't believe, stay away....if you choose to receive the Holy Eucharist, Catholics have every right to demand that you treat it with respect. To say othersie is hate....need a picture?
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 12:39 AM
Ray blathered:
And due to your atheism, I have to live next door to the guy who's watching snuff porn and scoping his next victim
I'm tempted to say this is the stupidest thing Ray's written, but he's getting more incoherent with each post, so I won't.
You'd better put on a tinfoil hat, Ray. Maybe he picks out his victims via satellite. You might be next if you aren't protected!
Jackass.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 12:39 AM
The desecration of the Eucharist, the body of the one God, is extremely imprudent, regardless of what you believe or what point you are trying to make. There are things unseen at work, the consequences of which you do not know.
Who do you think you are? Victor Van Helsing?
Grow the fuck up.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:41 AM
Hey Ken,
And due to your atheism
Yeah, it's all your fault, Ken. We should report your atheist conspiracy to force Ken to watch his neighbor's porn to the proper authorities.
damn, Ray is a complete nutter.
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 12:41 AM
"We don't hate all those that believe, we hate all that you believe, but keep posting fatuous nonsense,"
Speak for yourself.
I don't hate anything. I don't hate what they believe anymore than I hate Santa. I think its silly and foolish and delusional for adults to believe it, and I think they if they think they're going to demand I respect their stupidity, they've got another thing coming.
But I don't hate that they believe. Really, if they want to believe, that's their loss, their problem. I'm just going to try my damnedest to make sure that they don't make it my problem or the problem of other innocents.
Posted by: AdamNelson | July 17, 2008 12:41 AM
"if you don't believe, stay away"
Five words: Then get the fuck out!
Take your own bloody advice! You don't accept our beliefs, so learn from your own "wisdom" and take off!
Posted by: inkadu | July 17, 2008 12:42 AM
Ray sez:
And due to your atheism, I have to live next door to the guy who's watching snuff porn and scoping his next victim.
Damnit! Who let Ray read our secret atheist master plan? Seriously. Whoever it was had better bring some Christian baby cake to the next meeting. This sets back our snuff porn distribution schedule back at least a month; but at least we can use the time to better aerosolize our virus for spreading homosexuality.
Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 17, 2008 12:42 AM
ray writes
"For Catholics, the Eucharist is sacred....nobody has the right to taek the Holy Eucharist from the church for their own purposes...if you don't believe, stay away....if you choose to receive the Holy Eucharist, Catholics have every right to demand that you treat it with respect."
We take to task your presumption that the cracker is the body of Christ. What you fail to question is how this can be so.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:42 AM
Wowbagger,
The only jackasses here are those who sit on their high-horses, hate-filled and condescending while pretending to be enlightened intellectuals. You, my friend, fit that category quite well.
Jackass.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:42 AM
And due to your atheism, I have to live next door to the guy who's watching snuff porn and scoping his next victim.
Despicable lies and stupidity.
When I complain about this, I'm told "don't watch it" or "turn the channel."
You're incoherent.
Why must you pour your hatred and bigotry upon those of us who choose to save our souls by following the words of Christ?
I despise you because you're a disgusting lying asshole and troll. If you don't want me to pour my hatred on you, simply go away.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:42 AM
force
KenRayPosted by: Larry | July 17, 2008 12:42 AM
And due to your atheism, I have to live next door to the guy who's watching snuff porn and scoping his next victim.
Well, as a catholic, Ray, you are falling down on the job, I must say. Your impassioned pleas to the magic cookie for a new neighbor don't seem to be having any effect.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2008 12:43 AM
Everyone here could do with spending at least 2 hours a day browsing 4chan, simply to educate themselves on what a troll is and how to deal with them.
It is not "reply to them as if they're real". It's also not "reply to them as if they're real, but include '...you're a troll' at the end of the reply".
It's just ignore them. Completely.
Saddest thing is, it's often difficult to tell a troll from a dull, dense or ignorant religious fanatic.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 12:43 AM
Really?
Damn you, ARPANET, and your e-mail technology!
<giggle>
You forgot to add you're not a lawyer.
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:44 AM
Ray, you can do one of two things: pull your period key from your keyboard with a pair of pliers or use one of these on your right pinky. I'm praying for you!!! =D
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 17, 2008 12:44 AM
What the hell kind of mash-up is that? "Atomic nucleus"??? Do people still say that? "Known matter"? What about the unknown matter? Is that the juristiction of a different sky-fairy?
Listen - 'poetic' crap like that might get you approving nods at bible-readings, but carries little weight here.
You're a maniac wearing a tinfoil-hat, trying to convince us that "UFO's must exist, because otherwise you wouldn't be wearing a tinfoil hat, would you?"
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:44 AM
Everyone here could do with spending at least 2 hours a day browsing 4chan, simply to educate themselves on what a troll is and how to deal with them.
I'm praying for your pompous ass.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:44 AM
Your neighbor is Mel Gibson?
LOL
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:45 AM
truth machine,
your hatred is clear....you're so insecure, you can't even use your own name...truth machine? Please....the only truth you seem to know is hatred and despair.
Sad.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 12:47 AM
Ray, #578
You've been sucking anti-freeze out of your radiator again, haven't you Ray?
No-one with a reasonable grip on both their sanity and the english language is going to agree with you on that one. You're a fool and you're beginning to bore me - and i've got a high threshold for teh stupid.
Moron.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 17, 2008 12:47 AM
All the known matter in the universe could not have been contained within an atomic nucleus without the power of God.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:26 AM
Why must you use one fairy tale to invoke another?
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:49 AM
Charlie Foxtrot,
Come on Charlie....you and all your atheist friends love to sit around lampooning those who believe in Christ, while you pat yourselves on the back over the genious of things such as "the Big Bang Theory" or "life evolved from nothing"....and you say we're the ones who believe in fairy tales?
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 12:50 AM
"Why must you pour your hatred and bigotry..."
And I'll say this once again.
Criticism of an idea IS never, CAN never be bigotry.
It can be correct or incorrect, rude, funny, a matter of opinion. But it is NEVER bigotry.
ALL IDEAS are fair game for criticism.
If you call criticism of your ideas bigotry, you're not only incorrect, you're a coward and you're disgusting.
A coward because rather than defend your indefensibly stupid ideas, you try to shield them from any scrutiny.
Disgusting because you hijack the experiences of those who have been the brunt of TRUE bigotry due to an innate characteristic such as race, gender, or sexual identity in your cynical and cowardly attempt to shield your IDEAS from scrutiny.
Criticizing yours or anyone's beliefs cannot possibly make someone a bigot.
Your saying that can possibly and almost certainly makes your a reprehensible shithead.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 12:50 AM
Ray, seriously. Pick up a book like The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. Read it all the way through. Take good notes. Then sit on it and ponder it for a while. Then read it through again. Then a third time.
Familiarize yourself with how astonishing, surprising and perplexing our universe really is. What you'll find is a lot of intriguing questions and problems, but none of them are of the nature that you described. You'll realize just how ignorant a statement like "the matter of the universe could not be contained within the nucleus of a single atom" is.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 12:50 AM
OH fucking yawn.
Ray is baked.
move on.
Posted by: aporetical | July 17, 2008 12:51 AM
Bigotry: ridiculing someone because of something they're born with, i.e. race, gender, etc.
Not bigotry: ridiculing someone because they choose to believe something silly and demand that everybody respect it.
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:51 AM
You're very stupid, Ray.
Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 17, 2008 12:51 AM
I wrote this item in another topic but had no takers so I thought I might see if ray could take a go at it.
It struck me today that I am ignorant of the means by which the first members of the Christian religion who instituted the ritual of the Eucharist were able to discern whether they had succeeded in accomplishing the actual transubstantiation effect if ,being human, they are not able to detect a difference in the "substance" but only in the "accidents" of material things.
After all, one should be certain of such a thing before invoking the obedience of one's flock to partake of this ritual wouldn't you think?
How about it ray?
Any believers out there with some insight to this situation?
Posted by: Jay | July 17, 2008 12:52 AM
Has anyone likened this situation to flag burning yet? Near as I can tell, the situation is fairly analogous. On the one hand, I think PZ should respect the wishes of Catholics as a kind of humanistic compromise. But on the other hand, I think desecrating a host is perfectly permissible as an expression of freedom of speech.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:53 AM
your hatred is clear
I'm certainly not hiding the fact that I think you're a despicable lying scumbag troll. But you seem to love it, and want more, else you would stop trolling here. You're a lowly lying piece of shit and, if your God exists, YOU will spend an eternity in hell for being such an incredible sinner.
Posted by: inkadu | July 17, 2008 12:53 AM
I wonder what percentage of troll threads are devoted to giving advice on how to deal with the troll, whether it IS a troll, what KIND of troll it is, why aren't people ignoring the troll, wouldn't it be better if we stopped feeding the troll, etc.
I guess I should spend two hours a day reading 4chan to find out.
And I say this only to elevate the discussion here:
The length of a curve defined by a function from points a to b is the integral from a to b of the square root of the sum of one and the square of the derivative of the function.
And so on.
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:54 AM
Once for every constituent piece of matter in a mole.Posted by: raven | July 17, 2008 12:55 AM
That is an obvious lie. Ray is kenny and several hundred other aliases. His neighbor is wacko. Not surprising, Kenny/Ray/etc. has been locked up in a mental hospital for years.
His fellow inmates undoubtedly think he is crazy even by lunatic asylum standards.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 12:56 AM
Ray: "Why must you pour your hatred and bigotry upon those of us who choose to save our souls by following the words of Christ?"
Hate is a very strong word, Ray. I don't hate anyone. However it's obvious the world would be better off if there weren't so many people willing to believe in medieval bullshit, including your Christ bullshit. I notice the daily Muslim suicide bombings, the Jewish "God gave us this land so get out", and the Christian harassment of biology teachers. Religious insanity is completely out of control, and it's getting worse, not better. Many atheists choose to ignore religious idiots, and perhaps that's a good idea. I prefer to fight back. Ridicule has been shown to work. Where I live in Florida, constant ridicule of religious assholes saved our new public school science standards from religious attacks.
These are some of the reasons Catholics are ridiculed when they go nuts because of worthless crackers. If religious people kept to themselves, let science teachers do their jobs, didn't blow themselves up in crowds, gave up their religious wars, and did not make death threats when their crackers aren't respected, I would be happy to ignore their breathtaking stupidity.
Oh, by the way, Ray, there are no souls, and your Christ is a myth.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 12:56 AM
Craig, #601, wrote:
Craig, I've highlighted everything in your post that I feel Ray, most likely, won't be able to do. I was tossing up whether he'd be able to pick up the book in the first place - he may not have evolved opposable thumbs just yet - but someone's taught him how to type (pity about spelling and sentence construction) so maybe, just maybe, he can manage that unaided.
Just trying to work out what 'ponder' will probably keep him busy for a few hours.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 12:56 AM
On the one hand, I think PZ should respect the wishes of Catholics as a kind of humanistic compromise.
Catholics wish for women to kill themselves with coathangers, among other things.
Posted by: Rob H | July 17, 2008 12:56 AM
Uh, guys? Ray is obviously trolling. Stop feeding the trolls with your delicious attention.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 12:57 AM
I personally like to lampoon someone who doesn't know how to spell "genius" as much as I do those who believe in invisible deities.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 12:57 AM
Anonymous @590.
Around here, trolls are punching-bags.
Ignoring them makes them disappear before we can have some fun.
I'm not saying they're welcome, but you know, lemons and lemonade...
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 12:59 AM
Anonymous #590
Saddest thing is, it's often difficult to tell a troll from a dull, dense or ignorant religious fanatic.
With regard to religious fundamentalists, that's called Poe's Law.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:59 AM
aporetical
websters.com:
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.
You are all bigots...congrats!!
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 12:59 AM
It's shit and shit salad. Duh.Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 1:00 AM
Ray is obviously Kenny.
I just wonder how the fuck someone in a psych ward gets access to a PC and the net and an endless stream of proxies.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:00 AM
"Ray is kenny and several hundred other aliases."
Ray, if that's true, and I think it is true, go fuck yourself.
Posted by: Jay Di Silvestri | July 17, 2008 1:01 AM
This is a very hateful thing to write. Your blog, and your actions are reprehensible. You do not have to believe our faith, but desecrating that which is sacred to us is a hateful, evil act, at least on par with painting swastikas on a synagogue, or burning a cross. I hope you someday see your error, but in any event, it is hope that the University of Minnesota will fire you immediately, because the bigotry that you espouse should not be allowed any forum in a public university.
Posted by: Breakfast | July 17, 2008 1:01 AM
Whooooa. PZ is srs bsnss.
And because he is desecrating the wafer, the RNC needs security to protect them against people who read his blog.......?
Am I really missing something? I don't see as much specific protest about how utterly bizarre a connection that is as I'd expect to see. What in blazes has wafergate got to do with anything to do with Republicans, or their convention, or any sort of real life occurrences?
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:02 AM
truth machine,
oh, aren't you clever with the coat hanger quote...what we wish for is people to commit to sacramental marriages and to stop the slaughter of the unborn. Big difference.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2008 1:03 AM
Truth machine...
"I'm certainly not hiding the fact that I think you're a despicable lying scumbag troll. But you seem to love it, and want more, else you would stop trolling here. You're a lowly lying piece of shit and, if your God exists, YOU will spend an eternity in hell for being such an incredible sinner."
You seem to not quite understand what a troll is. A troll is not merely someone who posts nasty, stupid, ignorant or questionable material.
A troll is someone who does this *specifically to get an angry response*. The response is fun to them. That is why they do it.
By responding like this, all you're doing is ensuring that whoever Ray really is, he's having a great time. Probably got a few chat windows open, sending links to the comments of people replying to him to all his friends and they're having a great time laughing it up.
"Don't feed the troll" is the best damn defence against them. Completely ignore it.
*Any* response that treats *any* of the their post seriously, even if you include "you're a troll" somewhere in it, means they're getting exactly the response they want. So stop replying, and they go away (or their posts get more and more inflammatory, which is a sure sign of a troll fishing for replies, which is what's happening with Ray).
I'm trying to help you folk here, not mock you.
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 1:03 AM
I'm not sure, but it probably has something to do with barfing up his meds back up for the other patients.Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 1:03 AM
Thanks for nothing, Dustin. I found it on YouTube.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 17, 2008 1:03 AM
If I said I was currently urinating on a stack of "consecrated" wafers, would any of these batshit Craplicks even care? Or do they need someone like Donahue to tell them to be outraged? Does the heathen need to be relatively high-profile like PZ? Does my blog entry need to be picked up by Drudge? It seems like there's probably all kinds of "blasphemy" going on all over the world on a daily basis. Unless it's shoved in the faces of the Craplicks and they're pumped full of "you aughta be outraged!" from their puppet masters, they're totally ignorant. Wait, they are anyway.
It's beside the point, however, since I'd just as soon urinate on a "consecrated" wafer as a Ritz. They're both fucking crackers.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 1:04 AM
desecrating that which is sacred to us is a hateful, evil act, at least on par with painting swastikas on a synagogue, or burning a cross
Despicable lying scumbag. And lets not forget that those are Christian acts.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:04 AM
BobC,
I have no idea who Kenny is...but in any event, nice atheistic language...you do your people proud!!
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 1:04 AM
I don't think he's Kenny - unless he's actually read something about NDE's since he's been dungeoned and stopped believing that's evidence for god.
Ray wrote:
As many of us have said, Ray - it's your ideas and beliefs we're criticising, so it's not bigotry. Saying what you've said makes you an idiot whether you're a christian or not.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 1:05 AM
And due to your atheism, I have to live next door to the guy who's watching snuff porn and scoping his next victim
MEL GIBSON!!! It's only an accident my Captain Morgan's didn't spew all over the monitor.
Encrypt your cardboard box's wireless server. When the GOP Taliban shows up without a FISA warrant, they'll haul you away too.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:06 AM
Wowbagger,
Criticising someone's ideas and beliefs is bigotry. Saying otherwise makes you an idiot.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 1:06 AM
Anonymous, thanks for your demonstration of concern trolling.
Because we didn't know that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 1:07 AM
I have no idea who Kenny is
let's find out if that's true...
NDE's are teh bunk.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 1:07 AM
it's your ideas and beliefs we're criticising
It's his behavior I'm criticizing: trolling, lying, generally be an asshole. That's quite aside from whatever silliness he believes.
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 1:07 AM
That's what I'm here for.Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 17, 2008 1:07 AM
@Ray
Your organised delusion had to give up on Flat-Earth when presented with facts, give up Geo-Centrism when presented with facts, most of you have given up Creationism now presented with facts - reality is hemming in and snuffing out your magical-thinking...
can you hear it? tick tick tick... its coming for you... that's the real world you can hear out there...
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 1:08 AM
Breakfast #623
If hordes of people show up at the RNC convention to protest the poor economy, the mortgage crisis and lender bail out, endless war, rising deficits, warrantless wiretaps, and countless other Republican fiascoes, they can turn around say it's the atheists! They hate us for our religion!
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:09 AM
Can't say that I'm much for vandalism, but cross-burning sounds like fun. I bet your little symbol of death will combust real nicely.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 1:10 AM
Criticising someone's ideas and beliefs is bigotry. Saying otherwise makes you an idiot.
Only an idiot would think so. I don't think even you are that stupid; you're simply lying. And, of course, trolling.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:10 AM
Jeremy,
You are a sick and twisted individual, and sadly, quite representative of most on this blog. I will pray for you (and all the other hellbound here)
Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2008 1:10 AM
"Anonymous, thanks for your demonstration of concern trolling.
Because we didn't know that."
You readin' this thread? Because it's pretty clear that people here don't know it.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:10 AM
Jay Di Silvestri, are you sure you want to compare the desecration of a cracker to the Ku Klux Klan's (a Christian organization) burning of a cross?
I would compare the ridicule of your magical crackers to the drawing of a cartoon of Mohammed. There's no reason to respect your insanity mister. If you Catholic idiots didn't go batshit crazy when somebody refused to eat your Jebus cracker, there would be no reason to make fun of it.
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2008 1:11 AM
Don't be stupid.
And don't treat US as stupid.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 1:12 AM
Jay di Silvestri,
Sigh. Is there some sort of idiot tag-team device out there that you people are hooked up to? Did someone just flash the cracker symbol, batman style, into the clouds as a moron call to arms?
Read the post from the start. All of your stupid non-arguments have already been refuted. Just pretend your name is Ray and we've said what we said to him in the last hour or so to you instead.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 1:12 AM
Because it's pretty clear that people here don't know it.
erroneous conclusion.
stop.
now.
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 1:12 AM
"Criticising someone's ideas and beliefs is bigotry. Saying otherwise makes you an idiot."
You just CRITICIZED wowbaggers idea and belief that all ideas are open to criticism.
You stupid fuck.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 17, 2008 1:14 AM
That is simply insane. That's an argument that no ideas or beliefs should ever be criticized. So the next time someone criticizes evolutionary theory, or atheism, or my taste in pants, I get to accuse them of bigotry?
Kook.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 1:14 AM
I'm trying to help you folk here, not mock you.
Fuck off, you pompous ass.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:15 AM
Ray: "I will pray for you"
That's Christian code for "fuck you".
Fuck you too Ray. You're a shit for brains asshole.
Ray, is there any Catholic bullshit you DON'T believe?
Do you believe everything your pope tells you to believe, no matter how idiotic it is?
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:15 AM
DLux: I have to know...are you in Omaha?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 1:16 AM
Sigh. Is there some sort of idiot tag-team device out there that you people are hooked up to?
that would be the Catholic League, wouldn't it?
Apparently more energy and focus than even muslim extremists, with at least as much ignorance and stupidity thrown in for good measure.
Though I rather thought there were some posts in the thread on desecrating the Qu'ran that would give the Catholic League drones a run for their money.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 17, 2008 1:16 AM
bigot |ˈbigət|
noun
a person who is bigoted See note at religious zealot .
ORIGIN late 16th cent.(denoting a superstitious religious hypocrite): from French, of unknown origin.
Thesaurus
bigot
noun
chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist. See note at zealot .
Sound familiar Ray?
Let he who casts the first stone etc...
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:17 AM
mayhempix,
I am none of these...while your atheistic friends here are...can't handle the title of BIGOT now can you????
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:18 AM
Oh noes, the society is built on bigotry, what with all the debates and education. Seriously, Ray, come back after you've completed grade school.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 17, 2008 1:19 AM
Hey PZ,
Didya know about the squid disection that the Museum Victoria was doing today?
(Link at #377)
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 1:19 AM
Just checking here -- do you have some kind of neurological disorder which prevents you from controlling the number of times your right pinky comes down on the bottom row of your keyboard? Because I don't want to make fun of you if you do.Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:20 AM
Ray, please answer my question. Is there any Catholic bullshit you DON'T believe, or do you buy all of it? I'm just trying to find out how gullible you are.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:21 AM
BobC,
I believe EVERYTHING the Pope says since he is the Vicor of Christ, the heir to St. Peter...you should too, and the first thing you can do is put some soap in your mouth you nasty boy, you....
Posted by: Dustin | July 17, 2008 1:22 AM
Is soap the Catholic code-word for "penis"?Posted by: Kel | July 17, 2008 1:22 AM
@ray
Ray, don't you find it even more weird that you call a cracker your lord?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 1:23 AM
I am none of these...while your atheistic friends here are...can't handle the title of BIGOT now can you????
Do you have a picture of yourself I can add to the definition here?
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 1:23 AM
"Oh noes, the society is built on bigotry, what with all the debates and education. "
Yes, that's why these righteous Christians oppose science at every turn. They're fighting the evil hatred and bigotry that science requires to advance.
Those sick, bigoted scientists with their journals of bigotry - Science and Nature, consisting of nothing but these bigoted scientists continual attempts to oppress each other.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:23 AM
"I believe EVERYTHING the Pope says since he is the Vicor of Christ, the heir to St. Peter"
OK. Thanks for answering my question. Now I'm absolutely certain you're a stupid asshole.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:24 AM
Christ save me. I can no longer handle Ray's capital bigot.
Posted by: False Prophet | July 17, 2008 1:24 AM
Heck, I'll take on Donahue for his Irish-ness: where does an Irishman get off telling a Hispanic how to express his Catholic faith? ;-)
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 1:24 AM
Yeah, we're deep into troll country, now.
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 1:25 AM
"I believe EVERYTHING the Pope says since he is the Vicor of Christ, the heir to St. Peter"
So since he directed that child rapists in the priesthood be hidden and protected from prosecution, you think that's good too?
You sick fuck.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:25 AM
Ray, do you like little boys?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 1:26 AM
do you have some kind of neurological disorder which prevents you from controlling the number of times your right pinky comes down on the bottom row of your keyboard?
strangely enough, I've notice that the insane often misuse ellipses.
I think they are trying to physically demonstrate that their brain is working overtime to spin up irrational defense mechanisms.
You'll note the amount of projection and denial exhibited by them is proportional to the number of misused ellipses.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:27 AM
craig,
That is an outright lie and you know it...if it makes you feel good to falsely impune the Vicar of Christ, then by all means, do what you must (at the cost of your soul)....but please, state facts, not fairy tales!
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 1:27 AM
Ok, I knew Ray was a troll, but now I suspect he's probably not even religious. Just bored.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 17, 2008 1:28 AM
The "superstitious religious hypocrite" known as Ray has put me to sleep... good night all.
Posted by: Max Verret | July 17, 2008 1:29 AM
Re: DKEW #480
It really should be breast-beating. That's a demonstrable display of remorse. After it became known that Mrs. Kroll had been fired there were several posts to the effect that they did not intend to get anyone fired, that they regretted she got fired and some noted that they were going to write to 800-Flowers to ask if they would reconsider. I think that is a kind of demonstration of remorse which would generally come under the definition of breast-beating.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:29 AM
BobC,
As are you.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 17, 2008 1:29 AM
Ray, you're funny.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:30 AM
But Ray is a little boy... Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:30 AM
Brownian, OM,
Thanks!!
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 1:32 AM
Yeah, it's turned into a real moron-a-thon here, and I'm all out of troll-food.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:32 AM
Ray, since you blindly believe everything the pope says, you most certainly believe in the Resurrection. The Resurrection has some problems. Your dead Jebus was decomposing for 3 days, his internal organs were rotting, his corpse was infested with maggots, and the smell was horrible. What I'm wondering is, how can you be so hopelessly stupid to believe this idiotic story? Are you insane? What's your problem, moron?
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:32 AM
The scientific, atheistic hypocrite known as mayhempix has kept me awake....bring it on!!
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:34 AM
BobC,
Of course I believe in the resuurection...don't you? Since Christ was the Son of God, His body was glorified, and thus incapable of decay...read your Bible BobC, you need an education!!
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:34 AM
Ray, I am really serious this time. Stay in school. Learn some grammer and learn how to spell. God knows you need it.
Posted by: mayhempix | July 17, 2008 1:35 AM
...under the definition of breast-beating.
Posted by: Max Verret | July 17, 2008 1:29 AM
I prefer breast-feeding myself.
A final good night.
Posted by: Brian | July 17, 2008 1:36 AM
A few people brought up celiacs. I'm not sure if they were real questions or just snarky comments, but here is an answer: The Church allows people with celiacs two options. They can take a low gluten host or they can choose to receive only the wine if they talk to the priest about it first. Catholic teaching states that the fullness of the body and blood of Christ exists in either of the species of the Eucharist. In other words, if you just take the bread or you just take the wine you get everything you need. This is also convenient for alcoholics. So yes, there is a way for them to "stay in the club." I know that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation but hopefully some of you appreciate the little piece of trivia. Of course, I contribute this information with the hope that you don't start trying to desecrate the wine too.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:37 AM
Jebus was dead for 3 days but he didn't decompose. You're really proud of your stupidity, aren't you?
How about evolution? You accept it? Do you agree people, including Jebus, share an ancestor with the chimps?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 1:38 AM
Learn some grammer and learn how to spell.
Ahem.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:38 AM
Brian,
You do a great job of imparting God's teachings until you get trite and state "This is also convenient for alcoholics. So yes, there is a way for them to "stay in the club."" Perhaos this was just a snarky comment on your part.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:38 AM
Your logic just blew my mind. Why, I haven't heard logic like that since before I thought girls were icky.
Posted by: Kel | July 17, 2008 1:39 AM
I'm calling Poe
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 1:41 AM
Ray is not a bad specimen... but I've seen better.
It's cute to see a creature so starved for affection that even disdain is seen as a balm. You done a good thing, Brownian.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:41 AM
BobC,
Simply put...NO, I do not believe people share an ancestor with the chimps. Do you exibit such faith?
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 1:41 AM
Brian, #686
Thanks for explaining that. That was a point raised by several people over the posts on the topic.
Is that doctrine, though, or just an arrangement made by some (dare I say) liberal priests to their individual communities?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 17, 2008 1:42 AM
For someone who BELIEVES everything the Pope says, Ray sure hasen't bothered to familiarise himself with much of what he has said, in this case the Crimen Sollicitationis he wrote in 2001. Of course, he wasn't the Pope at that time, so Catholics are all off the hook.
Whee! Hooray for moral loopholes!
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 17, 2008 1:45 AM
Pretty sure the Pope does.
Where does that put you? Troll or blasphemer?
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:45 AM
You all are a hoot...I'm sure Satan is licking his chops over the likes of you....but I do have a job (white collar by the way...do know how to manage and spell), so I must sign off....hopefully see all you hell-bound atheists here again soon.
-Ray
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:46 AM
Oh the shame. No, actually it was meant to be ironic. Get it? No? Okay, I'll just stop embarrassing myself now.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 1:46 AM
I'm calling Poe
Poe? I'm not certain Ray's passed the Turing Test yet.
Yet, that's rather the point of Poe. There is nothing so batshit insane that somebody sincere won't actually shout it at us with multiple exclamation marks. Mock 'em all, I say.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | July 17, 2008 1:46 AM
I tried the Wordle thing again (click name for link) and this time, using the url for this post rather than the main page, get visible 'Crackers' (with and without capitalization). Still no 'fucktard', though... I wonder if Wordle's algorithm includes a profanity filter?
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 1:47 AM
Nope Ray, it's a documented fact, the pope authored a policy of protecting priests from accusations.
You're funny, Ray, but I doubt you're a Catholic.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 17, 2008 1:48 AM
Ah. Obviously, Ray doesn't believe EVERYTHING the Pope says.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 1:48 AM
I'm calling Poe
Once again, you have Poe's Law backwards. You can only use it to argue that something isn't a parody of religious thought, not that it is, because no matter how ludicrous the thought is, there's someone who actually believes it.
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 1:49 AM
Born, raised, and practicing Craig. And your accusation is quite false.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:50 AM
Ray is a creationist.
Ray, you're the reason I ridicule Christians. Your denial of evolution requires the rejection of almost every branch of science. To be a creationist a person has to go way out of his way to know nothing. I never meant a creationist who wasn't willfully ignorant.
The problem with creationists is not their hopeless stupidity. Their problem is their never ending attacks against science education, and their brainwashing of young gullible children. The creationists are good for nothing but slowing down human progress and the world would be better off to be rid of them.
By the way your previous pope accepted evolution. Apparently you only agree with the pope when he invokes the Christian Sky Fairy.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 1:53 AM
If you're a celiac alcoholic, that's God's way of telling you that he doesn't want you.
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 1:53 AM
Actually the NEW Pope doesn't believe in evolution, if I remember correctly.
The OLD Pope John Paul II did, issued an encyclical or whatever the fuck they're called stated that evolution had enough proof it must be considered as fact. This after Paul whateverthefuck had proclaimed it as a reasonable theory back in the 60s.
So, since Popes are infallible, that means that up until a few years ago, our ancestors were shared with chimps... but *poof*, reality got changed recently. Not our idea of what happened, but literally WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
Amazing shit, that popitude stuff.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 1:54 AM
I'm sure Satan is licking his chops over the likes of you...
Satan has chops? And a tongue? And, I suppose, hooves and horns and is red.
These cretins want us to respect these beliefs?
Posted by: themadlolscientist, FCD | July 17, 2008 1:54 AM
As long as you don't harm or endanger any kittehs while you're at it, it's all good. Kittehs have the right of way at all times. It's an Internet tradition that, sad to say, some people aren't aware of.
=^.^=
Posted by: shonny | July 17, 2008 1:55 AM
Imagine being represented by that braying Foley fool.
But then again, see what the US is represented by . . .
Posted by: kubenzi | July 17, 2008 1:55 AM
wow wow WOW
are you people kidding me? i thought you were my rational cohorts.
being a citizen of Denver,the city is getting prepared for protests on an epic fucking leveal.and that is the democrat convention
i will assure you right now,and please,mark my words,pointing out atheist protesters at the republican convention would be like pointing out WALDO AS HONG KIONG BURNS TO THE GROUND
youve got to be kidding me
Posted by: Brian | July 17, 2008 1:58 AM
Ray,
I mentioned the thing about comments to simply point out that they share a similar burden as those who suffer from celiacs. As for the "staying in the club" part, I was quoting a previous post. Yes, it was probably snarky but it was actually aimed at those arguing with you. I take it back.
Wowbagger,
Thats the teaching of the US Catholic Bishops. My understanding is that there is still some confusion between the US teaching and the teaching of Rome, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on that. Since you bring it up, the arrangement of (liberal) priests is to consecrate a rice wafer. This is against the rules that state the host must be made of wheat. Sorry, I don't remember why it should be wheat though.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 17, 2008 1:58 AM
...and the Pope's own beliefs.
Uh-oh, SpaghettiOs!
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 1:58 AM
I need a fix cuz I'm going down
Down to the bits that I left uptown
I need a fix cuz I'm going down
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Mother Superior jumped the gun
Happineth
Ith a warm thyberpithtol
Happineth
Ith a warm thyberpithtol
Type type post post
Posted by: Futility | July 17, 2008 2:00 AM
The same argument could be used to defend bank-robbers from being incarcerated since 'their children might have no food tonight.' You really don't get it, do you? The husband made the death threats using his wife's email account (who apparently is not that sorry about that either). All people did here was forward it to the company which decided to fire her. Nobody here is responsible for sending the threats nor firing her. Actions do have consequences, as this moron catholic husband should have known! It appears that the moral guidance given by your holy text is not worth much. Almost all atheists I know have a better developed moral compass than a lot of religious people I know (but some Xtians do have a good moral compass, but this came not about by the holy book but by what they were taught by others!)
Xtians do seem to have trouble with metaphors.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 2:00 AM
Always amazes me. When I first read about the catholic church at the age of four, I seriously thought that I was reading a piece of fiction.
Posted by: Andrew B. | July 17, 2008 2:02 AM
On the matter of celiacs and the crackers, since it keeps coming up... The crackers apparently must be made of wheat. But! Catholics believe that, since Jesus is risen, his body and blood are inseparable, and thus contained in both bread and wine. So you could just drink the wine and be ok. If you're a celiac with an allergy to grapes or alcohol, though... tough! It's hell for you!
Oh, and for crying out loud - nobody claims that you can tell the difference between jebusitized crackers and regular crackers. My personal favorite desecration scenario - Draw faces and tape speech balloons to 'em. Have them act out little plays.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 17, 2008 2:02 AM
Troll Ray blathers:
And due to your atheism, I have to live next door to the guy who's watching snuff porn and scoping his next victim. When I complain about this, I'm told "don't watch it" or "turn the channel."
That's quite a consequence! Which other Catholic is forced to live next door to a snuff porn watcher because of my atheisim? I'm jealous! Ken! Where do I get my Catholic?
Wait a minute, Troll Ray, "don't watch it or turn the channel"? You're watching snuff porn too!?!
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 2:02 AM
"Satan has chops? And a tongue? And, I suppose, hooves and horns and is red."
Ya know, I've sometimes wondered why these dipshits don't boycott Underwood Deviled Ham since it has a picture of ***SATAN*** on the package.
Reminds me of back when I worked for Fisher-Price and got a call from a woman in Texas, upset that she walked into her kids room and saw the Activity Center (what some call a busy box) in the crib, and since a spinner had a star on it, and the star happened to be positioned upside-down at the moment, she wanted a refund.
Apparently an upside-down star is a "satanic symbol."
We also got tons of calls because churches were circulating memos saying that one kids' tape has lyrics "seek the devil" in them.
(It was an old, traditional nonsense rhyme and the words were "seek a double.")
There is no underestimating the level of stupidity the religious can display.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 17, 2008 2:04 AM
Yep - the new pope has replaced the old vatican's chief astronomer with someone more wishy-washy on evolution.
Link
Smacks more of typical earthly political machinations that divine inspirations.
Funny that...
Posted by: bad Jim | July 17, 2008 2:04 AM
We're not dealing with normal Catholics here. Donohue, oddly, appears to reject evolution, so he's definite on the fringe.
I'm sure that most Catholics rank wafer abuse well below altar boy abuse (and lots of former altar boys confess to wafer abuse).
I wonder, though, if P.Z. isn't hoaxing us. He's going to subject stacks of unconsecrated wafers to unspecified acts of desecration and then say, "Hah hah, fooled you."
He probably has been sent consecrated wafers, though (we his minions are a devious and resourceful sort) but he may conceivably have been sent unconsecrated wafers by equally crafty mackerel snappers (call it a denial of service attack). Are they all worth desecrating?
Perhaps some consecrated hosts arrived from trusted minions which could be taken seriously... except, of course, they couldn't. "Hoc est corpus." Seriously?
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 17, 2008 2:05 AM
Craig, the devil deviled the double.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 2:05 AM
The OLD Pope John Paul II did, issued an encyclical or whatever the fuck they're called stated that evolution had enough proof it must be considered as fact
There's no such thing as "enough proof"; the proper phrase is "enough evidence". He accepted evolution "as an effectively proven fact."
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 2:05 AM
Jesus is risen? crackers? there's a yeast joke in there somewhere.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 2:06 AM
thanks for the link, CF.
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 2:07 AM
'There's no such thing as "enough proof"; the proper phrase is "enough evidence". He accepted evolution "as an effectively proven fact.""
yeah, yeah, fine, annoyance machine. Gimme a fucking break, it's late and I'm dizzy.
Posted by: ed | July 17, 2008 2:07 AM
I read all 481 comments.Wow,all over a fucking cracker!
Posted by: Jason | July 17, 2008 2:11 AM
Peace be with you all. My name is Jason. I'm 20 and I am Roman Catholic. First of all I think it's important to note that I am not here to condemn anyone. I think the problem here is that people just don't understand. The Catholic Church no longer says that if you are not Catholic you are going to hell. Infact we have come to say that we as the Church founded by Christ (Who by the way is a historical figure) do hold the fullness of truth but that there are truths in other Christian denominations and even in other religions. God is the source of all good. God is love and there is definately good happening through other religions. Because there is that good we believe that there too is Christ. Even atheists, which I assume most of you are, do good things. I'm sure most of you have family and friends who you care about. I'm sure that most of you would prefer to help people rather than hurt them. This is also a good and thus God is in that whether He is recognized or not. So as a Church we believe that you don't necessarily have to be Catholic to go to heaven. Now with the most holy Eucharist we believe and profess that the bread and wine at the words of consecration become for us the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. That host becomes Christ. Our God is there with us in that moment. He loves us so much that He was willing to humble Himself by becoming one of us in everything but sin. At the last supper the night before He died he took the bread gave it to His disciples and said, "take this all of you and eat it. This is my body, which will be given up for you."(Refering to His death on the cross.) After the supper had ended He took the cup. Again He gave thanks and praise to the Father. He gave it to His disciples and said, "take this all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of my blood. The blood of the new and everlasting covanent. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins will be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."(Again He is refering to His blood being shed on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins.) But He also said to remember Him by doing the same thing that He did. So when you refer to the consecrated host as a "cracker" and threaten to abuse it and defile it to us as Catholics you must know that you are doing those things to Christ. He is present there in that host. It is a spiritual presence. We can not see Him. The host does not change physically, but we believe He is there. That is why it is offensive. By the way there have been instances where the host has actually transformed into actual flesh or even pieces of a heart. And the wine has changed to real blood. There was once a priest who did not believe in the real presence and as he raised the host after consecration, it became a piece of an actual heart. Lets just say that afterwards he believed. You can look up the miracles online and I would highly recommend it. It's very interesting. If you have any questions let me know. God Bless.
Posted by: bastion | July 17, 2008 2:14 AM
On Friday the Catholic League reported that Thomas E. Foley, a Virginia delegate to the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Minneapolis has asked that increased security be considered for the event in light of Myers' threat to acquire and desecrate the Eucharist.
Wait...so...the Republicans are having a mass at their convention???
Or are the Republicans perhaps bringing consecrated hosts to the convention with them? No, no, that can't be. Those security nuns would be tackling them 'em before they got out of the church, especially now that the threat level in churches has been raised.
So, what the ????
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 2:15 AM
Jason, yes, we get Homoiousianism.
It's old stuff.
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 2:17 AM
"So, what the ????"
Maybe its just because, what with god being all desecrated and stuff, he won't be able to protect them anymore?
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 17, 2008 2:17 AM
Jason #728
Jesus is a historical fact! The Jesus of the Bible? Where is your evidence? What have you been eating, crackers?
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 2:17 AM
I think some of them aren't consecrated. Catholic News Agency said he got one wafer on Friday, but no services were held from the time he first asked for them (earlier that week) until Friday, so I don't see how they would have been consecrated. On the other hand, if he received some early this week, then may be.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 2:17 AM
Jason, I was almost starting to think you were not too deluded for a Catholic until I read your "By the way there have been instances where the host has actually transformed into actual flesh or even pieces of a heart. And the wine has changed to real blood."
That's really nuts man. Really batshit crazy. Do you know what the word 'gullible' means?
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 2:17 AM
Troll Ray
I will not countenance Ray Troll being maligned in these threads!
Ken! Where do I get my Catholic?
Dunno. Mel Gibson won't be streaming porn off of my router, whether he tries to tap my pre-N Ankh-Morpork, or my B&G Lancre. That would require numeracy, and some really patient decryption software.
If you click on my name, that guy I'm pictured with drinking beer in Berkeley is not a Catholic, but I think most of us here would be honored to have him as a neighbor.
Posted by: clinteas | July 17, 2008 2:18 AM
Ray is a fake and a troll.Same BS about public school teachers abusing kids like under different name in the cracker thread.Then again,who cares.
And still flogging the dead horse.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 2:19 AM
Jason,
We've had all of this explained to us many times; by many commenters on many posts. I don't think there's anyone here who isn't aware of what you, as a catholic, believe happens.
And that isn't the point. It's not even close to the point. Please read the post from the start (or, better yet, start at the very beginning with PZ's first post on the issue) and save yourself a lot of time and energy.
Posted by: eugene_X | July 17, 2008 2:20 AM
Wear it with pride: PZ "Cyberpistol" Meyers. Got a nice ring to it, don't it?
You should look into getting a sidekick. Call him "the Empirical kid."
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 2:21 AM
BTW, Jason, I was once an (supposedly Catholic yet de-facto atheist) altar-boy back in the day. I recognise the snippets of liturgy in your post - I feel sad about those neurons I waste on retaining guff such as that.
Pray for me, will ya? ;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 2:24 AM
nice example of stream of consciousness writing, Jason.
why do you believe in miracles?
Posted by: clinteas | July 17, 2008 2:24 AM
Jason=Ray=Kenny
Off to watch the Pope on TV.
Posted by: bastion | July 17, 2008 2:26 AM
At #62, Kobra said:
Is a cyberpistol a way to compensate for a small e-penis?
Ah, that might explain Foley's concerns about P.Z.'s being cocked.
Posted by: kubenzi | July 17, 2008 2:28 AM
btw PZ,im your cyberholster
you sexy thang
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 2:29 AM
So remind me the point of being a christian again.
But not humble enough to convert me personally.
Being offended doesn't mean you are right.
Okay, but did you know that pigs could talk? Don't believe me? Well, there have been instances where pigs have been seen talking. There were movies made about it. Let's just say that after watching the movie I believed.
Posted by: Brian | July 17, 2008 2:31 AM
Mr. Morales,
Homoiousianism is very old indeed. It dates to the 4th century and comes out of the Arian controversy. Of course, Jason wasn't saying anything about the relationship between the substance of God the Father and Jesus the Son so I don't understand why it was introduced here. In fact, I don't see how it applies at all.
This controversy has been wonderful because it introduced me to the scienceblogs. I've spent a lot of time reading these and I find them brilliant. Some of the comments however are disappointing. So many people (on both sides of the arguments) seem to be so sure of the things they write. Unfortunately, so many people are clearly talking out their asses. In my opinion, a good dose of humility and civility would do much to truly advance intellectual conversation. Just my two cents.
Posted by: Michael | July 17, 2008 2:32 AM
This is precisely the kind of deranged hysteria we have to protest against, I'm afraid.
lol, they are certainly not afraid of PZ and it's not the reason for increased security either, as PZ would have too much too loose if you tried an emotional stunt concerning the wafer. They are worried about someone in his choir that might try something foolish. A new breed? Sometimes it seems like all playground talking to me...
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 17, 2008 2:32 AM
@Jason #728
Yeah yeah yeah - sat through all that when I was being brain-washed for my confirmation ...ummm...27 years ago.
It sure sounded like a crock-of-shite then, and it most certainly is a crock-of-shite now.
I hope you cut and paste all that crud, it'd be a shame to have typed all that for so little result.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 2:36 AM
Brian, did I say Homoiousianism?
D'oh!
Of course, I meant the Doctrine of the Homoousian.
(still, there's only one iota of difference... ;)
Posted by: wrpd | July 17, 2008 2:37 AM
Ray said:
"oh, aren't you clever with the coat hanger quote...what we wish for is people to commit to sacramental marriages and to stop the slaughter of the unborn. Big difference."
I fail to see the connection between marriage, sacramental otherwise, and abortion.
Speaking of alcoholics I have a feeling that Ray has been sipping communion wine all night and is now completely detached from reality--I know it was a very short trip for him.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 2:39 AM
Michael, watch out for those homophones. They slip past your guard very easily!
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 17, 2008 2:39 AM
Charlie Foxtrot: Well said!
Posted by: Brian | July 17, 2008 2:43 AM
John,
Its funny that you stumbled upon that little 'i' that makes so much difference. So much ink and blood has been spilled about that little letter in the course of Christian history. It just goes to show that there are so many better and ridiculous things to attack the church for. I fear I've strayed into the history of theology a bit too much. I can't help it. It fascinates me. I'll direct future comments back to the foolish comments of Thomas Foley.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 17, 2008 2:43 AM
"You say you don't hate Christians, yet you call our Lord a cracker...need I say more."
Yes, Ray. You need to explain to us how your Lord is any different than all the other crackers out there! By every test we can POSSIBLY imagine, YOUR GOD IS A CRACKER. This isn't a matter of belief. It's a fact. Nobody can tell the difference! Not even you!
If you're so motivated, instead of spending all this time harassing us here, how about you go take one MILLION dollars away from a lousy atheist named James Randi? Show him a wafer turning into God and give his money to the church. Prove us wrong. Laugh at all of us. Or maybe even save our souls (I know I'd be convinced.)
Here's his website: http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html
Do you REALLY believe wafers turn into the flesh of Christ? If you did, you wouldn't be here arguing with us. You'd be getting that million dollars for God!
Posted by: wrpd | July 17, 2008 2:45 AM
Jason, please talk to your priest about transubstantiation.
Posted by: Pandora Neurospora | July 17, 2008 2:45 AM
"Thank God for world youth day and the Pope's participation. With the millions of worldwide youth that are attending, we can only hope that the next generation will stamp out the angry, hate-filled atheistic voices such as PZ Myers and the respondants we see here. The Spirit is alive!!"
Sadly there are a few things kinda wrong with your spiel. Millions wont be attending World Youth Day. In fact only 500,000 are expected to attend the last big event. So even if they do have more unregistered 'pilgrims' attend, It would be highly unlikely to reach a million let alone millions of 'youth'.
Then there is your proclamation of 'The Spirit is alive'. I don't know about other parts but in Australia it turns out that Australia's youth are turning more and more away from religion and embracing things like spirituality, atheism, humanism etc.
Oh and while we are thanking 'god', lets also thank him for the congestion around Sydney, the amount of money being spent by the NSW Government, the APEC style security (though those stupid laws have been repelled the fences do remain) and the rudeness of the pilgrims which is all of result of World Youth Day. =)
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 2:48 AM
By the way there have been instances where the host has actually transformed into actual flesh or even pieces of a heart. And the wine has changed to real blood. There was once a priest who did not believe in the real presence and as he raised the host after consecration, it became a piece of an actual heart. Lets just say that afterwards he believed.
Jason, I cannot respect someone so dishonest as to state such things as if they knew they were true and so arrogant as to think anyone would believe it on their say so. "Let's just say" that your head is full of maggots and that's why you're so stupid and so sure of absurdities.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 2:50 AM
I didn't "stumble" on it, Brian.
The history of Christianity correlates to the history of societal control.
Propaganda is not a new concept.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 17, 2008 2:56 AM
No, that's what all the other religions do. I know it looks exactly the same as what the Catholic Church does, but the similarities are restricted to the accidents, not the substance.
That totally reminds me of something....
Posted by: Richard Walker | July 17, 2008 2:58 AM
@David Carson Nice one! Much better than my plaintive cry to "leave the cracker aloooooone *sob*".
@John Morales don't bee sew homophonic :)
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 3:01 AM
Aww, Richard. Wanna take all the fun outta my life?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 3:03 AM
So many people (on both sides of the arguments) seem to be so sure of the things they write. Unfortunately, so many people are clearly talking out their asses.
False equivalence and multiple overgeneralizations. Some people are sure of the things they write because they're knowledgeable and double check their claims. That you seem quite sure of what you write about Catholicism is not a negative against you, so cut the hypocrisy.
In my opinion, a good dose of humility and civility would do much to truly advance intellectual conversation.
If you value humility so much, you should practice it instead of lecturing others about it. As for civility, trolling and lying are uncivil, to which contempt is an appropriate response. We do have civil, intelligent conversations around here when not infested with trolls and liars; it's a huge (and arrogant) mistake to judge this place by what goes on in troll threads, especially in the last few days.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 3:07 AM
I read all 481 comments.Wow,all over a fucking cracker!
You seem to have missed 6-7 thousand previous comments on the subject.
Posted by: DrFrank | July 17, 2008 3:09 AM
Wait, if some people in the US are descended from Irish people, then why are there still Irish people?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 3:09 AM
yeah, yeah, fine, annoyance machine. Gimme a fucking break, it's late and I'm dizzy.
Fuck you for your pathetically defensive overreaction to my making a simple point.
Posted by: Brian | July 17, 2008 3:22 AM
Truth Machine,
I'm sorry to have upset you. That certainly wasn't my intention. I didn't mean to make a "false equivalence". I didn't meant to imply that those people are necessarily one and the same. I hope you do see how the combination of those two things could be frustrating for me. It makes it difficult to tell whats right and whats nonsense.
I certainly haven't meant to lie or troll but to be honest I don't really know what trolling is. I started out by trying to answer some questions. Perhaps I got carried away and overstepped my bounds. If thats the case I apologize.
You make a very good point about not judging the comments on PZ Myers based on whats occurred in the past few days. Surely this is not normal. I've enjoyed reading past posts from before this all started. I hoped to continue to be a part of the conversation after this nonsense died down but I don't want to upset anyone. I'll keep my thoughts to myself.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 17, 2008 3:26 AM
Ah, Ray's just too boring. Bring back Jenn with her crazy sexual hangups and dominatrix talk, she was fun.
Other random bits of crazy stew:
"Other than that, turn the Eucharists you have recieved over to the nearest Catholic Church and get a life."
STEP AWAY FROM THE CRACKERS AND NO ONE GETS HURT!
"The Lamb of God takes away the sins of the humble but his wrath is upon the wicked ones. It is interesting why would anyone do violence to a lamb!"
See that's why you gotta be wary of Jesus, he'll give you the big sorrowful lamb-eyes and you'll think he's just a helpless little thing, and then the second your back is turned...BAM! Out with the wrath.
"There is absolutely nothing you can do to the Body of Christ. There is nothing that could be worse than what He suffered during His Passion and what He continues to suffer today at the hands of His children."
Yeah. That's what we've been saying all along, in those moments in which we have, for the sake of argument, taken the position that the Eucharist is somehow real. So what's the big deal with taking one out of a church? Oh yeah, of course, it's spooky stories and mind control. Gotcha.
"The desecration of the Eucharist, the body of the one God, is extremely imprudent, regardless of what you believe or what point you are trying to make."
I don't think anyone is going to heed this advice, but seriously, crazy Catholics? The more you pile on in this manner, the more likely PZ is going to do...something.
Somewhat bigger fish to fry - Rooke:
"His insults represent the most socially inept form of moral turpitude conceivable."
I find it impossible to take seriously anyone who, with a straight face, uses the word "turpitude".
"PZ ignores the most basic ground rule of debate."
Oh really? A bunch of thuggish members of one of the most populous religions on Earth, one backed by a rich multinational organization, assault and threaten to expel from college one of their own for not following one of their silly weekly rituals to the letter? And now you somehow think you deserve a proper debate?!
This one's for you, Pete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXfiSU_wqE
Posted by: Richard | July 17, 2008 3:33 AM
Speaking of substance and accidents, here's a good article on transubstantiation.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307iron.asp
And, on the Eucharist in general
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
Cheers
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 17, 2008 3:38 AM
Clinteas @ #741
Got the day off so I'm watching the hysteria on Channel 7 whilst preparing my (immodestly self named) famous beef burgundy. Nearly peed my pants at the fact the satellite keeps dicking around and the live coverage is being blacked out, coincidentally every time they go in for a close up of that smug bastard's face. Seems like there may be a God after all- but he definately ain't a Catholic.
Posted by: Tenorino | July 17, 2008 3:41 AM
Paranoia and fear mongering... isn't that the basic republican electoral strategy?
Posted by: bad Jim | July 17, 2008 3:42 AM
We're not dealing with normal Catholics here. Donohue, oddly, appears to reject evolution, so he's definite on the fringe.
I'm sure that most Catholics rank wafer abuse well below altar boy abuse (and lots of former altar boys confess to wafer abuse).
I wonder, though, if P.Z. isn't hoaxing us. He's going to subject stacks of unconsecrated wafers to unspecified acts of desecration and then say, "Hah hah, fooled you."
He probably has been sent consecrated wafers, though (we his minions are a devious and resourceful sort) but he may conceivably have been sent unconsecrated wafers by equally crafty mackerel snappers (call it a denial of service attack). Are they all worth desecrating?
Perhaps some consecrated hosts arrived from trusted minions which could be taken seriously... except, of course, they couldn't. "Hoc est corpus." Seriously?
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 3:44 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that a Christian calling an ATHEIST a "bigot" is just hilariously funny?
By definition, a "bigot" is a "religious hypocrite."
So, IMPOV "bigot" is a much more fitting characterisation for a Christian. But certainly NOT for an Atheist.
Posted by: bric | July 17, 2008 3:45 AM
Let's keep this in perspective chaps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYg_oSEV-XM&feature=related
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 3:45 AM
I'm sorry to have upset you.
You're jumping to a conclusion and personalizing things. You put out a rather generalized criticism against a whole slew of unspecified persons, and I responded specifically you you and your comments; that's all. Haven't you ever been in a conversation where not everyone agreed with you, and someone called you out on what you said, without being "upset"?
I hoped to continue to be a part of the conversation after this nonsense died down but I don't want to upset anyone. I'll keep my thoughts to myself.
Your way overreacting, and you really should work on that fragile ego. Feel free to share your thoughts, but you might want to consider just how valid they are first if you're so afraid of someone having a negative reaction. Best though that you lose the fear.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 3:48 AM
"you you" -> "to you", "Your way" -> "You're way". Sigh.
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 3:49 AM
@ DrFrank #763
Wait, if some people in the US are descended from Irish people, then why are there still Irish people?
I suggest you watch Monty Python's Meaning of Life.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 17, 2008 3:53 AM
Jason #728 This seems to be a common theme with evangelistic nut cases. They hear a cute or fantastic story and believe it true without any evidence. "Cracker Becomes Quivering Heart Flesh"! Read all about it! "Mary Appears on Freeway Wall"! Tune in at 6 o'clock for the full story! "One of Man's Nine Crushed Vertebrae Healed by Praying to St. Nick" (Weren't his prayers good enough to prevent this from happening in the first place)?
These kind of stories seem to make the rounds in the chain e-mails. The comments indicate they believe them. Why do they get wigged out when I laugh at them? Why do they think I get wigged out when when one of these wackos is elected President with access to The Button?
Posted by: aleph1=c | July 17, 2008 4:02 AM
@Chris #775
I think DrFrank is making a joke about the "if we came from monkeys..." thing. I've seen The Meaning of Life, but I don't remember the reference. Please elaborate.
Posted by: clinteas | July 17, 2008 4:06 AM
Bride of Shrek,
highlights of the day : Kevin Rudd saying "Your holiness",Pope blessing the guy with 3 cancers,sure thats going to fix him,and oh,surprise,we didnt get an apology for child abuse after all !
Some hot chicks in the crowds tho from what I could tell,and to think they all have to swallow !
Whats the best pick up line with them I wonder : "Can I put my host in your tabernacle?"
Posted by: Raiko | July 17, 2008 4:09 AM
Irony. It hits you like a brick!
Posted by: Pandora Neurospora | July 17, 2008 4:10 AM
'No, but I did snort tea out of my nose when I read this. Come on, someone make an animation!'
If someone does make an animation, it totally must have 'Bad Case Of Loving You (Doctor, Doctor)' by Robert Palmer playing during it. It would be...awesome.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 17, 2008 4:10 AM
I stand by my argument that any decent god would be made of cheese and not crackers. Cheese would go so much better with the wine.
Posted by: Lulu | July 17, 2008 4:12 AM
Accost someone taking the sacrament to the sick? Ha. Actually, the best way to secure a Host would be to go through the communion line, receive the wafer, place it in your mouth (hold it lightly with your teeth to keep it from touching your tongue or the roof of your mouth), and transfer it to your hands when you're back at your pew, kneeling and pretending to pray (hands in prayer position in front of your mouth).
Or you could leave the church immediately after receiving the Host (a lot of actual Catholics do) and make a run for it.
Or snatch some from the tabernacle. They're not guarded. Yet.
Posted by: Raiko | July 17, 2008 4:13 AM
Addon:
The wafers may not be laying around, but you can surely, surely get to them rather easily - pre-packaged with juice!
http://www.kingdom.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=CCW210
Posted by: Pandora Neurospora | July 17, 2008 4:14 AM
Kevin Rudd saying "Your holiness"
Isn't Kevin Rudd Catholic?
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 4:14 AM
It's OK Brian, I'm sure some priests provide "cheese*".
* OK, smegma, but what the hey. Close enough.
Posted by: aleph1=c | July 17, 2008 4:17 AM
Just thought of a new word: smegmata
Posted by: pcarini | July 17, 2008 4:18 AM
Fr. (fucker?) J clear back at #37
Cheers? Cheers?! C'mon.. you could at least be man enough to end your rant without the empty goddamn complementary closing at the end. I don't care if it was intended to be ironic, it just underscores the dishonest, insulting nature of the entire post. "Fuck off and die" would have fit the rest of it perfectly, but with your delicate sensibilities you might prefer "rot in hell for eternity" instead. This passive-agressive "Cheers" shit just gives the impression that you have trouble making eye-contact when talking to people.
While I'm on the topic of style, Ray's excessive use of ellipses makes it look like he gets winded after typing a sentence (I have a good imagination).
Posted by: Brian | July 17, 2008 4:20 AM
I did jump to the conclusion that you were upset because of the manner in which you responded. You seemed to misinterpret my original comment and then launch personal attacks by calling me a liar. That seemed rash. You criticize me for jumping to conclusions but you have done that yourself. You assume I have a fragile ego and that I'm afraid of people reacting poorly to my comments. That cannot be further from the truth. I don't care what you think of me or how you react. I offered an apology to try to appease you. I find your comments to be quite rude and filled with far too much name calling. I don't think that provides a healthy environment for true discussion. I was hoping a few platitudes would soften you up for the good of everyone. I'm sure you'll tell me why that was foolish of me and I will concede the win to you because I've wasted too much time already.
Posted by: the strangest brew | July 17, 2008 4:21 AM
#728
"By the way there have been instances where the host has actually transformed into actual flesh or even pieces of a heart. And the wine has changed to real blood. There was once a priest who did not believe in the real presence and as he raised the host after consecration, it became a piece of an actual heart. Lets just say that afterwards he believed. You can look up the miracles online and I would highly recommend it. It's very interesting"
And yet you wonder why religion is criticised...
If you believe that nonsense then you really are screwed...by the way people lie even priests and especially pseudo religious web sites...in fact religion would collapse if the truth really were told instead of the bullshit that passes for dogmatic indoctrination...
That is why their are so many damaged and twisted bunnies in western religion...they know they have to make greater and greater claims of sensationalism to keep hood winking the hood winked...it warps what little brain they have left you see...
How you waste your intelligence is your choice...consider maybe not inflicting your delusional claptrap on the rational...that might be a valuable clue as to how to behave in society...'Thou shalt not bear false witness'...methinks even Christians must abide by that tenant...is it not in their constitution or something? or is being a lying sunbeam for jebus...quite acceptable then? ...
Check a few facts before claiming nonsense...it might help in your defence...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 17, 2008 4:21 AM
Is a cyberpistol more dangerous than a Holy Handgrenade?
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 4:27 AM
"Fuck you for your pathetically defensive overreaction to my making a simple point."
Okay, I take it back. You're actually a charming fellow.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 4:28 AM
Brian @788: Probably because you not au fait with Pharyngula.
Think of it as a moderated (as much as PZ moderates) alt. usenet group, with lots of visitors and many regulars.
Thing is, there's no FAQ. Lurking some (or backreading) will enlighten you.
Posted by: pcarini | July 17, 2008 4:29 AM
the strangest brew @ #789 "[...ellipsis...filled...post...]"
Do you have to catch your breath after each sentence fragment, or what? Are you quote-mining your own thoughts?
(I was just making fun of Ray for the same, so I can't justify letting you off the hook.)
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 4:30 AM
Oh, and fuck you too for reacting so defensively to my snarky acknowledgment of your pedantry. :)
Gosh, this is fun!
Feh.
Posted by: Rayven Alandria | July 17, 2008 4:32 AM
Is that a cyberpistol in your packet or are you just happy to see me?
Posted by: aleph1=c | July 17, 2008 4:32 AM
the strangest brew wrote @789:
Christians must abide by that tenant
So, Christians, it's not enough that the snuff porn-watching atheist lives next door. Now he actually lives in your house!
Sorry, tsb, couldn't help it.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 4:33 AM
I was hoping a few platitudes would soften you up for the good of everyone.
This, like everything else in your ridiculous response, demonstrates a fundamentally dishonest personality.
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 4:36 AM
What is interesting about the newly discovered Cat-Lick kooks, is their intense oppression-envy of Black Folks and probably Jews as well.
On my you tube site I got spammed by a Kook-lick with all the arguments we've been hearing.
First, 'If this were about Blacks or Gays, there would be an uproar!!!" I pointed him to proper links where I had slammed Larry Craig and Ted Haggard, also Islamotards, also African American Homophobic Baptards.
THEN, the same guy accused me of being KKK. These Kook-licks love to pull the KKK card because they think it puts them in the same oppression boat with Blacks and Jews.
However the KKK dropped Catholics from their Hate list some time ago, and Catlicks are now welcome to join, so there's a little more irony in the fire on the cross at the cracker roast for ya.
You Tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 4:37 AM
Okay, I take it back. You're actually a charming fellow.
Your non sequiturs are as good as anything Ray could muster.
Oh, and fuck you too for reacting so defensively to my snarky acknowledgment of your pedantry. :)
My response was appropriate; yours was not.
Feh.
Indeed.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 17, 2008 4:37 AM
Paul is the voice from the outer world! He is the Mahdi! - Dustin
Not only that, but the Once and Future King, the Maitreya Buddha, and the Kwisatz Haderach! All Hail our Tentacled Overlord!
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 4:39 AM
Think of it as a moderated (as much as PZ moderates)
Other than rare disemvowelings and rarer banishment to the dungeon, he doesn't; this is nothing like a moderated group.
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 4:43 AM
@aleph1=c #777
Referring to the "every sperm is sacred" scene.
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 4:45 AM
#724
No actually there is no Leavity to be found
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I totally cracker myself up.
You tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 4:45 AM
You seemed to misinterpret my original comment and then launch personal attacks by calling me a liar.
Now I understand your "I certainly haven't meant to lie or troll" ... you are so fucking stupid, insecure, and/or self-centered that you totally misinterpreted me as saying that you were a troll and liar; that's quite amazing.
Posted by: bastion | July 17, 2008 4:47 AM
At #707 craig said:
So, since Popes are infallible, that means that up until a few years ago, our ancestors were shared with chimps... but *poof*, reality got changed recently. Not our idea of what happened, but literally WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
You may be relieved to know that the Pope isn't always infallible. The Catholics believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of doctrines of faith or morals. http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Otherwise, he's just as fallible as the rest of us.
Now, doesn't that make you feel much better?
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 4:50 AM
tm @ 801: True. Still, it gets some of the flavour across.
I wonder if Brian is old enough to have been through the hurly-burly of ye olde Usenet?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 4:52 AM
You may be relieved to know that the Pope isn't always infallible.
Ray doesn't think so.
The Catholics believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of doctrines of faith or morals. http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
You've confused Catholic doctrine with what "the Catholics believe".
Posted by: pcarini | July 17, 2008 4:55 AM
Also, in re: #805
Are you saying that the Catholic church doesn't claim the origin of mankind as one of its "doctrines of faith"? I'm not doubting your claim, I just want to know to remedy my own ignorance on the matter.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 4:56 AM
I wonder if Brian is old enough to have been through the hurly-burly of ye olde Usenet?
It's hard to tell since he pretended to have a very different attitude than he actually does, to "soften [me] up for the good of everyone". Boy was that dumb. He says "I'm sure you'll tell me why that was foolish of me and I will concede the win to you because I've wasted too much time already" -- better if the dishonest git would concede the point because it's so obviously true.
Posted by: Nino | July 17, 2008 4:57 AM
I just visited the Catholic League website to get their angle on things.
An in their post "HYSTERIA MARKS MYERS AND HIS ILK" dated July 11th i found this beaut:
"....Myers, who claims expertise in studying zebrafish, has quite a following among the King Kong Theory of Creation gang. ...."
Well, I am used to evolution beeing called "Darwenism" for better propaganda value. But seeing it called the "King Kong Theory of Creation" realy made my day !
What a crude and primitive attempt at propaganda....
And a clear indecator as to the intelectual levle these people are on.....
Posted by: aleph1=c | July 17, 2008 4:59 AM
Yeah, the Every Sperm is Sacred scene! Weren't they English, not Irish? I guess the whole point is thet they were Catholic. I also like the exploding fat guy (it's wafer thin!) and Eric Idle's Penis Song.
Posted by: Muffin | July 17, 2008 5:02 AM
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in Thomas Foley.
No, seriously, I'm not just quoting a movie. Reading what he said, I can't help but feel that he's entirely controlled by fear, consumed by it even, scared senseless of his own shadow and trying desperately to keep it in check.
Well, just like many (although not all) republicans, of course, but he appears to be an extreme example even for them. Angst essen Seele auf...
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 5:03 AM
Dr Frank #764
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
nice one.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 5:04 AM
More on that dishonest git Brian:
You criticize me for jumping to conclusions but you have done that yourself.
This is a tu quoque fallacy. Brian did in fact jump to conclusions, regardless of what I did. But I simply responded to what Brian wrote; making an inference from the evidence is not jumping to a conclusion. I did assume that he was displaying a minimum of good faith, rather than completely misrepresenting his own attitudes, but that's a reasonable, necessary, and faultless assumption.
Posted by: pcarini | July 17, 2008 5:07 AM
@Nino (#810):
Maybe I'm just slow (it is late here), but what is "King Kong Theory of Creation" even supposed to mean?
I'm way more into the Donkey Kong Theory of Creation, anyway, which says that all of the building blocks for life were in the barrels he was rolling down the planks. Mario only thought that they were aimed at him -- in fact, by trying to stop DK he's really the devil figure.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 17, 2008 5:10 AM
As for Fr. J's claim on this thread that "[t]hose who have stolen consecrated hosts have committed a federal offense," I have no idea what he's talking about. I assume he's just making shit up. - Lowell
Well either he isn't really a priest, in which case he's certainly making shit up by pretending to be one, or he is, in which case it's his full-time job!
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 5:14 AM
tm, I guess I try to err on the side of charity, so I can hardly blame you for doing the same.
Regarding Brian, I am unsure of what combination of shellshock, naivety, stupidity and malice has been evinced so far. But you're making me wonder.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 17, 2008 5:17 AM
#803 You're leaven me behind. Cracken me up. Ink everywhere.
Posted by: Nino | July 17, 2008 5:18 AM
@ pcarini
I yoused to be an atheist who thought, that evolution was the logical explenation as tho how we came to be.
Now I can all myself a "King Kong Creationist" !
Can I sart a KKC Curch? Ware there any tax breaks I can get that way?
Na...
I suppose it would only lead to a fight with a "Reformed KKC Church" who claim that PZ is their prophet....
LOL
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 5:22 AM
This may not last, so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2YpoiFddXs
Posted by: Lago | July 17, 2008 5:22 AM
"Wait, if some people in the US are descended from Irish people, then why are there still Irish people?"
Because their descendants still are lazy, drink too much, and eat potatoes daily.
Paddy
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 17, 2008 5:25 AM
Yes. Current official opinion is that only the soul of man was created -- the body evolved, whence our sinful nature that is (with copious use of metaphors) explained in Genesis 2.
More importantly, supposedly infallible pronouncements are very rare because require a grand ceremony; even on matters of doctrine, the Pope can't just casually utter an opinion that is then automatically considered infallible.
Posted by: uriel | July 17, 2008 5:30 AM
Craig, Brian- don't worry about TM too much.
Have you ever had a neighbor who owned a dog that would bark at any damned thing, regardless of intent or action? One that would rush it's little fence and start yapping anytime anything remotely new wandered past its comfort zone- even if "new" meant "hasn't been here since yesterday?" One that froths at the mouth at every passing thing, regardless of how inconsequential, non-threatening or even friendly it was? You know, the kind of dog that seems to spend all it's time either stewing in its aggression or misinterpreting any novelty as some dire threat?
Well, we're it self-aware enough, that dog would take a single look at TM, back away, and shake it's head at the kind of unprovoked hostility TM eagerly embraces on a daily basis.
Frankly, it's trivial and pointless to point out how clearly his obvious need diminish others is an attempt to shore up his obvious sense of inadequacy. Really, it's best to just let him stew in his juices and treat his constant blatherings about how anyone impinging on his comfort zone, or questioning his obviously limited understanding of the world, are are 'filth' and 'trolls' for what they are- the incoherent squawking of fragile, unimaginative, and insular little person.
Of course, you can't win in the face of that kind of unreasoning hostility, but in the end- who really cares? It's just the internets- and even in that limited realm, he/she's hardly important as TM seems to think he/she is, regardless of that meaningless 'om' appellation it seems so fond of.
As an aside- Hey TM! How's it going?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 17, 2008 5:30 AM
The Vatican is a place the Eucharist is the heart of the Church - Brian F
I think Brian F has just told us what should be done with a consecrated cracker: offer to return it in exchange for legal title to the Vatican. Since the Vatican is merely a place, and the cracker is the heart of the Church, the Pope will surely jump at the offer!
Posted by: Tom Nielsen | July 17, 2008 5:37 AM
PZ, when he talks about increased security, he means increased security for the crackers.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 5:39 AM
Hi Uriel.
I like the long insult followed by the cheerie "How's it going?".
Sorry Uriel, but I have a feeling that Brian's IQ > yours.
PS "we're it self-aware enough". Love it.
Posted by: clinteas | July 17, 2008 5:44 AM
Gee PZ,
give us a piece about epigenetics man,or some obscure science topic,I cant stand the trolls anymore.
Posted by: GunOfSod | July 17, 2008 5:52 AM
#763 DrFrank
"Wait, if some people in the US are descended from Irish people, then why are there still Irish people?"
I laughed and laughed until I realised you'd just argued me out of existence.
Posted by: MrBenchley | July 17, 2008 5:58 AM
The thing I find most astonishing is his claim to be a Republican AND simultaneously to have "never "personally encountered such bigotry."" Considering what a bigoted lot of pisswits make up Virginia's Republican party I find that particularly hard to believe. This guy sits in Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's backyard, the home of George "Macaca" Allen, and he never noticed any? Not a speck?
And the other thing that astonishes me is that Virginia's Republicans are among the most gun-crazy dimwits on the planet. Evidently actual loaded guns on the table are okey-dokey, but ooh, those cyber-pistols....
Posted by: Uriel | July 17, 2008 6:04 AM
Glad you appreciated it, JM. I try to amuse, where I can.
As far as the IQ jibe goes- Oh well. Some how, I don't feel like getting into a pissing match on this paticular internet venue at this time. So, I guess we'll just have to agree to not care what the other thinks on the subject. That's the way it works, sometimes.
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 6:07 AM
Damn, it took a while but I finally got the reference in #763
My only excuse is 3 hours of sleep after too many Guinness last night after a heated discussion with an "evolutionary Christian" -- I still don't know what the F he meant by that.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 17, 2008 6:11 AM
Everyone who's ever eaten beef has done something sacreligious to Hindus, for whom cows are sacred animals not to be killed or eaten. May I expect a wave of Catholic vegetarianism?
Everyone has a right to form their own beliefs. The actual beliefs get no protection whatsoever from critical consideration and comparison to evidence.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 6:14 AM
Uriel, you surprise me.
Good comment. Now, if you apologise to the rabid dog, you will have shown some honesty.
Posted by: johannes | July 17, 2008 6:17 AM
> as it is of the Polish (as opposed to the heretic ...
> Russians) and the Croat ethnic identities (as
> opposed to the heretic Serbians and Bosnian Muslims),
> as Orthodoxy is part of the Russian, Greek and
> Serbian ethnic identities (as opposed to heretic Croats
> and Poles,
Catholic and Orthodox Christians consider each other schismatics rather than heretics. Of course, that did not stop them from killing each other...
Posted by: Sauceress | July 17, 2008 6:23 AM
PZ is a cyberpistol toting Cephalopod?
*dives under desk for cover*
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 6:28 AM
Jason #728,
Thank you Jason, because it is exactly in this small sentence that lies the heart of the problem, and maybe this helps you to understand.
How would we know that we are doing those things to Christ, if we do not believe, and we do not see any reason to believe, that Christ is present in this wafer, or even more generally, we do not even believe in God ?
Don't you see that what you are saying is exactly as offensive to us, demanding that we accept that Christ is in that wafer, as us demanding that you accept that Christ isn't in there ?
Moreover, why do you worry so much for Christ ? I mean, if you read your bible, do you get the idea that Christ's message was that you should defend his body against those damned unfaithfuls, or was it, that you, the faithful, should further this sacrament in his memory to keep your faith in him ? So what are you worried about ?
Look, the catechism says it even very clearly :
So, you see, it's clear, the senses cannot apprehend this, only faith can. So, we do not have faith. You can respect that, at least ? So, for us, it's just a cracker.
Moreover, there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Christ was ever worried about the unfaithful abusing his body. How could they, when they do not have faith ?
On the other hand, there is every indication, if you want to believe in your own bible, that he was much more concerned about those who would take this sacrament unworthily, as is clearly explained in the passage "examine yourself" ;
So, to summarize :
a) we do not know that we are doing those things to Christ, as we do not believe he is in there, nor that he exists
b) your own Church catechism recognizes that we are incapable of knowing this
c) there is no indication in your own bible that christ was ever worried about unfaithfuls abusing his own body, but on the contrary, of people who take this sacrament in an unworthy manner
So, what are you worried about ? Stick to your beliefs and your faith if you want, take your sacrament, eat as many Eucahrists, but do not force us to believe in something we do not want to, as we do not see any reason to.
It should be quite simple to understand really.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 6:38 AM
Now, if you apologise to the rabid dog, you will have shown some honesty.
I need no apology from the troll, and it wouldn't be given honestly in any case.
And besides, trolls like Uriel who resort to such ad hominem dismissals just mark themselves for what they are; they affect only their own credibility, not mine, which I've well established here. Ask David Marjanović, who eventually came around. Or Azkyroth, who used to waste his time trying to give me etiquette lessons and pop psychologize me, much as the green Nick Gotts has done a few times. Eventually Azkyroth stopped whining about me and even took on some of my troll-bashing techniques.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 17, 2008 6:41 AM
It is interesting why would anyone do violence to a lamb! - NAB
Er, usually it's a preliminary to butchering, roasting and eating it.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 17, 2008 6:42 AM
@836: shouldn't we be pointing out that a guy who supposedly let himself be nailed to a plank is probably not that worried about the fate of his body or parts thereof?
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 6:43 AM
This posted first on another site:
And what if what believers believe is true? Where does that leave you? I don't mean in hell - no one can judge you except the One you don't believe in. But where does your disbelief leave you as you stand before the indescribable Glory?
I think the least you can do to begin with is to upper case God, as a mark of respect to the English language, in which proper nouns are written so. Note please that I did not type your name thus: paul.
I think you will find, if you talk with many believers, that their belief comes not primarily from reading a text, even the Bible, but from experience. When they say 'Glory to God', they know what they're saying.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 17, 2008 6:48 AM
"I think you will find, if you talk with many believers, that their belief comes not primarily from reading a text, even the Bible, but from experience. When they say 'Glory to God', they know what they're saying."
Sort of like people who experience alien abductions or hauntings and believe in them just as fervently.
Anyway, I didn't think the Christian god's actual name was "God." He has tons of other names for himself, but I don't know if he ever settled for just "god."
Besides, to us, he's just one of many other equally insubstantial gods with no more evidence behind him than Zeus.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 6:50 AM
But where does your disbelief leave you as you stand before the indescribable Glory?
Where does your disbelief in the Easter Bunny leave you as you stand before the ineffable Hare?
I think you will find, if you talk with many believers, that their belief comes not primarily from reading a text, even the Bible, but from experience. When they say 'Glory to God', they know what they're saying.
I have already found, after talking to many believers, that they are deluded and arrogant fools who treat their fantasies as "experience" and self-servingly claim to "know what they're saying" when all the evidence indicates otherwise.
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 6:52 AM
@negentropyeater #836
Well put. Problem with people like Jason is, they do not WANT to see our point. To them, it simply doesn't matter whether we do believe in their mystical cloud person or not, or whether the cracker is just a cracker or it's somehow "transformed" into the body parts of a dead person (anyone else think Zombie here?).
Their point is, THEY believe it, therefor it's true and real.
Kinda reminds me of my one year old daughter who always is in awe that I'm able to "magically" let there be light in our living room...
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 17, 2008 6:53 AM
"I have already found, after talking to many believers, that they are deluded and arrogant fools who treat their fantasies as "experience" and self-servingly claim to "know what they're saying" when all the evidence indicates otherwise."
This has been my experience, as well. Human beings have great imaginations and powerful emotions that threaten to override their logic at times. So it would be fairly simple for us to consider even the wildest thing to be true.
And if there's already a large group of people who believe this outlandish thing, it becomes just that much easier to convince ourselves.
And this is exactly why objective evidence and facts are so incredibly important and why faith is worthless.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 6:54 AM
tm,
I hate to admit it, but me too.
Sifu! Sifu!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 6:54 AM
shorter Jason:
blah blah blah
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 6:56 AM
@Pavel #840
I think the least you can do to begin with is to upper case God ...
It's YOUR god, so why should I?
You wouldn't show similar respect to my god, if I had one, would you?
... as a mark of respect to the English language, in which proper nouns are written so.
Names are, not nouns. And 'god' is just another word, not a name, as say Zeus or Mars is.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 6:59 AM
I challenge any of you to be as hateful toward anything muslim. No? I thought not.
Posted by: Ray | July 16, 2008 11:57 PM
And another lying sack of shit.
Posted by: bob | July 17, 2008 6:59 AM
Foley is an idiot. He claims he had never witness such bigotry as he found on this site. The man grew up in the south under Jim Crow laws. They weren't repealed until he was 17 years old. Does he think that saying there is no gods, and that it is only a cracker is worse than legally forcing segregation and treating people as second class citizens? I suggest that one of the Eucharist be shellacked, and site to him as an award, "Stupid Cracker of the Year."
Posted by: elbuho | July 17, 2008 7:01 AM
@ #91
additional instruction: have a friend surreptitiously video the whole event on a mobile phone.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 7:01 AM
Myers is a bigot, not a racist. The problem is this...if Myers (or any of you) choose not to believe, that is your choice....but why must you do all you can to belittle and hate all those that choose to believe...just go about your business...why do you feel it necessary to desecrate the Holy Eucharist....compensating for something, perhaps?
Posted by: Ray | July 17, 2008 12:08 AM
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 7:04 AM
I believe EVERYTHING the Pope says since he is the Vicor of Christ, the heir to St. Peter...
baaaaaaaaah baaaaaaaaaaah baaaaaaaaaah
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 7:07 AM
Does he think that saying there is no gods, and that it is only a cracker is worse than legally forcing segregation and treating people as second class citizens?
I'm going to go with "yes." He quite probably does think that.
Posted by: GunOfSod | July 17, 2008 7:08 AM
PZ - "I had no idea that "braying" was especially insulting to the Irish"
It's news to me too, and you don't get more Irish than where I am. Maybe it's just those sensitive East Coast Irish?
Dia duit ó na Forbacha, Gaillimh.
Posted by: Alan | July 17, 2008 7:08 AM
Oh god, "braying" is an insult to the Irish? As a born and bred Irishman, I can definitely say that this plastic paddy hasn't got a clue and is full of bullshit.
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 7:09 AM
@MAJeff #852
You know the saying: ONLY sheep need a shepherd...
Posted by: infidel.michael | July 17, 2008 7:10 AM
Since when "bigotry = making fun of somebody"?
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 7:10 AM
# 834 Johannes
Schiz-o-matics, shit that is PERFECT!!!
The AMERICAN thing to do would have been to sell cyberpistols to both sides until they finish each other off. Another missed opportunity.
------------------
You Tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: cuervo | July 17, 2008 7:12 AM
My dad'd Irish, but I'm not...how is that? Because I was born and live in London perhaps?
I love the american tradition of going back hundreds of years and adopting the country of a vague ancestor as an ethnicity!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 7:13 AM
Schiz-o-matics, shit that is PERFECT!!!
Do they work as well as the Bass-O-Matic?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 7:22 AM
I hate to admit it
Be not ashamed of thyself and thy master, little one.
Posted by: Jud | July 17, 2008 7:24 AM
Good heavens - Ritz-ual abuse!
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 7:24 AM
Ray Said
Okay, just off the cuff.
What's difference between a rug muncher and a smoke swinger?
Rug munchers don't watch American Idol.
How's that?
------------------
You Tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 7:27 AM
"... as a mark of respect to the English language, in which proper nouns are written so."
Names are, not nouns.
Ahem. Proper nouns are, indeed, capitalized in English -- 1st grade grammar.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 17, 2008 7:33 AM
Scooter,
Jihad! Jihad for you!
/bad Muslim impression>
PS - I don't get it!
Posted by: clinteas | July 17, 2008 7:34 AM
@ No 840
Who is the guy,fucking Ray "Banana" Comfort? Whats with this capitalizing Dog thing,is that meant to add anything to a discussion,its spelled with a capital G,got to be important?
Posted by: Pun the librarian | July 17, 2008 7:34 AM
Desecrading an Eucharist is a Hell of a thing to do.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 17, 2008 7:35 AM
"Ahem. Proper nouns are, indeed, capitalized in English -- 1st grade grammar"
I, for one, will consider it a proper noun as soon as I see a proper god.
Posted by: clinteas | July 17, 2008 7:43 AM
OctoberMermaid,
better stock up on popcorn,might take a while for a proper god to show up LOL
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 17, 2008 7:44 AM
#30: NO, you do not have to be born in Ireland to be Irish. If you have a parent who was born in Ireland you are automatically an Irish citizen. That's my own case, for example - I wasn't born in Ireland, but I was born an Irish citizen and have an Irish passport and everything.
After that it gets a little trickier, you have to register foreign births and the parent you derive citizenship from must have been an Irish citizen at the time of your birth. That's my son's case, and he'll have his citizenship and passport as soon as his Da gets off his lazy arse and does the paperwork.
#859: Whether you know it or not, if your Da was born in Ireland, you are in fact Irish.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 7:47 AM
I don't have any problem with capitalizing "God" which, extant or not, is a proper noun. It's the cooptation of words like "love" and "truth" that really gets me; these words are meaningful in normal use, but not when capitalized. Saying things like "Truth with a capital T is the ultimate truth" is literally nonsensical -- "ultimate truth" is no more meaningful than "penultimate truth", "14th truth", "bottom truth", "blue truth", etc.
Posted by: George | July 17, 2008 7:48 AM
George: "One searches in vain for an adult among PZ Myers' amen chorus."
"Hi Ron. Sockpuppet much?"
"That's what happens when you wear a god bag over your head George. Blindness is a given."
The search continues. Perhaps behaving like smug, adolescent asses is to be expected from the choir when such behavior is routinely modeled by the choir leader.
Who's Ron?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 7:50 AM
I, for one, will consider it a proper noun as soon as I see a proper god.
That's fine, but Chris was simply wrong when he wrote "Names are, not nouns" in response to "proper nouns are written so", as if he were unfamiliar with the term.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2008 7:52 AM
Hi everybody. Any thing happen while I was sleeping?
HOLY SHIT
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 7:53 AM
P.S. Batman, Superman, Santa Claus ... are all proper nouns, despite being fictional.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 7:54 AM
#853
Or worse, he'd probably manage to argue that one would necessarily lead to the other, don't you know that repetitive cracker worship is the best antidote against racism ?
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2008 7:58 AM
George:
Someone just like you, apparently.
Care to show evidence otherwise?
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 7:59 AM
@truth machine
As said before, I'm suffering from lack of sleep. Yes, you're right, proper nouns are _usually_ capitalized in English. However, "god" is considered to be a proper noun with respect to referring to 'the' monotheistic god (aka JHWH).
Personally I do not think there's a real difference between a proper and a common noun. Unless you're referring to a name (think London, or Berlin) or you're Trying to Make a Point (think Declaration of Independence).
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 8:03 AM
@truth #875
P.S. Batman, Superman, Santa Claus ... are all proper nouns, despite being fictional.
I consider those to be names. Albeit names of fictional people.
Ok, you could argue that 'God' is a name, however as has been pointed out here before, that mystical cloud thing never said its name was 'God.'
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 8:15 AM
Ray,
Ray is a bigot, and a racist I don't know. The problem is this...if Ray (or any of you believers) choose to believe, that is your choice....but why must you do all you can to belittle and hate all those that choose not to believe...just go about your business...why do you feel it necessary to react if we non believers desecrate a cracker....compensating for something, perhaps ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2008 8:16 AM
Nice.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 17, 2008 8:24 AM
Well if possesion of a cyber pistol makes PZ a cyberman then attendants at the RNC have only one option: gold. The ony way to deal with a cyberman is gold in his respiration system (the box on his chest). So RNC attendees if you see PZ you must throw gold at him. Not cheap costume jewellery, only 18 carats or above is effective and the purer the better.
Posted by: kmerian | July 17, 2008 8:27 AM
BobC
No, I am not the policeman, I just think it is time for this juvenile crap to stop, on both sides. But, by your response I can see you want to keep this as juvenile as possible.
Wowbagger, no, I can't tell, that is why he should just turn them all over and get a life.
Posted by: Michelle | July 17, 2008 8:27 AM
@Peter Ashby #882: Makes sense! That must be why the very poor catholic church has so many golden relics. You opened my eyes. :P
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 17, 2008 8:29 AM
"Ok, you could argue that 'God' is a name, however as has been pointed out here before, that mystical cloud thing never said its name was 'God.'"
"God" is not a name at all - it's an occupational title, like "angel" or "demon" or "plumber." The former storm god of the Sinai desert ("that mystical cloud thing") who was morphed into the Creator God of Genesis is variously named as "Yahweh" or (incorrectly) as "Jehovah."
When one says "god" without specifying which one, it's open to interpretation, as there are any number of gods in any number of pantheons. If you walk into a board meeting chaired by Zeus or Jupiter or Wotan and say "Yo, God," they will all say "Who you talking to?"
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 8:31 AM
Yes, you're right, proper nouns are _usually_ capitalized in English.
Proper nouns are always capitalized in English unless you're e.e. cummings.
Personally I do not think there's a real difference between a proper and a common noun. Unless you're referring to a name (think London, or Berlin) or you're Trying to Make a Point (think Declaration of Independence).
It doesn't matter what you think, it's a fucking grammar rule. And the Declaration of Independence is capitalized because it's a title, just like Gone With the Wind; it has nothing to do with trying to make a point.
I consider those to be names.
Names are proper nouns. Sheesh, do you always become illiterate when you're short of sleep? I sleep about 3 hours a day but I don't have that problem. (I have been known to get a bit cranky though.)
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 8:36 AM
Gone With the Wind
Oops, I should have written either "Gone with the Wind" or "Gone With The Wind".
"God" is not a name at all - it's an occupational title, like "angel" or "demon" or "plumber."
Sigh. The latter are all used with articles or possessives: "an angel", "his demon", "the plumber". When "god" is used that way, it shouldn't be capitalized, but when it stands alone it's a proper noun.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 8:40 AM
Really, who would have thunk it. Sorry, couldn't resist. Though to be honest, there is little I enjoy more than watching you in full flow excoriating one poor soul or another. Whether always deserved it is invariably worth getting out the popcorn :)
Posted by: Rarusvir | July 17, 2008 8:40 AM
Questions and comments:
1. How could you not see this coming?
2. Have you ever wanted to be a train engineer?
3. Cyber guns don't kill people, Cyber sex does.
4. If Tom Foley never heard such bigotry, he should get out more.
5. There are more cephalopods than humans. You always have them to fall back on PZ.
6. Is Europe looking? (I'm so embarrassed)
7. PZ's self esteem might plummet if he's kicked out of two fundie events in one year. [expelled, RNC].
8. Foley is an American of Irish descent, not an Irishman in America, but let's face it; they never really understood descent anyway, sounds too evolutionary.
9. And it is still a fraking cracker.
10. I am NOT PZ Myers ally, but I'd like to be his friend.
11. Braying refers to Donkey's, Donkeys look like the democrat symbol, which is the REAL reason it makes republicans uneasy.
12. For a crime to take place, harm must be demonstrated, where's the harm?
In a way, I am delighted to see the controversy generated by this. We need to settle some issues in America and it won't get done without struggles. More importantly though, it generates much needed publicity for a cause that needs it, the separation of church and state is too fuzzy in the uneducated minds of Americans which is a direct result of chasing the American Dream, (I remember what the late George Carlin said about The American Dream, "They call it a dream because you have to be asleep to believe it".)
Wake up Tom.
Posted by: Robert | July 17, 2008 8:41 AM
This is your big moment. You won't be remembered, if you're remembered at all, for your "contributions" to science, but for your childish rantings against Catholics. Congratulations.
Posted by: Ponder | July 17, 2008 8:41 AM
Never poster here before. Frankly don't have time to go through the thousands of posts that have been generated by this whole furore.
I have send an email to the chairman of PZ Myers university stating my support for PZ.
I think the student, wossname, Webster Cook, who started all this was a little naive. I think that the Catholic Church's reaction to this (and to PZ's comments) was ludicrous and they should be stepped on, heavily, by saner, calmer authorities. I personally would not go Medieval on a cracker to show my disapproval of said Catholic behaviour. It wouldn't be... polite, and to me it's just a cracker and I have better things to do than biscuit abuse. Reading some of the comments here perhaps I should change my mind, sometimes you do have to stand up and make a statement against such insanity.
One thing does crop up, again and again. Athiest = Hitler = Evil.
Hitler certainly started as a catholic. Later he rejected that in favour of a religion of personality based around himself. "He" was the chosen one, the new god. He didn't give up religion, he adopted it wholesale. But this isn't the point.
Hitler was the leader of the 3rd Reich. The leader of the German people who, with some honourable exceptions, fully supported him. I believe they were to a large extent catholic. The catholic church supported Hitler until he started turning on them too (again with honourable exceptions). Hitler may not have been catholic, he may have believed himself to be the new christ or not believed at all, that's not the point. The German people did believe. And they followed him. He promised them glory, he gave them someone to blame (several someones) and this good catholic people followed him.
So who is more contemptible, the possibly atheist sociopath who says "kill" or the believers in christ who do his bidding?
Posted by: HLKing | July 17, 2008 8:41 AM
I eagerly await the post in which PZ desecrates the eucharist. It should prove amusing, considering how much reaction there has been to simply saying he'll do it.
Posted by: c.auratus | July 17, 2008 8:43 AM
Yikes! So many comical Cat-lick wackaloon posts, so little time...
Anyway: "god" is not a proper noun, and it need not be capitalized. Besides, what is the point? Crackers, capitalizations, etc. These religiobots are obsessive about the most trivial inanities. It would be nice to know whether all catholics are as anal as these new commenters, or whether the worst self-selected to post here.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA | July 17, 2008 8:44 AM
My HS grammar teacher told me that fictional gods are NOT to be capitalized when referring to them.
Posted by: c.auratus | July 17, 2008 8:49 AM
Robert:
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 17, 2008 8:50 AM
Yes indeed, when apprehended stripping all the gold from a Catholic church you should immediately and urgently rant on about 'the cybermen are coming!' At the very least you will get locked up somewhere nicer ;-)
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 8:53 AM
OKAY
doG
Happy now?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 8:53 AM
My HS grammar teacher told me that fictional gods are NOT to be capitalized when referring to them.
And you have never seen the name of one in print ever since, or thought each time that it was wrong? Was your HS grammar teacher named Mr. Gospel, perchance?
I had a teacher tell me that gymnasium has three syllables ... but that wouldn't be a good excuse for me to be claiming it, would it?
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | July 17, 2008 8:54 AM
If you outlaw cyberpistols then only outlaws will have cyberpistols.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 8:58 AM
If you outlaw cyberpistols then only outlaws will have cyberpistols.
But they're only virtual outlaws!
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 8:59 AM
So many comical Cat-lick wackaloon posts, so little time...
So many illiterates.
"god" is not a proper noun, and it need not be capitalized.
Of course it's not ... when used with an article or possessive, as I said. But used without one, it's a proper noun.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 8:59 AM
Bourgeois Rose: LOL
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 17, 2008 9:00 AM
Regarding my own post at #371 - saddened but not surprised that the hate mongering Catholics and/or Xtians on this blog chose to ignore a message from their own rule book.
Truth machine, your post #861 made me spit coffee with laughter.
Gotta...love...Ray...'s...po...sts, right!!!!????
OK, must get more coffee, after I finish wiping my screen.
Pax Nabisco. Hmmm, maybe should change that to Pox Nabisco
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 17, 2008 9:01 AM
I remember aged about 8, when asked to write a sentence containg the word 'god' I (being a well read 8yo) wrote: Thor was the Viking god of thunder. My teacher told me it was wrong because there was only one god.
Mind you we had to cut Mr Murray some slack, he was an old soldier who, having been denied a normal education by the war had become a primary school teacher under a govt program to employ all these returned servicemen. He had been a Desert Rat fighting Rommel. At least I didn't get strapped for it, he reputedly hurt A LOT when he strapped you. On the hand, no perverts allowed.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 9:01 AM
Really, who would have thunk it. Sorry, couldn't resist.
That's why I put it out there.
Posted by: SC | July 17, 2008 9:03 AM
(I have been known to get a bit cranky though.)
You, sweet pea? Never. :)
OK, back to work. Busy week.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 9:04 AM
These religiobots are obsessive about the most trivial inanities. It would be nice to know whether all catholics are as anal as these new commenters, or whether the worst self-selected to post here.
I do hope you're not another one of these newbie fools who mistakes me for a theist -- just because I'm literate and know the rules of grammar. Watch for people capitalizing words like Love and Truth -- those are the genuine godbots.
Posted by: black wolf | July 17, 2008 9:04 AM
#889,
Yes, Europe's looking. You have no reason to be embarassed. We have our own nutters to deal with, like that Cardinal from my country who expressed his displeasure at an art exhibit at a clerical museum, declaring that art without reverence for God was degenerate (using the same term the Nazis used for modern 'ungermanic' art). He also equated abortion with the Holocaust and asserted that officially registered homosexual partnerships endangered 'constitutionally established morals'. Or politicians defending the unconstitutional obligation in one state for schools to place Christian crosses in every classroom - it is now unconstitutional only when someone protests. The same politicians who demanded a tightening of blasphemy laws to prevent ridicule of religion in caricature and other forms of art altogether.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA | July 17, 2008 9:08 AM
Truth, I wasn't claiming anything. I never said I agreed with her. Plus, my poor grammar skills made my point unclear. I didn't mean the actual names of the gods, just the word "god".
She taught mythology so I guess she thought she could get away with indoctrinating us. Her examples were something like, "The god Zeus lived on Mt. Olympus." and "You must not take God's name in vain."
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 9:08 AM
The power of that cyberpistol increases with every reaction of the religionists.
The more pathetic, ridicule, delusional the reaction, the higher the power increases.
With the quantity of religionists out there, this means that potentially, this cyberpistol has quasi limitless power.
The only way the religionists can stop feeding this cyberpistol, is to stop being pathetic, ridicule and delusional in their reactions.
Which is something they obviously have no idea how to do.
So Foley is probably correct in his analysis : "no religionist can stop this cyberpistol".
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 9:10 AM
I remember aged about 8, when asked to write a sentence containg the word 'god' I (being a well read 8yo) wrote: Thor was the Viking god of thunder. My teacher told me it was wrong because there was only one god.
Uh, was this a complaint about capitalization ... of the first word of the sentence? Or just the use of "god" in general? Were you supposed to write "Thor was the Viking's mythical wielder of thunder who supposedly lived in Asgard", so as to avoid the word?
Mind you we had to cut Mr Murray some slack
That's one heck of a lot of slack.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 9:11 AM
I can understand that christians want their gods name capitalized, but they should have thought of that before they usurped the term god to exclusively refer to their god as if it was his name.
Now they've got to deal with people like me who make sure never to refer to the god of christianity by this supposed name, but only his alleged job description at best.
Capitalizing the names of religious sects makes no sense either, but for different reasons. Suffice to say that religious groups where I live are no more significant then people who engage in a particular sport, and the latter don't get capitalized, so I can't see any reason why I would grace religious groups with the honor of a capitalized first letter.
Posted by: c.auratus | July 17, 2008 9:11 AM
Nope. Long time lurker. So, given that you are an english-savvy evil-lutionist... does that make you a Grammar-Nazi?
Rarusvir:
Yes, Europe is watching. And yes, do not be ashamed at all. We have religiotards too - remember the Vatican?
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 9:14 AM
Truth machine, your post #861 made me spit coffee with laughter.
Sorry, heh heh, but with such a set up, I couldn't resist.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 17, 2008 9:19 AM
#889
FTFY
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 17, 2008 9:19 AM
So, given that you are an english-savvy evil-lutionist... does that make you a Grammar-Nazi?
Not quite: http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/FriedrichCoch.jpg
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 9:19 AM
"Uh, was this a complaint about capitalization ... of the first word of the sentence? Or just the use of "god" in general? Were you supposed to write "Thor was the Viking's mythical wielder of thunder who supposedly lived in Asgard", so as to avoid the word?"
I had a similar experience in first or second grade.
I don't remember the teacher's question, but my answer was "god." It may have been as simple as "give me a three-letter word starting with g."
Anyway, I just said "god," which around here anyway comes out as a short, quick "gaad."
She showed a bit of irritation and responded "yes, or Gawwwwwd."
I dunno if its like that everywhere, but there's a clear distinction here - "god" is gaad and "God" is gawwwwwwd.
Even then I thought it was silly, but I recognized religion as being nut when I was 4.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 9:28 AM
Rarusvir 889,
What do you mean with this question ?
Is America looking ?
Posted by: craig | July 17, 2008 9:32 AM
"Is America looking ?"
America's funny-looking.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 17, 2008 9:44 AM
Wow... Paranoid Schizophrenic much?
Posted by: ajani57 | July 17, 2008 9:45 AM
lol
Okay, so I read about 400 posts and skimmed many more and did not find what I was looking for which a thousand wtf's about the missing link between PZ's cracker call and the RNC. Seriously and really, is there a link between the two that I'm missing? Trying very hard to see the correlation. Nope. Not seeing it.
Posted by: FordPrefect | July 17, 2008 9:48 AM
wowbagger #325: "No doubt unconsecrated crackers have been sent to PZ as well. Are you claiming to be able to tell the difference between 'just a cracker' and the eucharist?
Can you explain how you'd go about that?"
I say consecrate them all and let God sort 'em out.
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 9:49 AM
"You wouldn't show similar respect to my god, if I had one, would you?"
Of course I would. The Buddha. Krishna. et. al.
Posted by: mrsb91986 | July 17, 2008 9:50 AM
I truly feel sorry for you. That you can hate this much. May God forgive you for desecrating His Son's body, which IS TRULY present in a consecrated Host. May Jesus have mercy upon your soul as well as your cohorts.
Posted by: El (no-woo) d Herring | July 17, 2008 9:55 AM
Pavel Chichikov @840: "god" is a job description, not a person.
And the position appears to be vacant.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2008 9:56 AM
do you eat beef?
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 17, 2008 9:57 AM
As he forgives you for eating him. Cannibal.
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | July 17, 2008 9:58 AM
Well, I guess by posting here, I am officially name # 1,000,001 on the terror watch list.
Umm, now about police protection for the human being, a.k.a. PZ Myers, who was threatened with death and physical assault--with real, not cyber pistols.
Posted by: ajani57 | July 17, 2008 9:59 AM
Off Topic but not sorry:
Will Femia over at Clicked (my second favorite blog) linked to Ugly Overload and they had a really cool video of octopi. Er, octopii? Octopusses.
It was good to not think about crackers for a minute.
http://uglyoverload.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Snitzels | July 17, 2008 10:04 AM
@#921
hehehe, no I imagine there is no rational link. But if it's getting close to election time for this guy, he'll take anything he can get for the PR and something to "bray" about. He's just playing politician games where he'll take ANYTHING and twist it out of proportion. If this means starting imaginary wars and then pretending to win them for the benefit of the constituency, then I'm sure he's not beneath that. Especially if he can drag in ethnicity, religion and "bigotry", which are always big-ticket items.
What a braying moron. And I'm Irish-American, so I guess I can say that without insulting myself. I'd never heard the term braying used as a derogatory term for the Irish though, very odd.
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 10:06 AM
Why would anyone who doesn't believe that Hosts can be consecrated want to steal a consecrated wafer? It sounds like the act of an old-fashioned village atheist who stands in the middle of the highway and dares God to strike him with a thunderbolt, or that of someone who isn't very mature, or even of someone who has a sneaking suspicion that there just might be something to it. A hands in the cookie jar sort of thing - in a manner of speaking.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 10:06 AM
mrsb91986
we don't hate you at all, we just don't believe in what you say. That's all. Are you suggesting that we should believe in what you are saying ? So who is the intolerant person here ?
If you need a more detailed understanding of our postition and of your own church's catechism, as well as the teachings of the Bible on this issue, I will refer you to my post #836.
And I would be very pleased to hear your comments once you have read this.
Thank you.
Posted by: Dlux | July 17, 2008 10:07 AM
Waay back in #892:
"I eagerly await the post in which PZ desecrates the eucharist. It should prove amusing, considering how much reaction there has been to simply saying he'll do it."
My guess - something involving feeding them to a muslim. Everyone's happy!
Posted by: Adobedragon | July 17, 2008 10:13 AM
What I think he has done, he's loaded a cyberpistol and he's cocked it and he's left it on the table.
Oooo. That sounds so sexy. I bet Foley was grasping his own little pistol when he said that.
He may have set something in motion that no one can stop.
Yeah. He may have made some people stop and think, and see the mind-raping stupidity of religious ritual.
He said it was "eye-opening" to read the people who supported Myers' action. Even at his age of 63, Foley said, he had never "personally encountered such bigotry."
So speaketh the old white man.
He also objected to Myers' recent description of Catholic League President Bill Donohue as "braying," which Foley, a self-described Irish Catholic, claimed was "a great insult for the Irish."
Seems to me the comment is offensive to donkeys, in as much as it draws a comparison between Donohue and Equus asinus. My neighbors have a little herd of donkeys and from what I can tell they are quite intelligent animals.
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 10:14 AM
I thought describing Donohue and this pinhead Foley as "braying" is an insult to asses the world over.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 17, 2008 10:17 AM
It doesn't matter what you think, it's a fucking grammar rule. - truth machine
But if there's no God, how can there be grammar rules? Huh? Huh?
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 10:21 AM
"I truly feel sorry for you. That you can hate this much. May God forgive you for desecrating His Son's body, which IS TRULY present in a consecrated Host. May Jesus have mercy upon your soul as well as your cohorts."
And I truly feel sorry adults with imaginary friends who like to pretend to cannablize that imagianry friend once a week. Derranged doesn't even begin to describe these beliefs.
Posted by: Kryth | July 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Everyone please keep your cyberpistols in your pants. Please for the children. For the children. Cyberpistols make baby jesus cray.
Posted by: SteveM | July 17, 2008 10:25 AM
EXACTLY.
To all the Catholics so horrified by what PZ has threatened to do (and has not actually done anything) why can't you follow the example of your own Jesus, who, while being mocked and tortured on the cross, said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do". Seems to me that if Jesus Himself could forgive His torturors for defiling His actual flesh, then you should be able to forgive someone for defiling his metaphorical flesh.
Why can't you just move on, saying to yourself, "he doesn't know what he does". Being violently offended is not going to win you any points in Jesus' eyes.
And besides, how do you really know that whatever is being done is being done to a consecrated wafer and not a "ante-consecrated" wafer?
Posted by: Chris | July 17, 2008 10:25 AM
@truth machine #886
Sheesh, do you always become illiterate when you're short of sleep?
That's one of the side-effects. Yes. Especially when combined with a big hang-over, as is today.
I sleep about 3 hours a day but I don't have that problem. (I have been known to get a bit cranky though.)
That much is apparent. And a Grammar-Nazi as well, obviously.
I guess there's more imporant things to do than commenting on my butchering the language.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 17, 2008 10:26 AM
The Buddha. Krishna. et. al. - Gods Pavel Chichikov would have respect for.
Buddhists do not consider Gautama Siddhartha ("The Buddha") a god, O ignorant one.
Posted by: Dave | July 17, 2008 10:32 AM
Why is it that atheism and conceit always seem to go hand in hand. It seems that SOME non-believers tend to prop themselves up as a god when they do not believe in Him.
Mr. Myers, regardless of what you may think about us Catholics, why don't you just leave what we hold sacred alone? Why the attack? If you think it's just a cracker then fine. Mock us, but suggesting that people go into chruches and walk out with the Eucharist is juvenile at best.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 10:33 AM
We need more comments of morally lost people who consider crackers way more important than human lives.
I'm not sure if there's a category for the immorality displayed by the people here who don't even stop to recognize the death threats being made by their fundies and immediately show off their persecution complex as if someone here has done anything wrong or is even interested in their delusions.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 10:41 AM
If only the people who made you go here had told you eh? Must be pretty cool living in an information vacuum where reality conforms to everything you are told.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 17, 2008 10:41 AM
Perhaps that crackerhead Foley needs to be made aware that his fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson left a few cyber-IEDs lying around the country. They could go off any minute. Here's one of them:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Chapter 17, p 159.
Thomas Jefferson
Notes on the State of Virginia.
University of N. Carolina Press, 1996
ISBN-10: 0807845884
ISBN-13: 978-0807845882
Posted by: Snitzels | July 17, 2008 10:42 AM
I guess it's probably because the religious folks that he's proving a point to don't leave atheists alone. They invent imaginary wars to martyr themselves to, try to teach our children that the world was created by an invisible god, pick fights over a cracker and send death threats...
Reason and logic is what atheists hold sacred, and those sacred things to us are not left alone by the religious.
Just sayin'... :/
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 10:43 AM
There may be arrogance (earned or not), but no one here is trying to establish themselves as cult leaders.
See Overton's Window.
Posted by: co | July 17, 2008 10:44 AM
I guess there's more imporant things to do than commenting on my butchering the language.
I guess there are more imporant things to do than commenting on my butchering of the language.
No, not really.
Posted by: El (no-woo) d Herring | July 17, 2008 10:47 AM
Trivia: Did you know the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" does NOT refer to the biblical god? The phrase is not in the bible.
So what "god" does it refer to?
t comes from Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac. And Franklin and his contemporaries adapted it from one of Æsop's fables--Hercules and the Waggoner (6th century BC). In the story, a waggoner's heavy load becomes bogged down in mud. In despair, the waggoner cries out to Hercules for help. Hercules replies, "Get up and put your shoulder to the wheel. The gods help them that help themselves."
It's rather ironic that a polytheistic tale appealing to Greek mythology has now made its way into what believers think is in the pages of Scripture.
Source: http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2413974,00.html
Posted by: Graculus | July 17, 2008 10:47 AM
"braying," which Foley, a self-described Irish Catholic, claimed was "a great insult for the Irish."
Well, fuck me, *I* thought that would be "bog-trotter"
Posted by: Reinsi | July 17, 2008 10:49 AM
What he needs is more cyber-security to protect him from the cyber-pistol.
Posted by: Laura | July 17, 2008 10:53 AM
LOL
too funny....
Posted by: ajani57 | July 17, 2008 10:54 AM
@ 924
Ma'am, you are hated here about as much as YOU hate people from India. What? You don't hate people from India? And you are not a racist or a bigot about them? Then why do you eat beef? In India, cows are to be treated like your mother and yet you slaughter, slice, dice, chop, grind, broil, bake and fricassee them for supper. That's a mother symbol in that bun!
If the rule is everyone has to honor your religion, then turnabout is fair play: You have to honor everyone else's religion. Did you know there is a religion that requires you to sweep the ground before every step?
If we are playing this game, that means you have to have roaches and mice. And lice.
But what if we don't want roaches and mice and lice? Well, then we have to recognize that while their religious rites are fine for them, we choose not to believe as they do. We choose to spray our roaches, trap our mice, and pick our nits. We don't mean any disrespect at all for the Jains, they can believe as they see fit, but the roaches must go.
That is all that PZ et al are saying about the host. To catholics it is the whole point of the religion, but to non-catholics, it is a cracker. As surely as you choose to not decorate cows or not walk barefoot with a broom, I choose to not worship a cracker. Can you accept that?
Posted by: Thomas J. Theobald | July 17, 2008 10:54 AM
I think I saw a cyberpistol on an episode of Dr. Who, once. Maybe Foley has some trouble differentiating the SciFi channel from CNN.
T
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 11:00 AM
Catholics, learn your catechism. If the person with the wafer is a believing catholic, then the Vatican says god's in it; if the person with the fracker is NOT a believing catholic, per Vatican, your god is safely NOT in it.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 11:01 AM
Dave post 942, are you going to sites like Donohue's or related catholic sites and telling them that assaulting a student and sending death threats to him nd PZ are more wrong than any desecration of your host could ever be? No I didn't think so, way to show your priorities that a 'fracken wafer' is more important than a human life.
Perhaps now you will understand PZ's reason for his stance. Though I doubt it, for with only a few notable exceptions, all we have seen from the majority of catholitards visiting here is rationalisations of the death threats sent to PZ and the student. That and the claim that atheists who reported a federal crime to the company who's e-mail system was used to send death threat to PZ are as bad or even worse than the person actually making the death threat itself.
Now do you see why we think your religion demented and you priorities less than xian.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 11:01 AM
I've said this before, it's quite basic to the atheist argument and it's something few theists, apparently, can grasp:
Ray wrote:
Is it our choice? Could Ray choose to believe there was an invisible pink unicorn standing behind him? I could imagine there was one, but I couldn't believe it. I might be able to choose to investigate the possibility of an invisible pink unicorn existing, but even then I'd need some motive to want to do that, and some form of evidence to consider.
If you can choose to believe whatever you want, wouldn't that be a mark of insanity?
Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 17, 2008 11:02 AM
mrsb91986 (#924)
Please explain with a modicum of logic how putting supposed Jesus in my pocket is a desicration while eating him isn't. And please explain how eating him brings me closer to him in some way other that the vitamin sort.
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 11:05 AM
intertoobz really pissing me off today.
Again, catholics, learn your doctrine. It's in the catechism, available at book stores everywhere.
In the possesion of a non-believer of any stripe, your doctrine is that god is not in the fracker. In the possesion of a True Catholic (of course), your god is in there.
Now why do I, an atheist, know your doctrine, yet you apparently think your god is trapped in the wafers PZ is getting?
Posted by: kryth | July 17, 2008 11:09 AM
"Mr. Myers, regardless of what you may think about us Catholics, why don't you just leave what we hold sacred alone? Why the attack? If you think it's just a cracker then fine. Mock us, but suggesting that people go into chruches and walk out with the Eucharist is juvenile at best."
Often the best way to combat unintelligent ideas is to ridicule them loudly. And bring as much attention to them as possible. Not in order to change their mind but so others can see how moronic the ideas are. A little shame doesn't hurt either.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 17, 2008 11:09 AM
It truly is amazing that PZ Myers still has not apologized and has not even acknowledged that his call to desecration on a massive scale was a mistake. Granted he does have the right to maintain his Godless views in our society but a line has to be drawn when he begins to infringe on the traditions of this Christian nation - of which Catholicism has always played a massive role.
He will have to watch his activism - that so many find distasteful and deeply offensive - now that government officials are aware of his behaviour and his position at UMM must surely be in jeopardy after Bill Donahue alerted people to the situation. There is a saying; "when in a hole, quit digging" and PZ would be wise to take heed - a phone call and letter expressing regret and remorse to the Catholic League would suffice and he might learn something about Christian charity.
Posted by: bonefish | July 17, 2008 11:12 AM
Reading through some of these "comments," I realize I miss the Long Ago and Far-off Times when the only people who could use the web were the ones smart enough to figure it out...
Posted by: co | July 17, 2008 11:15 AM
Pete Rook: Is this your page?
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/stchadsomegachurch/
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 11:16 AM
Peter Rooke: When you catholitards apologise for all the wrongs done by you and yours over this one incident alone, let alone all the rest your church is responsible for, then perhaps you might have the right to ask PZ to apologise or reconsider. Until then, fuck off with your inane blathering and post hoc rationalisations of the death threats, why don't you.
Posted by: Kryth | July 17, 2008 11:18 AM
line has to be drawn when he begins to infringe on the traditions of this Christian nation - of which Catholicism has always played a massive role.
I call fractal wrongness.
Infringing and making fun of are two different things. PZ isn't saying you can believe or practice cracker worship, or having a law against crackers. He making fun of a crack. Big difference.
This is not a christian nation. It's a secular one. Get over it.
Posted by: ajani57 | July 17, 2008 11:18 AM
But I thought our country was founded by those trying to get away from religious zealots!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 17, 2008 11:20 AM
#961
but a line has to be drawn when he begins to infringe on the traditions of this Christian nation - of which Catholicism has always played a massive role.
Is if we needed another example, this as much as anything clearly reminds me of why I will never, ever take the resposnability of shining the light on religious dumbosity lightly. This guy is the reason it is soooo important to keep up that fight. This sort of "might makes right and my God is mightier than yours" mentality, and the delusion that his god and his point of view is the one my country should follow... makes me shudder.
Thanks, Pete Rook, for the reminder. I feel renewed.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 17, 2008 11:20 AM
Peter Rooke said:
Pete, after Bill Donohue's tedious posturing and all the copious posts from your co-religionists on this blog, I think he's learned more than any sane human being could possibly want to about the type and quality of "christian charity" on offer from the likes of the Catholic League.
Posted by: amk | July 17, 2008 11:20 AM
There are no grammar rules, merely social conventions.Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 11:24 AM
Then you are easily amazed.
It is not a christian nation, not that this is relevant. And I don't think you are aware of catholicism's historic role in the US.
Wanna bet money on it?
Somehow, that sounded more like a threat than a charitable offer. Funny how you people can't tell the difference.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 11:26 AM
Other than that, turn the Eucharists you have recieved over to the nearest Catholic Church and get a life.
Posted by: kmerian | July 16, 2008 9:29 PM
Is that an order, asshole? By the way, I saw your Catholic Texan blog and noticed your double chin and fat face.
Posted by: Ric | July 17, 2008 11:27 AM
Is it too late for me to join the party. I mknow Ray is lying in little shredded pieces, but can I please stomp on some of the tatters?
Ray said:
Criticising someone's ideas and beliefs is bigotry. Saying otherwise makes you an idiot.
Are you serious? Think for a moment about what your logic implies. You are personally criticizing our ideas, so by your own logic, you are a bigot.
Are you sure you don't want to revise what you've said, genius?
Posted by: Dafmeister | July 17, 2008 11:28 AM
#211: "What's the deal with these Big Strong Men of The Lord also being the biggest pussies in the country?"
As alifelong fan of the female genitalia, I find that rcomparison offensive. However, given that I don't consider said genitalia to be divine (sorry girls), I won't be threatening to bash your head in with a rock
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 11:28 AM
gdlchmst: yep sounds suspiciously like 'bend over so we can forgive you', business as usual then.
Posted by: Santiago | July 17, 2008 11:30 AM
Ah, desecrating a consecrated host, the controversy that just keeps on giving.
Oh, wait, that's *talking* about desecrating a holy host, or cracker, or Jesus bit, or whatever you want to call what is essentially the bread that won an award for "best impersonation of crunchy cardboard".
Posted by: kmerian | July 17, 2008 11:33 AM
True Bob, sorry, but you are just wrong. I looked through the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law, nowhere does it state that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is dependent on the belief of the recipient.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 11:33 AM
Mr. Myers, regardless of what you may think about us Catholics, why don't you just leave what we hold sacred alone? Why the attack?
You're desecrating reason and logic -- the things we hold "sacred" -- by meddling in school curricula and government funding of science. We'll leave the cracker alone when you leave the schools and government alone. Deal?
Didn't think so.
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 17, 2008 11:34 AM
Brian F (Comment #199):
I'm sure someone else has commented on this by now, but just to emphasise the curious phrasing:
Apparently, Brian F's argument would be worth making only to someone who accepted the authority of the bible and was not prepared to consider any alternative points of view.
That must be one weak argument ...
Posted by: John | July 17, 2008 11:35 AM
Pete Rooke
I recomend you go back and read post 953. It is just a cracker, just as steak is just a slice of cow. If you make the choice to give it higher value, that is fine, but don't try to impose that view on others.
And that is what you are doing.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 11:35 AM
I think it will be time for PZ to apologise when the Catholic Church decides to support a woman's to choose, supports gays having the same rights as the rest of us, stops its genocidal policy on condom use to prevent the spread of HIV, apologises for supporting vile fascist regimes in the last century and generally starts behaving like an organisation that has civilised values.
Since none of those things the Catholics have done can be called civilised, or polite and have caused a great deal of harm, let alone offence, I do trust Pete Rooke will join me condemning them.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 11:36 AM
Pete Rooke, it's people like you that make me want to ridicule Catholics even more. You want an apology from PZ because he criticized Catholic terrorists who threatened to murder a student because he didn't want to eat a cracker? Go fuck yourself shithead.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 11:37 AM
"True Bob, sorry, but you are just wrong. I looked through the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law, nowhere does it state that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is dependent on the belief of the recipient."
And who made the Catechism and Code of Canon Law, law ? How do you know those are correct ? You will need to provide evidence to support your contention that they are.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 17, 2008 11:39 AM
"bend over so we can forgive you"
The fact that certain homosexual paedophiles (incidentally the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive) have infiltrated the church, in small isolated numbers, has no bearing on the overall moral benefit and direction that Catholicism has provided this country - and much of the civilized world - through times of crisis. For that we should all be grateful although that would apparently be too much to hope for.
Posted by: El Herring | July 17, 2008 11:40 AM
... and another 1000+ post thread looms into view.
I honestly believe the Internet will eventually be the death of religion. This whole cracker incident is not on the scale of a mortal blow, but it's certainly opened a nasty wound. Nobody's actually done anything here except talk, and look at the amount of heat it's all generated. Now we need to turn all this heat into light.
Superstition fades in the light of reason and logic.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 11:41 AM
@Pete Rooke
christian nation:
My god is bigger then yours, so stuff it or I will scream persecution and make your life miserable with all my friends.
Secular nation:
Your ideas on god are your own and of no consequence to the pursuit of happiness.
I hope that explains things to the people flocking here who were apparently never educated on different types of governments.
Posted by: El Herring | July 17, 2008 11:42 AM
Oops, messed up my italics tag. Never mind, the point was made.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | July 17, 2008 11:43 AM
Peter Rooke,
You have things backwards. The Catholic Church should take the high road on this crackergate brouhaha. They should tell everybody at UCF who is pressing trumped up charges against Webster Cook to drop them, and give him a formal apology for the death threats made against him. Secondly, they can tell Bill Donohue to shut up and stop using Catholic in the name of his organization as it embarasses them. Third, they can apologize to PZ for the death threats he has received, and then take appropriate action against those who did make death threats.
But I think the sun will rise in the west before that happens. Until then, filter your arguments using Christ's Golden Rule, which can be found in Matthew and Luke. You attitude indicates you need a refresher in that concept.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 11:44 AM
"The fact that certain homosexual paedophiles (incidentally the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive) have infiltrated the church, in small isolated numbers, has no bearing on the overall moral benefit and direction that Catholicism has provided this country - and much of the civilized world - through times of crisis. For that we should all be grateful although that would apparently be too much to hope for."
It is not so much that some priest have turned out to like molesting children that has angered people. That could happen in any organisation that deals with children.
What has angered people is the fact that for years the Catholic Church did nothing to prevent such crimes. It just moved priests so accused to new posts. It is the cover up and refusal to acknowledge the problem that is the real problem. Unless and until the Catholic Church removes all those who were involved in the cover up it is nothing short of an criminal organisation.
Posted by: Bob L | July 17, 2008 11:45 AM
a phone call and letter expressing regret and remorse to the Catholic League would suffice and he might learn something about Christian charity.
Yes, threatening someone's life and lively hood because he is a wrong thinker is such an act Christian charity.
Posted by: zak | July 17, 2008 11:47 AM
Bray:
Middle English, from Anglo-French braire to cry, bellow, roar, from Vulgar Latin *bragere, of Celtic origin; akin to Old Irish braigid: he breaks wind
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 11:49 AM
No one look at the organization providing those child rapists constant access to children, moving them to new hunting grounds, and keeping them hidden from legal authorities, right Rooke.
Posted by: Matthias | July 17, 2008 11:49 AM
@966, I thought the US was founded by religious nuts with guns :-).
Posted by: Ron ni Sullivan | July 17, 2008 11:53 AM
John Morales in #507:
OK, I'll beat that dead cayuse: For more than one reading of "genetic," evidently. I wonder if Ron-in has a ten-gallon hat in his stereotype closet with those boots. Maybe if he wore it, things wouldn't go over his head so readily.
I still think Mr. Foley has invited Jesus to the Republican convention and really thinks he'll show. Why an almighty god would need added security is anyone's guess.
Posted by: Dafmeister | July 17, 2008 11:53 AM
#330: (P.S. Since Foley seems to think the RNC is threatened - does that mean the RNC is a cracker? Or does Foley think he is Christ? I'm confused.)
I'm rather behind on reading the thread, so someone may have addressed this, but here goes anyway...
You've missed the point. The cracker IS Christ, therefore Foley is the cracker AND Christ. That is the essence of the Foley Trinity.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 11:54 AM
@Pete Rooke
So much wrong, so little time. So I'll just leave you with one request. Show me one thing that catholics contributed to the society that we wouldn't have without.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 17, 2008 11:57 AM
Unfortunately we ultimately bear responsibility for our own actions and those homosexuals who committed those acts will, as well as their accomplices, will eventually face judgement - and rightly so - despite perhaps escaping the wrath of our legal system which pales in comparison.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 17, 2008 12:01 PM
"catholics contributed to the society that we wouldn't have without."
The path to salvation.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 12:01 PM
We can't blame the Church for protecting child rapists and giving them constant access. Nope--just faggots.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 12:02 PM
that;'s a good little Nazinger sheep.
Posted by: Dave | July 17, 2008 12:03 PM
True Bob and Kmerian:
Damn you both, for making me wade through such awful word salad as, "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense" WTF does that mean anyway?
In anycase, as near as I can tell, Kmerian is correct, the catechism does not make any provision for the presence of Christ to leave the cracker based on the belief of the recipient. In fact, it says rather the opposite, "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist."
Not that I believe any of this crap, just wanted to set the record straight.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 12:04 PM
"Unfortunately we ultimately bear responsibility for our own actions and those homosexuals who committed those acts will, as well as their accomplices, will eventually face judgement - and rightly so - despite perhaps escaping the wrath of our legal system which pales in comparison"
So in fact you are not a moral person at all. If you think a significant part of the population will face "judgement" for being gay you really lack any compassion or moral sense at all.
And you wonder what our problem is with you ? You really have no insight do you ? If you cannot see many find your views on homosexuality to be abhorrent, and if you cannot see demanding respect for your religion whilst denying it to gays is hypocritical then I really must question your critical faculties. Your brain seems to be broken.
Posted by: Tom P. | July 17, 2008 12:04 PM
Granted he does have the right to maintain his Godless views in our society but a line has to be drawn when he begins to infringe on the traditions of this Christian nation - of which Catholicism has always played a massive role.
Actually this was never a Christian country. Most of our founding fathers were either Deists (3 of our first 5 presidents) or Unitarians (the other 2). Although Jefferson did tend to go back and forth between the two beliefs and was even accused of being an atheist by his enemies.
Posted by: Brad | July 17, 2008 12:05 PM
"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 12:05 PM
Does Pete Rooke always manage to compose posts that concentrate that many factual errors, baseless claims, false predictions ?
I've already read a few of his posts and I must say he seems to have a particular affinity for this type of super concentrated piece of nonsense.
This sub species of troll should be called a megatroll.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 12:06 PM
Christ, even more of the blathering torture fetishists are coming out of the woodwork.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 12:07 PM
"The path to salvation."
You have just said nothing. It would have meant the same thing, and involved less typing.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 17, 2008 12:08 PM
@983 that fellow said:
"has no bearing on the overall moral benefit and direction that Catholicism has provided this country - and much of the civilized world - through times of crisis"
What, pray tell, were these times of crisis, and what pray tell did Catholicism do about them?
Somebody also ought to tell him that Catholics in America were widely mistrusted in much of the country until the recent past. Remember that whole JFK business?
Atheist presidents=0; Catholic presidents=1
Apparently, this is a Protestant Nation, eh?
Posted by: kryth | July 17, 2008 12:10 PM
Unfortunately we ultimately bear responsibility for our own actions and those homosexuals who committed those acts will, as well as their accomplices, will eventually face judgement - and rightly so - despite perhaps escaping the wrath of our legal system which pales in comparison.
Peter, you're so right Allah will surely judge the evil Christians and they will burn in hell.
Posted by: CortxVortx | July 17, 2008 12:13 PM
"Never mind the Crackers -- here come the Cyber Pistols!"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 17, 2008 12:15 PM
Pete Rooke said:
...he might learn something about Christian charity.
I think Homer Simpson said it best:
"Christian Charity... what does a porn star have to do with this?"
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 12:16 PM
Point of fact, being an Atheist Unitarian-Universalist (like 19% of us), you're full of your own opinion when it comes to UU's. An opinion that clearly shows you don't know us. You don't know what we're about. But you are willing to, offensively I might add, dump us in with the crazies.
Unitarians have zero requirements in the spiritual area and are, as a denomination, more about inspiration to leading a socially-just lifestyle from whatever source than any of the Christian dogma you wish to hang on us. Taking directly from our Church's website:
We gather in safe and compassionate community, seeking our spiritual truths. We affirm our interdependence, celebrate our differences, and create a thoughtful and harmonious voice for liberal religion. Through the practice of the principles of our faith, we promote social, economic and environmental justice and continue our legacy of respect and acceptance. We covenant together in a spirit of love and freedom.
We have people, in our church, from virtually every mainstream, and many minor, religions - or none at all. Each and every person is accorded respect for, and right to hold, his/her own beliefs, but also may not try to force them on others. We share our beliefs through Religious Education classes which seek to inform, rather then prostelyze/convert, others of our beliefs.
I won't rehash the Unitarian martyrs. Those that died because the Christians, of whom you say we enable, killed them for being heretics. It's a LONG story. Full of dead people who paid the price for standing up against religious intolerance and bigotry practiced by mainstream faiths.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 12:17 PM
What moral direction did the Catholic church provide Spain during the Civil War ? What moral direction did the Catholic Church provide Italy under Mussolini ? What moral direction did the Catholic Church provide after the defeat of Nazi Germany ?
Oh that's right. It support dictators and helped Nazis wanted for war crimes escape justice. How moral.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 12:18 PM
I think I figured Pete out. Everything he's said points to one thing: he is sure that all non-catholics will burn in hell, and he's gloating over it.
So you derive pleasure at the thought that billions will burn in hell, real christian of you, Pete.
Posted by: LawnBoy | July 17, 2008 12:19 PM
This has probably been answered, but I'm trying to catch up.
The idea is that the bread Jesus used was made with wheat, so that's what he have to use. It's the same principle that says since all the disciples were men that all clergy must be men (I don't know why it doesn't mean that all priests have to be Jews from Palestine, but I guess that's just Catholic logic).
From the link:
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 12:25 PM
Matt Penfold: wasn't it the present pope ex-nazi when he was only cardinal ex-nazi who was responsible for formulating the RC's policy on handling these criminal priests. A policy which included moving priests around out of harms way, who cares about harm to the children, delay things until the statute of limitation ran out, threaten the victims with the wrath of the church to keep quiet and often as a last resort, allow them to escape to the Vatican when the heat got too close. Imagine if that had been discovered as the policy of a secular organisation, they would have probably been up on RICO charges with international warrants issued for those in charge of the organisation.
But hey, make fun of some of their more incredulous and ridiculous beliefs and we have this filth Peter Rooke up in arms while still defending the church over its policy about the criminal priests. Says it all about his type of
catholic really.
Peter Rooke also said " as well as their accomplices, will eventually face judgement ".
So Peter Rooke, does that mean that the present pope ex-nazi will eventually face judgement as he is the one responsible for formulating the RC policy on what to do to hide the paedophile priest scandal and you can't be more of an accessory after and during the fact than that, can you.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 12:26 PM
The first association I, and many other people with some historical knowledge have with the words "christian nation" is that of persecution of everyone who doesn't agree with the most powerful sect of christianity involved.
This is the whole reason why secular governments were created in the first place AND supported by all the various religious sects. I guess thats easy to miss for someone who didn't pay attention to history, and actually believes the founding fathers of the US were model christians who just happened to forget to add their god to the constitution.
Posted by: drjimmy | July 17, 2008 12:27 PM
From the article linked @1014
Would that it were so.
Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 17, 2008 12:30 PM
Brad (1003)
OK. I'm looking back at church history from the 21st century as an unbeliever. I see these problems off the top of my head.
1. the gospels were written several decades after the supposed fact.
2. The gospels were written in Greek while Jesus spoke Aramaic (if he existed).
3. The Catholic Church believes that there is no physical flesh in the consecrated host but it still is flesh.
4. The Catholic Church, with flimsy (at best) historical evidence, states unequivically that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically.
So, please convince us that it's not just a cracker.
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 12:33 PM
From the Vatican:
So, "However, the fruits of the sacraments do depend on the dispositions of the one who receives them." and "The lives of the faithful, their praise, their suffering, their prayers, their work, are united to those of Christ." with "To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in mortal sin." means you can't get communal with the church, its members, and its god without being a believer.
Unless perhaps, kmerian, you propose that your god is helplessly trapped in the eucharist, since:
In that case, though, since you know the limitations* of your god it's no wonder it needs you all to come to its rescue.
*snarky. If you dislike my connections, you better 'splain it to me, because your stance is inherently heretical.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 12:34 PM
John Phillips,
Yes the current Pope did have a fairly important role in how the Catholic Church dealt with paedophile priests.
What amazes me is how the likes of Rooke think it is the fact there were paedophile priests rather than the cover up that most angers people. Sensible people realise that in any large organisation that deals with children there will be paedophiles. If the organisation removes the paedophile from a position where they have access to children, and reports the incident to the authorities most people will think it is just an unfortunate isolated issue. If the organisation just moves the person to another post where they can continue their crimes most people think not the paedophile should be in prison, but those who could have stopped him but did not.
Posted by: negentopyeater | July 17, 2008 12:40 PM
Pete Rooke #983,
You mean for example in such moments of crisis when the church signed the Reichskonkordat with Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime in 1933 ?
Which most historians consider was one of the most important steps which led to the international acceptance of this regime, and later on to the events that we all know ?
Should I give more examples of moral benefits the church has provided civilization in periods of crisis ?
Hey, I'm French, how can I forget, they only killed about 50,000 huguenots in a few weeks after the St Barthélémy massacres, that's a HUGE moral benefit in a period of crisis isn't it ?
If you need to refresh your recollection of history, which evidently seems to be very, very, vague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre
And that's just TWO very different examples in different periods, off the top of my head, and I'll stop here because I think I could spend my whole day writing about so called "moral benefits the church has provided civilization in periods of crisis."
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 12:44 PM
Matt Penfold: exactly, is what sickens me is that so many catholics are still in a state of denial about the whole thing and so many, even senior church officials, still blaming the victims. Peter Rooke is typical of the type, my church right or right, but god help :) any outsider criticise or ridicule the ridiculous in the church.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 17, 2008 12:44 PM
"The fact that certain homosexual paedophiles (incidentally the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive) have infiltrated the church, in small isolated numbers, has no bearing on the overall moral benefit and direction that Catholicism has provided this country - and much of the civilized world - through times of crisis. For that we should all be grateful although that would apparently be too much to hope for."
Ah yes, the old homosexuality-leads-to-pedophilia nonsense. How does it feel being morally and intellectually challenged? Oh but it was the evil homosexual cabal scheming against the peaceful Christocrats, how could you have possible known? Oh wait, your leadership did, and somehow only found the moral will to shuffle them about. So much for that Catholic moral elitism.
As for Catholicism providing "overall moral benefit and direction" to this country, please, stop with the convenient reading of history. The fact is only reason has moved our society forward. Catholicism didn't end slavery, it didn't give women the right to vote or desegregate schools, it didn't defeat fascism or communism, it has done nothing. Its followers (of which I used to be one) think, like other religious sects, that it is the sole reason for all the is good in the world, but this is extremely foolish thinking.
Reason is what saves man, reason is what frees us from our shackles, reason is what pushes us into the future. Reason is what made this country what it is, not blind devotion.
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 12:45 PM
This is about the kind of world we choose to live in. Catholics believe that the host, once concecrated, is sacred. You find that to be foolish. Catholics, by and large do not give a damn what you think; you don't care what Catholics think.
But we all have to live in this world together. And it is hubris for you to interfere with the rights that others see as sacred simply because you believe them wrong. Apart from simply seeking attention, why would you do this? Why would you interfere with what others see as sacred? The communion right in no way harms you. While you may disagree on certain political issues Catholics sometime puruse, you have a more than adequate remedy in the political arena. This is the way our republic works -- disparate groups advocate their views and succeed or fail based upon their ability to convince others.
While I have tried to stay away from the details of this insipid dispute, one statement in your post is so absurd that a response is required. You ask if "the crackers aren't just lying around, how come people are having such an easy time getting them?" Obviously, they are getting the host at mass, where there is an implicit agreement by those taking the host that they intend to consume it as members of the Catholic faith. The church does not want to have to check ID's at the door.
By doing this, you have made the world a worse place: less tolerant, less understanding, and less kind. You have made it harder for those with disparate beliefs to live together as a community. Whatever ego thrill you get from this action is no justification.
Posted by: windy | July 17, 2008 12:47 PM
@1014: "The use of any flour other than wheat flour makes the bread invalid matter."
I've never heard of that category of matter - how does that relate to dark matter or antimatter?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 12:49 PM
negentopyeater
I don't think people like Pete can quite grasp history the way reasonable people do. Actually, I don't think people like Pete can quite grasp reality the way reasonable people do.
Posted by: Tom P. | July 17, 2008 12:51 PM
And it is hubris for you to interfere with the rights that others see as sacred simply because you believe them wrong.
I think a woman's right to choose is sacred but you seem to feel it is your right to interfere. In any case, no one is interfering with your right to practice whatever silly religion you want.
Posted by: Brad | July 17, 2008 12:54 PM
AgnoAtheist #1018,
catholic.com has some great articles and tracts on their website that answers these and other questions. Worth a visit if for no other reason than to get a Catholic perspective on these kind of issues that you see problems with... and from people much smarter than me who have spent their life studying it.
I normally don't post to threads and am swimming in work, so will probably not check back with this, but thanks for reaching out with honest questions. Take care and best of luck to you, Brad.
Posted by: MrMarkAZ | July 17, 2008 12:55 PM
"This is my cyberpistol, this is my gun ... one is for persecuting Catholics, one is for fun ..."
Seriously, though. This sounds like a video game in the making, in which a lone soldier, equipped with the best weapons science has to offer, defends the entire human race from a power-mad and deluded alliance of religious fanatics whose delusional thinking has led them on a Great Journey that threatens to destroy all sentient life in the galaxy ... if only there was such a game ... if only ...
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 12:55 PM
The problem isn't your bible. It's that you're ignorant and actually think your bible is, on some level, true or correct and represents "God."
This is no more convincing than if you sat down with the Bhagavad Gita, Confucian Texts, the Tibetan Book of the Dead or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. They're all fairy tales and, ironically, though you're a prisoner of your fairy tale, you can easily recognize those others as fairy tales.
I, OTOH, have spent decades following biblical archeology and know, for certain, that the Bible is a bunch of co-opted fairy-tales from various religions and has as much bearing on the reality of the universe as Magical Flying Unicorns. And, unlike you, I can actually BACK UP MY ARGUMENT WITH FACTS AND DATA. Just like I could, probably to a lesser extent, if I were discussing those religious texts in which we are (likely) in complete agreement are just fairy-tales..
The real problem, is that your internal thought-processes are based on BAD DATA you have incorporated to make your world-view. And thus, from that corrupt world-view, you bad arguments based on these delusions. Really, your mind isn't working right and your arguments are a classic case of Garbage-In, Garbage-Out.
And you can't see that. Because you cannot handle the truth of your religious text. All others, you can see the truth. But yours. Not at all.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 12:56 PM
Andrew: again you don't get it. Believe whatever stupid nonsense you want to, usually at worst, if you don't do anything that effect us we might think you a bit touched but let you get on with it. However, in this case, it was the church that offended by first assaulting the student over a misunderstanding, compounding the error with their statements after wards and then other catholics threatening the student. When PZ in disgust made his post to highlight the situation and made his point about threatening to desecrate the host as a point that a student's life was more important than the host, he also received death threats and a whole lot of catholics rationalising the wrongs done in the name of catholicism. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your feelings of persecution or your 'truth'.
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 12:57 PM
Andrew, nobody's right to worship as they choose has been interfered with. What are you smoking and why aren't you sharing?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 12:57 PM
Maybe gays should start framing their fight for their rights as being a right over things they hold sacred. That way the likes of Donohue and Pete Rooke would be forced to support them, as they are very clear they disapprove of condemning things people hold to be sacred.
I think I might have finally got this framing thing. We can just call the right of gays to marry a sacred right. Game over for those who oppose it!
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 12:57 PM
"What amazes me is how the likes of Rooke think it is the fact there were paedophile priests rather than the cover up that most angers people. Sensible people realise that in any large organisation that deals with children there will be paedophiles."
I agree the worst problem was when church leaders sent perverts to other towns to rape more little boys. I also noticed the little boy rapers seem to be attracted to the Catholic church. I think it's for good reasons a priest is more likely than anyone else to be pedophile. The reasons might include the fact priests can't get married, and also anyone stupid enough to be a Catholic is likely to have other problems.
The Catholic church has a long history of child abuse, genocide, and forced slavery. I can't imagine why anyone would talk about "the overall moral benefit and direction that Catholicism has provided this country", unless he was a shithead like Pete Rooke.
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 12:58 PM
"Buddhists do not consider Gautama Siddhartha ("The Buddha") a god, O ignorant one."
So Buddhists spell the name as 'buddha'?
There's a word in the Russian language for people who would desecrate a consecrated Host.
I find this group mostly, but not entirely, very strange. People in the old SU were brought up from infancy in an officially atheist society, and yet I never met anyone who would desecrate a consecrated Host. If nothing else it would be considered the act of a lout, an uncultured person, someone who was an embarrassment to civilized society.
There was a famous priest in the latter days of the SU. His name was Fr. Aleksandr Men. His kitchen sermons were famous, and even Party members would sit around the table and listen intently. I'm quite sure that some, perhaps many, were atheists, because that's how they had been brought up. But Fr. Men was extraordinary to listen to. And if they disagreed with anything they said, or had questions, it would never occur to them to be disrespectful towards him.
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:00 PM
Tom, (#1027) I anticipated your comment when noting the political issue. Obviously many Catholics and non-Catholics believe the unborn child is meaningfully devloped human being worthy of the respect of the law. You do not. That is fine -- and if you want to fight that out and attack the Chuch on that ground, enjoy yourself. But obviously, there is no connection between the political issue of abortion and the communion right.
You are also wrong to say that "no one is interfering with your right to practice whatever silly religion you want." By stealing the communion host Mr. Meyer (or those who act at his request) are breaching the bond of trust between the church and those who receive communion. The host is given freely in the expectation that those who take it do so in good faith. If that bond in broken, it will be very difficult for Catholics to worship as they choose.
Posted by: spurge | July 17, 2008 1:02 PM
"While I have tried to stay away from the details of this insipid dispute, one statement in your post is so absurd that a response is required."
Actually knowing what the fuck you are talking about before you post is too much for you?
Pathetic
Posted by: SteveM | July 17, 2008 1:02 PM
Re 1024:
By doing this, you have made the world a worse place: less tolerant, less understanding, and less kind.
No he is not. It is your choice to be upset at whatever prank anyone chooses to pull on a small piece of unleavened bread. He does not force you to be angry, you choose to be angry. It is like camping in the rain, you can either be wet and miserable or you can just be wet. You have no choice about being wet, but you do choose whether or not to be miserable. Same with PZ's hypothetical "stunt". You can either watch and be offended or you could just watch. It is your choice to be offended, PZ is not forcing you. And it is how you choose that determines whether the world is more tolerant, more understanding and more kind or not.
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:04 PM
John -- I agree with you that this whole dispute is stupid. It sounds like the Florida kid made a mistake and just tried to do the right thing. It should have been left at that.
Bob -- your comment hardly merits a response. See comment No. 1036.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 1:04 PM
Maybe gays should start framing their fight for their rights as being a right over things they hold sacred.
You mean like the right to simply live and exist as gay people? That would still be controversial in some circles, including the RCC.
Posted by: Pierre JC | July 17, 2008 1:06 PM
Tom Foley is from Virginia. VIRGINIA. As in, Virginia, Capital of the Confederacy. And in all his 63 years, he hasn't seen "such bigotry."
This is the same Virginia that had one of its counties close its public schools for several years to avoid educating black children.
If this is the worst "bigotry" he's ever seen, then he's a typical Republican, with his head shoved up his ignorant, right-wing Christian ass.
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 17, 2008 1:06 PM
Pavel Chichikov (Comment #840):
Quite surprised. And not inconsiderably disappointed to find that the universe really is the playground of a petty-minded cosmic sociopath.
Experience of what, and how do they know that their beliefs have been correctly inferred from those experiences?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:07 PM
@Pavel Chichikov
Look up Overton's Window and you'll see why PZ is advocating this now. You don't see him doing this on a regular basis for fun do you?
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 1:08 PM
Even on a secular level, if someone came into your home, spat on a photograph of your deceased parents, ripped it out of the frame and tore it to bits, wouldn't you feel at least somewhat offended? Mildly?
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:09 PM
Spurge, I did not say that I was unaware of the details of the dispute -- only that I tried not to comment on each little piece of it in my post.
Please read and understand my post prior to commenting. It will make for a better discussion.
Posted by: Ale | July 17, 2008 1:09 PM
A constant stream of cat-licks, each one as clueless as the last. Ok, seems that your sheep herder did not inform you correctly of the status of the debacle.
So, why the interest on the wafer?
To make a point: It is wrong to phisically assault a person and then issue the person death threats because they refused to follow the rules in one of your liturgic rituals. PZ went over the top on his denouncement of the fact that a small wafer seems to be way more important to the catholic establishment than the well-being of a young man. And then, the hordes of irrationality were let loose by Bill Donahue, who incidentally IS and ass and DOES prefer braying than structured speech and understanding. And then, the batshit insane fringe of the catholic sheep baclashed with death threats of their own, now to PZ Myers.
THIS is why. Fundamentalist catholicism is very intolerant, possibly as intolerant as the muslim faith that has been so criticised of late. This needs to be known and understood, and an effective way to help people understand it is to povide the fundamentalists with an opportunity to become as vicious and bloodthirsty as they truly are.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 1:10 PM
Andrew,
In what sense do we interfere with the Catholics' right to see this Eucharist as sacred ? Nothing stops them to continue and see it as sacred.
Is their faith that weak that it feels threatened by a humble biologist who pledges on his blog to desecrates a cracker ?
What are they afraid of ?
Why do they belittle their own faith in Christ so much ?
For a more detailed explanation read my post #836 and check what their own catechism and their own bible says on the matter.
Posted by: black wolf | July 17, 2008 1:10 PM
#1024,
"While I have tried to stay away from the details of this insipid dispute..."
That is evident. Pay attention: The details are that a person was physically assaulted for not immediately consuming a cracker on the spot. He chose to keep it (presumably as evidence of the incident) after the assault had taken place. For this, he was subsequently threatened with violence, and destruction of his livelihood and academic future.
PZ Myers stated his support for the young man and expressed his displeasure of the threats and actions that had taken place. To underline his position, he stated that he'd do much more than not eat the cracker if he had one or more of them (for instance submitting them to scientific investigation á la Mythbusters).
For this statement, on which he has not acted to this day, he received attacks on his professional status, which were officially condoned and endorsed by the Catholic League, character and personal death threats from multiple persons. Death threats detailing the manner in which Mr. Myers would be killed. Got that?
You are, giving you the benfit of the doubt, unaware of all that, and instead choose to condemn the triviality of doing things with crackers that they weren't intended for, out of utter ignorance of the facts.
It is completely irrelevant how juvenile desecrating hosts (whose status of sacredness is a mere and completely unevidential assertion) may be. It is also at best of tertiary importance that some believers may feel offended by such propositions, when the actions that triggered this 'affair' have still not been properly addressed by those who perpetrated the actual violence and further threats of violence in the first place.
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:12 PM
Steve (No. 1038) if someone stole your car, would you blame yourself for being upset about that event? You may not agree, but Catholics believe the host is much more valuable than a car. Let them live as they see fit.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:12 PM
"If that bond in broken, it will be very difficult for Catholics to worship as they choose."
But not too difficult to threaten murder and/or threaten to ruin lives.
Andrew, if a church member didn't attack the student, and if there were no death threats, and if Catholics didn't go batshit crazy because of a tasteless cracker, this incident would have been ignored by everyone. The Catholics made fools out of themselves. They proved they're stupid, insane, and immoral. They deserve the ridicule they're getting now. I'm not interested in visiting churches to obtain crackers, but I have no problem with other people going in there to annoy Catholic assholes. I'm in favor of the complete eradication of your death cult. In my opinion, ridicule and harassment, combined with better science education, is the best way to get rid of religious insanity.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:13 PM
And they start up the awful analogies. Skim through the threads and you'll see the numerous times where this has been debunked.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 17, 2008 1:15 PM
P.Z. Myers said - "This is precisely the kind of deranged hysteria we have to protest against, I'm afraid."
Actually *this* is precisely the kind of deranged hysteria *we* have to protest against, I'm afraid. . .
"There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion."
"So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them -- my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure -- but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart."
Allow me to recycle the words of P. Z. Myers' Atheist Supremacist brother-in-arms professor Richard Dawkins to the above "deranged hysteria" and other such offensive anti-religious attacks undertaken by fundamentalist atheist P. Z. Myers -
"The incompetence, on a public relations level, is beyond belief." This is "an incredible piece of inept public relations" by P. Z. Myers. . .
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 1:15 PM
Let them live as they see fit.
Why does the Church never apply this to gay people?
Damn, this gets annoying. Fussiness over a cracker versus continual attempts to deny any form of integration into society, as well as very basic rights, and any attempt to diminish discrimination or violence.
Posted by: SteveM | July 17, 2008 1:15 PM
You are a moron. Exactly how does someone palming a wafer and taking it home affect how you worship?
It is the duty of the receiver to ensure that he is "worthy" of receiving the host. Not the duty of the priest to ensure that everyone receiving it is worthy. The priest is an enabler, not an enforcer. This "bond of trust" also includes that the receiver has been fasting. Suppose I take the host without fasting, I have broken the bond of trust. Is your ability to worship now compromised?
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:17 PM
"You may not agree, but Catholics believe the host is much more valuable than a car."
Andrew, are you sure you want to compare an expensive car to a cracker that costs less than one cent to manufacture?
It's the Catholic belief that a cracker could have any value is why they are ridiculed. It's way beyond insane to pretend a cracker is sacred, and more important than human life.
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 1:18 PM
Moses at 1011,
The local UU bunch in my neck of the woods declared a few years ago that you had to believe in a higher power or you weren't in the in-group. Bummed secularists bailed out.
So maybe they are UU Heretics?
Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 17, 2008 1:20 PM
#1018, for nine days now, PZ has been marching around promising us that he is going to prove "it's just a cracker".
The Catholic church and it's members have rested their case, the "cracker" is in PZ's court now.
But as yet another day passes, there those captive "crackers" sit, thumbing their metaphorical noses at PZ (and by extension all of PZ's true believers), daring him to get to it; and nothing.
So, please tell us PZ. Are those "crackers" too hot to touch, or what?
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:21 PM
Posts 1046 & 1048 -- You have misstated my position. If death threats were issued, those people have also made the world a worse place. Had these individuals a post, I would have said that. But I am here, and respond to what Mr. Meyer has done.
Post 1047 -- Catholics are not threated by a "humble biologist." They simply want to be left alone and have those things they see as sacred not desicrated by thieves.
Posted by: spurge | July 17, 2008 1:21 PM
Andrew
It is all about perspective.
You value a cracker more than your fellow humans.
If you can't see why that is a problem I feel sorry for you.
Posted by: SteveM | July 17, 2008 1:21 PM
If cars were being handed out to hundreds of people every day for the price of simply sitting through a mass, no I probably would not be upset. Try a more meaningful analogy.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 1:23 PM
By stealing the communion host Mr. Meyer (or those who act at his request) are breaching the bond of trust between the church and those who receive communion. The host is given freely in the expectation that those who take it do so in good faith. If that bond in broken, it will be very difficult for Catholics to worship as they choose.
"Bond of trust?" "Good faith?" Magic crackers are a fraud, a swindle, a scam, a grift, the bunk, and you, Andrew, are a pathetic mark that has been conned.
Posted by: spurge | July 17, 2008 1:25 PM
Spurge, how do I value a "cracker" more than my fellow humans? I have simply said that simple courtesy would suggest that no one should steal (or encourage others to steal) a host from a Catholic mass. Please tell me how that values a "cracker" over other people?
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 1:26 PM
Andrew wrote:
In a really round about way, yes.
All of them?
Yes.
You're apparently wrong about that when it comes to PZ. Bill Donohue appears to care about something, you care about it in some way too, else you wouldn't have bothered to come here and post your message. The people who threatened PZ must care.
Not exactly true either.
Yes. That's why we care.
Rights? Excuse me, do we not have a right to do what we want with crackers you can buy easily online and say mumbo-jumbo over?
Do we not have a right to take a cracker freely given to us and do what we want with it?
What's wrong with attention? If I would have wrote what PZ wrote few people would have cared. I know, I've said worse than PZ on my blog. Getting attention isn't as easy as you think.
To point out how crazy it is to think a cracker is sacred.
Not directly, but it is part of the madness and insanity that is religion and that infects politics and everything else. I used to be Christian myself, and it was the absurdity and craziness of the things I was asked to believe that made me wake up and rely on reason.
This is the political arena.
And PZ is gambling on his ability to convince others just how crazy religious people are by provoking crazy reactions... like yours.
One kid did. There are other ways. You can also buy the crackers, get a $15 universal church of life degree and then bless your own crackers.
Of course, because that would look crazy.
Worse in the sense that you can't go around acting nuts and not be noticed. So, worse for who is the question.
That's what religion seems to do.
You did that PZ? Wow! That's impressive. I would have blamed the crazy religious beliefs people threaten each other over for that.
It's freaking cracker!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 17, 2008 1:27 PM
#1057
The Catholic church and it's members have rested their case
They have??? All evidence to the contrary. Please do a little reading and keep up. Or does "wilfull ignorance" for you go beyond unsubstantiated, unprovable belief in a magic sky fairy and extend to the inability to read that which you don't like?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 17, 2008 1:27 PM
Not surprising. "Irrational fear" is the Republican credo these days.
Posted by: SteveM | July 17, 2008 1:29 PM
Andrew, yes I understand your belief that the wafer is the body of Christ, but the only wafers you can really value are the ones you yourself are actually receiving. What happens to any of the others really does not affect you at all.
You know those free newspapers? The one I pick up and find something of value in makes that copy valuable. Why should I care if you come along, take the next one from the stack and burn it? How does that change the value of the one in my pocket?
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:29 PM
The point, Steve, (# 1038) is that the host is sacred to Catholics. You may not agree or understand, but they do. The analogy is a strong one.
As for Post # 1061, there is no need to respond, as it adds nothing substantive to the debate.
Posted by: Tom P. | July 17, 2008 1:31 PM
Even on a secular level, if someone came into your home, spat on a photograph of your deceased parents, ripped it out of the frame and tore it to bits, wouldn't you feel at least somewhat offended? Mildly?
Sure. But suppose you took a picture from my house in order to show your friend. And then I called you up and threatened to have you killed unless you returned that picture. Then I hired armed guards to kill anyone who attempted to take a picture from my house. Would you think I was over-reacting?
So here's a few questions for you, my old friend Pavel. Do you agree that desecrating the host is the most vile act that a person can do? Do you agree that placing armed guards in a church is the correct response to prevent a host from being taken? Do you agree that threatening to kill people who take a host is appropriate? Do you think that it is fair to mock people who value a piece of bread above human life?
Posted by: black wolf | July 17, 2008 1:31 PM
"...if someone came into your home, spat on a photograph of your deceased parents, ripped it out of the frame and tore it to bits, wouldn't you feel at least somewhat offended? Mildly?"
Yes I would, and I'd have certain rights to defend myself and my home and property from such actions. But that has nothing to do with what actually happened. You're already going over the top with your martyr complex.
If I invite someone into my home, and then gave them a picture of my deceased mother as a present, telling them to put it in their right breast pocket, and they'd choose to put it in their left pants pocket instead, would I have the right to assault them, restrain them, trying to rip the picture out of their hands and afterwards threaten their physical wellbeing and their job after they left? This is similar to what actually happened, and I would definitely not have that right.
The church is supposedly God's home. Let him deal with it. Is he so weak that you need to defend him? Can he or can he not choose to remain or leave the cracker whenever he likes? Can he or can he not punish anyone at any time and any place if he wants to?
Someone invited to my home or workplace can offend me in the worst imaginable way and do whatever he wants to a present I give him in trust. That still does not warrant any sort of physical assault or subsequent threats I may want to make against him. If I want my property back or compensation for destruction of that property (which I gave to him as a present), I can try to do so by hiring a lawyer etc. That's it. It's called the rule of law, and apparently certain religious people feel free to disregard this basic principle of our western societies.
Posted by: Tom L | July 17, 2008 1:31 PM
"Stole your car"...??? Again with the horribly inapt analogies.
For the car analogy to work, I would have to GIVE somebody my car, with no expectation of ever getting it back, but only on the condition that he immediately have it towed to the car crushing machine. I would then call him a car thief because he a) tried to drive it around the block once before calling the wrecking company, and b) then drove off to escape me when I came after him and tried to physically drag him out of the driver's seat.
Posted by: E.V. | July 17, 2008 1:32 PM
Robin E:
Thank you for your comment. Since you only added your own irrelevant cluelessness, don't feel slighted when we consider you to be sub-troll and unworthy of further attention. Oh, and your website is pure shite.
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 1:32 PM
"Quite surprised. And not inconsiderably disappointed to find that the universe really is the playground of a petty-minded cosmic sociopath."
There is a legitimate problem of theism and evil. There's also a problem of atheism and evil. How is is it that atheists have acquired a sense of what is evil and what is not?
That the Church is aware of the problem of evil is putting it mildly. It's been under discussion for two thousand years.
"Experience of what, and how do they know that their beliefs have been correctly inferred from those experiences?"
Iain, I really don't know how to answer that question, because experiences of that kind are impossible to describe. You have a right to suppose that those who have these experiences are deluded, and we who have them may reserve the opinion that you are blind.
The Pope in a recent encyclical speaks of being embraced by totality. I think he knows what he's talking about.
I will say this: The more a person is full of himself, the further he is from God, the Glory (the Hebrews called it *kabod*), light, totality, or whatever completely inadequate term you want to use.
You have to be very small. You have to need an answer. If you lock yourself in a room and dare God to come through the keyhole, He will respect your privacy and you will be left to yourself. In that sense, you are completely free.
But I will say this: It's all OK. Very. You will see it, and all you will want to do is praise it in joy forever. Nothing on Earth is like it. Nothing.
I have my own moments of despair. Most of us do. And then I remember.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 1:35 PM
Andrew, if the catholics hadn't acted the way they did in the first place with assaulting the student and calling for his expulsion none of this would have happened as nobody would have heard of it. However, they then compounded the error with continuing calls for the students expulsion as well as death threats which is when PZ got involved in support of the student. They (Donohue and his lackeys) then started a campaign to try and get PZ sacked and censured in any way they could and finally, to top it all, death threats sent to PZ. Thus, ultimately it is the catholics themselves responsible for this brouhaha and nobody else.
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:35 PM
Steve -- I appreciate your tone. It is good to have a discussion rather than merely hurling invective. I have not been without reproach during my posts, and apologize for that.
The point is that for Catholics, the Host is sacred -- a divine gift. It would be gravely wrong to ignore that fact simply because the host is not one I am consuming. Again, you may not agree -- you may find it foolish -- but why can this belief be respected?
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 1:35 PM
As for Post # 1061, there is no need to respond, as it adds nothing substantive to the debate.
The con of the sacred cracker is the subject of the debate, you witless pawn. That the magic of the sacred cookie was violated by a student who wouldn't let the Nun pry it from his hand is full of so much juju that Catholics are braying for his expulsion from school, and PZ is getting death threats for supporting Webster Cook and promising to demonstrate that there's no way to tell the difference between a magic biscuit and one that didn't have the hocus pocus magic words mumbled over it--so you go all apeshit demanding that we be as reverent toward your nonsensical totem as you do! That's the very substance of the debate, you twit!
Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 17, 2008 1:36 PM
Say, Celtic?
What I read here is a whole lot of blah, blah, blah.
PZ said he was going to teach that "cracker" it's place, but there they sit.
For nine days now, they've been sitting there peacefully, while you and your ilk throw feces at Catholics; Okee-Dokee, fine by me.
But it's game time, boys. Put up, or shut up.
Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 17, 2008 1:36 PM
Brad (1028)
If I am off target please forgive as I have no intention of hurting you. Are you running away? If so, I hope you will find the courage to face what you fear.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 1:36 PM
Andrew,
Who is the Mr Meyer you keep mentioning ?
I thought at first you might Professor PZ Myers, but then being the honest and decent person you claim to be, and given that his name is at the top of this page, I realised that you did not mean PZ but someone else.
What has this Mr Meyer done to do annoy you ?
Posted by: Tom P. | July 17, 2008 1:37 PM
Andrew (#1049) Corrected:
If someone stole your imaginary car, would you blame yourself for being upset about that event?
Posted by: E.V. | July 17, 2008 1:37 PM
Pavel:"That the Church is aware of the problem of evil is putting it mildly. It's been under discussion for two thousand years."
Only 2000 years? The Greeks and Hebrews beat your puny musings all to hell.
Maybe that's your problem. Pure drivel, Pavel.
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 1:37 PM
"You're already going over the top with your martyr complex."
C'mon. Nothing I wrote suggests that I feel like a martyr.
I met atheists in Russia who were excellent people. There was one whom I trusted with my life, and she came through. Not one of these people would dream of offending believers.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 17, 2008 1:38 PM
Yeah Andrew, they just wanted to be left alone, that's why they tried to ruin the careers of that kid in florida and PZ, and sent them death traits.
One side is issuing death threats to people, the other is threatening a cracker. You think the anti-cracker crowd is in the wrong. How the hell does that not imply that crackers are worth more then people to you?
Oh I'm sorry I forgot to your mind atheists aren't real people so it's OK for them to be valued less then a cracker am I right? If it was nice christians then maybe we'd be more worried about them then the crackers is that it? How moral of you.
Posted by: kmerian | July 17, 2008 1:38 PM
BobC, are your arguments so weak that you have to resort to personal insults, and your vocabulary so inadequate that you must use profanity every post? (BTW thanks for the blog visit!) And no, I have no right to order anyone around. My post was a suggestion to PZ, he can follow it or not, his decision.
True Bob,
We do not believe that Jesus is "hopelessly trapped". He is in the Eucharist, but he is also omnipresent. His being there is not dependent on the belief of the recipient, but an unbelieving recipient receives none of the fruits of the Eucharist (that is, grace).
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:39 PM
John -- I cheerfully agree that the Florida student should not have been attacked (so long as, as it seems, he was merely acting out of confusion rather than malice). But I am not on the blog of those who attacked him.
Posted by: Richard | July 17, 2008 1:39 PM
I'm dismayed to see this; that what some hold sacred is fodder for others be it for 15+ minutes of fame, ridicule or derision - or hate and bigotry against Catholics? Most people have something, someone, perhaps a belief, that they value. Threatening to desecrate or harm that which another holds sacred to make whatever point it is you wish to make is just hateful, and seems petty. Aren't there more constructive ways to make your thoughts and positions known without causing pain and anguish to others through your words, threats and actions?
From your words, threats and actions, it is clear that you don't care or don't appreciate "the big deal", i.e., the meaning of the Eucharist, the consecrated Host. Nor do you seem to care or comprehend that your words and actions are causing Catholics who do believe, to suffer? If one's actions cause suffering to others and one persists, is that not hateful? At the very least it is hurtful. Respect for one another is a basic right for all, is it not? If Catholics are telling you that your actions, words and threats pains and hurts them, why are you so callous as to persist in causing such anguish?
There may be analogies that may make more sense to you, but as a Catholic and person of faith, I would not desecrate that which others hold sacred to make a social or political point. For example, I don't believe in Islam but that does not mean I would act in such a way to desecrate that which Muslims hold sacred to protest some socio-political policy of an Islamic sect or government.
Please reconsider your actions, and if you are not willing to try and understand what this means to Catholics, at least please try to appreciate that your actions are causing genuine pain and anguish to Catholics around the world. As a professor and scientist, please use reason to respect that which you find unreasonable and do not understand or appreciate.
Peace,
Richard
Posted by: MReap | July 17, 2008 1:41 PM
Does Foley and the wing-nuts in the GOP realize that the Science Museum of Minnesota is located directly across the street from the Xcel Center? Just wondering... All those "evolutionists" is such close proximity surely pose a threat to security issue, eh?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 17, 2008 1:42 PM
Watch out, Republichristians! PZ's got a cyperpistol!
He's going to use it to disrupt religious services at a Catholic church.
That makes it... a weapon of Mass destruction!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2008 1:42 PM
Pavel Chichikov, do you eat beef?
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2008 1:43 PM
Sorry Matt, Professor Myers. I am typing while doing other things, and did not proofread correctly.
As for Post 1079, you really don't get the point, do you? Step outside of yourself and realize that others have beliefs that are different that yours.
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 1:44 PM
"You will see it, and all you will want to do is praise it in joy forever. Nothing on Earth is like it. Nothing."
My goodness, you people scare me. Your willful clinging to empty myths and traditions because it makes you feel good is tragic. Your disrespect for the earth and all its creatures in favor of your imaginary friend is dangerous.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 17, 2008 1:44 PM
I'm still surprised people think knowing the difference between right and wrong requires a supernatural component. All it takes is stuff like empathy, sympathy, a concept of teamwork, and such.
Of course, we're facing off against people who don't think such threats of violence are wrong (the crop of barbarians and their apologists who happen to be Catholic, not Catholics in general), I guess they have to have some imaginary, absolute threat of eternal torture to keep in line, since they can't see the benefits of altruism. I wouldn't expect them to understand morality.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 17, 2008 1:44 PM
@ Laughin_guy
For nine days now, they've been sitting there peacefully, while you and your ilk throw feces at Catholics; Okee-Dokee, fine by me.
Are you on laughin_gas?? Cause that's the only way you could possibly be ignorant enough to believe that. So, sending death threats and calling for PZ's job and the myriad of other "acts of christianity" are "sitting there peacefully"? Are you deranged?
As for your question... yeah, I'm sure PZ's gonna jump into action with whatever he plans to do or not do with the jesus-jerky because of your not-so-veiled attempt at goading him into it. Please. Get over yourself.
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 1:44 PM
I like Bacon. And Pie. I really like Bacon Pie. Yum.
BTW, you can get a FREE SPELL CHECKER from Google.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 1:45 PM
Richard,
As a member of the Catholic church you DO hurt people. You belong to a church that seeks to deny gay people human rights, that seeks to stop women having abortions and does not care that the opposition to contraception is killing people through allowing HIV infection to spread as the result of people not using condoms.
Do you not see that we find those things hurtful ? Unless and until the Catholic church reverses its positions on those, and other issues such as stem cell research and infertility treatments, why should we respect you ?
What PZ has been saying will not kill anyone. The positions taken by your church will. I know which I find worse, and the fact you do not tells us how fucked your moral system is.
You belong to a church that does not care it kills people through its actions.
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 1:46 PM
"Threatening to desecrate or harm that which another holds sacred to make whatever point it is you wish to make is just hateful, and seems petty"
But threatening a college kid and a professor with DEATH is just fine by you.
I'll say it again. You people scare me.
Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 1:47 PM
"So here's a few questions for you, my old friend Pavel. Do you agree that desecrating the host is the most vile act that a person can do? Do you agree that placing armed guards in a church is the correct response to prevent a host from being taken? Do you agree that threatening to kill people who take a host is appropriate? Do you think that it is fair to mock people who value a piece of bread above human life?"
First of all, a consecrated Host is not ' a piece of bread.' Aside from that, I would say that desecrating a consecrated Host is one of the saddest things a human being can do. But no, I wouldn't harm anyone who did it. They would have done enough harm to themselves, and who am I to punish or mock anyone?
I think Christ would feel sorry for you. He did so enough to die for you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 1:47 PM
"Sorry Matt, Professor Myers. I am typing while doing other things, and did not proofread correctly. "
Well that really shows a lot of respect doesn't it.
Posted by: Tom P. | July 17, 2008 1:51 PM
Corrected for Pavel:
"That the Church is
aware of the problem ofevil is putting it mildly. It's beenunder discussionevil for two thousand years."Posted by: Pavel Chichikov | July 17, 2008 1:51 PM
"Your disrespect for the earth and all its creatures in favor of your imaginary friend is dangerous."
We're environmentalists around here.
"Your willful clinging to empty myths and traditions because it makes you feel good is tragic. "
I think you misunderstand. I'm talking about experience, not a text or a tradition.
Am I deluded or lying? Suppose I'm not?
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 1:52 PM
" consecrated Host is not ' a piece of bread."
You're right. It's a wafer that tastes like cardboard.
"I would say that desecrating a consecrated Host is one of the saddest things a human being can do. "
Yeah, nothing worse than not eating a wafer that tastes like cardboard. I mean, the nerve of some people not eating wafers!
"They would have done enough harm to themselves, and who am I to punish or mock anyone?"
True, they might be hungry and have denied themselves a bad-tasting, woefully insufficient snack.
"I think Christ would feel sorry for you."
Too bad he never existed.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 1:54 PM
"From your words, threats and actions, it is clear that you don't care or don't appreciate "the big deal", i.e., the meaning of the Eucharist, the consecrated Host."
No shit sherlock.
"Nor do you seem to care or comprehend that your words and actions are causing Catholics who do believe, to suffer?"
Don't care? That's correct.
Comprehend the fact Catholic assholes suffer? We sure do comprehend it. That's what the ridicule is for. Catholics are offended when their crackers are not respected. The fact they are offended is what deserves ridicule, especially after the death threats and the violent assault of the student.
Also deserving ridicule is the armed police they now have guarding their crackers. The stupidity and insanity of Catholics is breathtaking.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 1:55 PM
Richard, again, it is you catholics who don't understand why PZ made his post. A student took his cracker innocently back to his seat to show his friend who was not a catholic what it was about before consuming it. A church official then assaulted him and after he left the church they tried to get him expelled and he even received death threats. PZ then made his post to highlight how ridiculous it was that the church and catholics apparently felt that a host was more important than a human life. They then attacked him in the same way, campaigning to get him sacked and he also received death threats. If your catholics hadn't overreacted in the first place none of this would have happened as nobody would have heard anything about it. So again, it is not us shitting on your parade but you catholics apparently valuing your host over the lives of two people as very few catholics (three or four out of the myriads who have visited here at the last count) have actually condemned what happened to PZ and the student. Who are the hypocrites here, not us, for if your church official hadn't reacted the opposite of xians this would have been a non event and you could have got on with your delusions. However, when the host is apparently more important than the lives of two people. expect those not beholden to your delusions to hold a bright shining light to the absurdity and the hypocrisy. I am getting real tired of having to explain this to each new catholic that comes in here crying persecution. I just wish all of read up on the whole story before you come here crying about persecution or bigotry as it is getting stake when you can't be bothered to get the full story first and makes you look even worse each time.
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 1:56 PM
"We're environmentalists around here."
Not what I meant. You're focus is on an afterlife that doesn't exist, a god that doesn't exist, a promise that won't be fulfilled. You, and the others here focusing only on the stupid wafer and not, conveniently, the homocidial tendancies of your fellow theists, are nurturing both the social climate that allows people worshipping bad snack food as holy AND the people who would murder those who aren't so deluded.
You're part of the problem. And no amount of your pretending to be beign is going to change that fact.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 1:56 PM
I'm getting tired of repeating myself: PZ does not go around screwing with the catholics for fun, there is a context and reason for what he proposed. See Overton's Window. And by the way, criticizing the inane does not qualify as bigotry. It's been addressed.
None as effective, no.
We are well-acquainted with your narcissistic christian sensibilities. And your anguish over a cracker is hurtful to me due to its infringement on my rationality.
Well, I would.
"Use reason to respect that which you find unreasonable [...]" Are you trying to be ironic? Do you respect the beliefs of the scientologists? Of the mormons? Of the FSMist?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 17, 2008 1:57 PM
@ Pavel
Am I deluded or lying? Suppose I'm not?
*sigh*. I hate the "suppose I'm not" premise. You could make that argument for anything you want to invent, Pavel... don't you see the failing logic in it?
I believe there's a magic pink unicorn that will grant you three wishes if you just jump off this 150 ft. cliff.
Am I deluded or am I lying? Suppose I'm not?
Now, go ahead and insert any old made up supposition in there... what makes it any different than what you are saying?
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 1:58 PM
Is someone doing really bad parody trolling?
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 2:00 PM
"Am I deluded or lying? Suppose I'm not?"
I can fly.
Am I deluded or lying? Suppose I'm not?
Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 17, 2008 2:00 PM
Celtic asks: "So, sending death threats and calling for PZ's job and the myriad of other "acts of christianity" are "sitting there peacefully"?
Are you suggesting that the "crackers" have been busy bothering PZ? Naughty "crackers"!
'Cause that's what I have been writing about...or are you having a tough time keeping your head from spinning long enough to read?
We shouldn't have to goad PZ into following through with what he claims is a leisurely activity. He has flapped his jaws plenty, and now it's time to do what he has said he's going to do.
Unless, could it be, that it's not just a "cracker"? !@@!
look, I'm going to take a Ritz out of the cupboard right now and feed it to my dog...that's what you do with crackers.
So get with it.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 2:02 PM
"... please use reason to respect that which you find unreasonable and do not understand or appreciate."
I understand the belief in sacred crackers perfectly. I understand that people who take their holy crackers seriously are incredibly stupid and batshit crazy. I understand these people are so completely out of their minds, they're dangerous. They are also extremely immoral because they brainwash gullible little children to believe the same bullshit. I have nothing but contempt for you Catholic assholes.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 2:03 PM
Andrew asked:
I assume you mean: "but why can NOT this belief be respected?"
Because it is an inherently crazy thing to believe. It doesn't take a lot of reasoning to see that it is irrational. How can you tell if a cracker is consecrated or not? When did anyone decide that saying mumbo jumbo over a cracker made it different than it was before? And even if it is transformed, couldn't Jesus untransform it if he didn't like where it was? Even in the Christian world-view it's nuts to think the cracker is vulnerable.
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 2:04 PM
kmerian mistakes:
Wrong, you have to be in a state of grace to accept the communion. The unbeliever doesn't get (again, per the Vatican, & major hint, read 292):
Summarizing, kmerian, the elements of this sacrament that are related to grace is you have to already be there to take it, and it preserves and renews that grace.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 17, 2008 2:05 PM
please use reason to respect that which you find unreasonable and do not understand or appreciate.
You go right on ahead and dole out respect for Fred Phelps and the Timecube guy. I'm going to go on calling out idiocy.
Posted by: Tom P. | July 17, 2008 2:06 PM
First of all, a consecrated Host is not ' a piece of bread.' Aside from that, I would say that desecrating a consecrated Host is one of the saddest things a human being can do. But no, I wouldn't harm anyone who did it. They would have done enough harm to themselves, and who am I to punish or mock anyone?
In fact it is a piece of bread. What you imagine happens to it is your opinion, an opinion not shared by most of the population of the world and not even most Christians. But if it really is more vile than rape or murder then how could you let it happen without stopping it?
I think Christ would feel sorry for you. He did so enough to die for you.
So sorry that he sends billions of human beings into unending torture because they didn't believe the exact way that some despot in Rome told them they had to? At least that is what your church teaches. And as far as his suffering on the cross, your church did far worse than that to plenty of people who didn't accept their beliefs.
Posted by: MS | July 17, 2008 2:06 PM
To be honest, I think PZ's threat to desecrate a host (meant seriously or not) was a bit juvenile (even taken as satire, it's hardly in the league of Swift's A Modest Proposal). But...a rational person's response to that would be to say, "Oh, that guy could grow up a little and perhaps try to be a little more sensitive to other people's beliefs and feelings," then forget about it and go on about his/her business. A rational person does not bloviate about descrating a host constituting a "hate crime" or make comparisons to actual crimes and atrocities. A reasonable person does not contact PZ's boss and try to get him in trouble, even fired, or threaten him with violence and death. The hysterical overreaction to both the original incident and PZ's response is very disheartening.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 17, 2008 2:06 PM
Andrew,
Well, are they not left alone ? Are there hords of pharyngulites disturbing their sacred rituals in their multitudes of churches ? Anyway, they don't even run that risk, they have the law to protect them, it is against the law in most states to wilfully disturb a religious service.
No, the only problem that they have is that they really cannot stand the idea that a humble biologist expresses his opinion on his blog whereby he declares that it means nothing to him, that it's just a frackin cracker, and that he threatens to desecrate one, that they have absolutely not the vaguest idea how to react to his threat, that they demand that he should offer respect to a symbol which means nothing to him, when they cannot even respect the fact that it means nothing to him.
Posted by: kmerian | July 17, 2008 2:08 PM
True Bob, you are correct, however, I was dealing with the receipt of communion by a non-believer. What you quoted deals with a Catholic who receives it unworthily.
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 2:09 PM
"Unless, could it be, that it's not just a "cracker"? !@@!"
Unless, could it be, that it's not JUST a death threat? Perhaps theres a couple millennia of homicidal violence from Catholics that leds others to think they're not just threats?
(not trying to speak for Prof. Myers.)
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 2:09 PM
@laughin_guy
There is a distinct lack of creativity in that. We atheists frown upon that. PZ is just trying to maintain his image.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 17, 2008 2:10 PM
@ Laughin_guy
Are you suggesting that the "crackers" have been busy bothering PZ? Naughty "crackers"!
Are YOU too dizzy to be able to even remember, let alone read, what it is you wrote??? YOU are the one that said that CATHOLICS, not CRACKERS, are sitting there peacefully... so don't blame ME for your choice of words, you mental giant. I responded to your claim about the peaceful catholics. You responded by claiming you were talking about crackers. Ergo, you are a twit.
And why is it time to do what he said he's going to do? because some anonymous troll said so? Again... please get over yourself.
And if you're insinuating in any way that he's afraid to do it because of fear of god's retribution, you must be new here.
Posted by: DrmChsr0 | July 17, 2008 2:11 PM
We have violent atheist terrorists?
Atheists may flap their jaws and blow their gaskets every once in a while, but I've never heard, read, or seen an atheist kill someone in the name of atheism.
Not yet anyway :P
Also, IMMA CHARGING MAH LASER
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 2:14 PM
"They would have done enough harm to themselves, and who am I to punish or mock anyone?"
This is why I laugh at Catholics and other religious assholes. Their belief in hell is disgusting. I notice they like to use code words for hell, like "They would have done enough harm to themselves". It requires a very sick and evil mind to believe in hell. Also required is stupidity and insanity.
Posted by: spurge | July 17, 2008 2:15 PM
@ Andrew
"John -- I cheerfully agree that the Florida student should not have been attacked (so long as, as it seems, he was merely acting out of confusion rather than malice)."
See, you do value the cracker over people. It would have been fine by you to attack him if he did what he did out of malice?
"But I am not on the blog of those who attacked him."
Why not? Clean your own house.
DON"T POST USING MY NAME MORON!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 17, 2008 2:16 PM
I think PZ's threat to desecrate a host ... was a bit juvenile
That's true, it was, but the context is important. In this case, he was reacting to people making death threats over another alleged act of desecration. It's hard not to be outraged after reading the original story, and easy to start taunting the freaks in it.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 2:17 PM
@DrmChsro #1120
What is the power output on that thing? I bet mine is bigger than yours.
Posted by: aiabx | July 17, 2008 2:20 PM
Christian charity: burn the heretics at the stake before they compound their damnation.
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 2:20 PM
"I notice they like to use code words for hell, like "They would have done enough harm to themselves" It requires a very sick and evil mind to believe in hell. Also required is stupidity and insanity."
Which is why I like to point out to the ones that pretend to be peaceful, but who say things like "They would have done enough harm to themselves" that what they're really saying is the same thing that the more honest ones say - you're going to be tortured in hell forever because god loves you so much.
Fools.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 2:20 PM
I'm wondering if all christians are so full of themselves as these catholics are. I've never met an actual practicing and devout catholic (I think), and the ones invading the threads here have pretty much convinced me that even catholics have insane fundies running around whereas I had a much more nuanced opinion of them before.
Here they are, pretending PZ is just making a dash for attention even though it's catholic nutjobs who are the ones providing it to him. It's not as if PZ wasn't famous all over the world already, but I guess being ignorant gives you an excuse for not knowing that.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 2:22 PM
"I cheerfully agree that the Florida student should not have been attacked (so long as, as it seems, he was merely acting out of confusion rather than malice)."
I'm not sure who said this, but apparently this person wants to justify violence if a cracker was not eaten because of malice. Typical Catholic asshole.
Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 17, 2008 2:23 PM
"There is a distinct lack of creativity in that. We atheists frown upon that. PZ is just trying to maintain his image."
Good, great! Let's see some really creative atheism. Something, anything other than a continuation of the inane blather being bandied about by the PZ flying monkey corps.
If PZ had the balls to be true to his own convictions, I could at least give him that. But as it stands, it appears that the guy is nothing more than a certifiable lunatic with a big mouth that has managed to attract a fair number of people that share his mental defects on the intertubes.
The point (other than the one on the tops of your heads) is this: Until PZ proves otherwise by treating them as such, the wafers he says he has in his possession are not "just crackers".
He's either going to "eat the crackers", or he's going to eat his own idiotic words, and no amount of goofball rhetoric that can be spewed here will make it otherwise.
Posted by: daenku32 | July 17, 2008 2:24 PM
What is truly obscene is 1000+ posts on a single page.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 17, 2008 2:25 PM
"Reading this post by the bigot Myers and the ensuing responses goes a long way in exposing the outright hatred and distain toward anything Christian. I challenge any of you to be as hateful toward anything muslim. No? I thought not."
Wow, thanks for the window of opportunity to answer your question. You must be displaying that all-powerful, great and wonderful thinking we keep hearing about from religious circles. Read this blog more often and you'll get your wish, althought you will have to endure the disdain for your IDEAS, not people.
There isn't a lot of respect for those that espouse and support the unsupportable around here so you're going to have to do some thinking. Hopefully you'll afford yourself that much, but your post doesn't seem to indicate you will.
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 2:28 PM
(1) Have you ever heard of paragraphs?
(2) Have you actually considered that it's all made up and many of us can, if you could actually hold your mind open to the reams of data and analysis across many domains of research show you that your religion is made up?
(3) Who was Asheroth and how this name relevant to these biblical passages?:
Then God said, "Let us make humans in our image, in our likeness. Let them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic animals all over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth.
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
And what changes to this Genesis story did the Priests under the rule of King Josiah in the 7th Century BC make?
(4) Who were the Hyksos and how does that tie into the Jews and the claims of captivity in Egypt?
(5) From which religion did the Jews steal Noah's Flood?
(6) In what Century were the first copies of the Gospel of Luke penned? As a follow up, in what century was the STORY of the LAST SUPPER ADDED to the Gospel of Luke?
(7) In what century was the story of the Adulteress (John 7: 53 - 8: 11) added to the Gospel of John? In what Gospel did the story originally appear (hint, it wasn't John!!!!)?
(8) In what century did the Jews start giving up human sacrifice?
(9) What was the price for not sacrificing your first-born son to God? The blood price as set forth in the Bible.
That should keep you busy, if you put in the effort to fully understand and answer the questions.
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 2:28 PM
kmerian, there is NO communion occuring if you are not in a state of grace, believer or not.
Further, the unbeliever cannot receive the fruits of any sacrament, the fruits of the eucharist being as described. Since they quit doing undulgences, you cannot take a sacrament and thus alter your condition into one of grace.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 2:28 PM
I think he knows what he's talking about.
There are any number of us who would disagree with that monstrous old bigot.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 2:29 PM
Concerning why we can be so abrasive toward religion, the answer is simple: there are fewer of us, so we have to fight harder.
We are being assaulted on all sides by superstitious nonsense: it invades our schools, influences public policy, and virtually defines the culture. Politicians must genuflect to religious zealots by getting cozy with modern-day shamans, school science curricula are being injected with superstition, federal funding for science gets blocked because of fairy tales about human development.
As atheists, we also have a long history of being marginalized and silenced. That era is ending, folks. Get used to it.
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 2:31 PM
OMFGWTFBBQ!!! You're a hippy! I thought you guys went extinct under Reagan...
Wow, it's so nice to see one alive.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 2:35 PM
He did so enough to die for you.
I've done nothing so evil it requires the murder of another human being.
That you think this says something positive about your deity is rather twisted. Then again, you worship a blood-thirsty monster.
Posted by: frog | July 17, 2008 2:36 PM
Moses: on the thread http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php
I was asking a few questions about the eucharist, since it seems singularly unjewish in comparison with the rest of early Christian symbology. I 'figer you might shed some light on the question.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 2:37 PM
@laughin_guy #1129
Are you tired of repeating yourself yet? See Celtic_Evolution's post #1119.
By the way, if you actually think something will happen to those that do desecrate your little cracker, then you are truly more insane than I gave you credit for.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 2:43 PM
OMFGWTFBBQ!!! You're a hippy!
Nah, freak, if the difference means anything to you. My computer animation students would call me Gandalf at first, then later, Saruman. I was too young to be a hippy when Zappa's Freak Out was hot wax, so I never made it into the Peace Corps nor slept on Owsley's floor. While it's all still growing out of the top of my head, nobody will permit me to cut it.
Posted by: Richard | July 17, 2008 2:45 PM
To all who responded to my post with a goal toward dialog and not hate, vitriol, disrespect or intolerance for those who have different ideas and beliefs from your own:
What happened to the student is well known, I did not start at the beginning of the situation as most here know the facts, my aim was to seek to prevent a hateful act from occurring in response to the original unwarranted act of aggression that precipitated the current situation.
I understand and don't condone the actions that occurred to precipitate this. Is the answer to fight injustice with another injustice? I should hope not. I also did not send any "death threats" nor do I condone or accept those who do so in the name of Christ as acting Christian. Not all Catholics and Christians want to impose our beliefs on others in the same way we don't want the beliefs of others imposed on us. The US Constitution provides us all with the right to religious freedom, which includes the right to not have one, i.e., atheists. To each their own.
And we all have the right to freedom of speech, but does the exercise of that freedom mean we must resort to personal attacks and hatred? Is that what freedom of speech means today? But if I disagree with someone's actions, I would not resort to words or actions that are hateful, hurtful or disrespectful in return. Exchanging hate for hate is not a dialog, and neither side is actually hearing the other side. When this happens no one, least of all our democratic, pluralistic society "wins".
My point was simply "two wrongs don't make a right", yes actions were perpetrated against the student that were not warranted. However, that wrong is not well answered through an attack (another wrong). The result is no one is listening or cares about the other side' viewpoint, so it leaves the realm of civil discourse and becomes a hateful, mudslinging contest. And the result? Neither side sees the wrongs they themselves have done nor do they understand the injustice from the other's perspective.
The level of hate vitriol here against other people who have different ideas and beliefs is a sad commentary on our "society". I recall when people protested war in the 1960's, they put flowers in the barrels of the National Guard soldiers, now it seems they would get their own guns and start a war to end a war?!
...and to those of you who responded to my post with hate, vitriol, disrespect or intolerance for those who have different ideas and beliefs from your own: is it only possible in your world view to believe only as you do, with no dissent, disagreement or personal ideas, thoughts and beliefs allowed? Is that your idea of democracy, think and believe as you do or what?
Peace,
Richard
Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 17, 2008 2:47 PM
@gdlchmst
It's not my "little cracker", and I don't know what would happen if PZ desecrated it. Evidently, no one ever will because "the man" has lost his nerve.
So those wafers will sit where ever PZ has stashed them, or he'll (very) quietly dispose of them; the Catholic church will continue to teach it's dogma, PZ will become the poster boy of athiest fringe lunacy and I'll have a good laugh!
Posted by: Boko999 | July 17, 2008 2:48 PM
Did you know that you're suppoed to kneel and take it on the tongue when the Pope gives Jesus? I wonder how he takes it?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13051
"You don't have to be Fellini to figure that one out." - G.Carlin
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 2:52 PM
Richard, I would ignore the stupidity of Catholic assholes if they kept to themselves. Instead they went nuts for no good reason, showing off their insanity to everyone. When a disease is out of control, and yes your religion is a disease, it should not be ignored.
Another reason Catholic assholes deserve ridicule is their brainwashing of little children. I was a victim of this child abuse. It's disgusting. The people who do it, all Catholics and all other religious idiots, deserve to be treated with contempt.
Posted by: True Bob | July 17, 2008 2:53 PM
Richard, I think you are mistaken about the hate. I think you are correct about the disrespect. I would even say contempt. There really isn't hate or hurt (beyond hurt feelings, but nobody has a right to mollycoddling).
As has been posted numerous times, we respect your right to believe whatever you want to. We do NOT have to respect those beliefs. See the difference? Would you respect my right to smear banana cream pies all over myself? Do you think it would be silly? We are in that kind of perspective.
Of course, I do not speak for all atheist folk, we are notoriously not a group.
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 17, 2008 2:53 PM
(addendum to #1140)
Diamond Dave, of Digger fame, is still very active--he's in student government and all around cultural ambassador at City College of San Francisco. My first encounter with him was hearing him shout out in the arts bldg., "Let your freak flag fly, brother!"
Posted by: AdamK | July 17, 2008 2:56 PM
Perhaps, regarding the True and Correct Rules of Capitalization, we should consult Her Majesty the Queen, since it is The Queen's English, after all; moreover, She is Head of the Church of England and All That. Tut Tut.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 3:01 PM
Richard,
The attacks are not personal.
For the hundredth time, see Overton's Window.
You missed the point. It never was "revenge" to start with.
And you speak for everyone that is religious?
I don't think quotation marks mean what you think they mean. And, once again, are you trying to be ironic?
You clearly don't even comprehend our worldview. Small wonder that you accusations carry so little substance. Now, before you accuse us of not understanding your position, know that many of us had been religious at one point, and the rest of us are usually very well-versed in religious history and philosophy.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 3:08 PM
I'm going the stop feeding the childish troll known as Laughin_Guy. But just know this:
We are not laughing with you, but at you.
Posted by: El Herring | July 17, 2008 3:09 PM
negentopyeater #1021: I'll stop here because I think I could spend my whole day writing about so called "moral benefits the church has provided civilization in periods of crisis."
No, please continue. Dig up the dirt.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 17, 2008 3:10 PM
I agree with your premise that it is bad to cause others to suffer. However you have blurred a very distinct line between suffering and being offended.
When Muslims choose to be grievously offended by documentaries about them or cartoons, we cannot just surrender and give up our freedom of speech. They have to become more thick skinned and not be offended. Similarly fundamentalist Christians don't like the teaching of evolution. Should we allow them to teach wrong information in schools simply because they are offended by the idea that their creation myth is not literally true?
The problem is people being offended, and an argument can be made that the solution is to offend people until they get over it. Eventually Catholics will realize that they are not being hurt, and can go on with their lives without retaliating. You are "pained and hurt" because you choose to be. When those who believe in God can accept that he can take care of himself, and doesn't need people to fight or be offended on his behalf, then atheists will have nothing more to do.
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 17, 2008 3:17 PM
Pavel Chichikov (Comment #1072)
In the same manner as all other human beings - being an intelligent social animal with social instincts and a sense of empathy, refined through cultural upbringing, experience, reason and personal reflection. No gods required.
Actually, the point I was implying was that the moral character of God as portrayed by Christianity leaves something to be desired. That's not the same thing as wondering how a perfectly good deity allows evil. If anything, it provides a solution to the problem (i.e., that the deity in question is rather less than perfectly good).
If the experiences are impossible to describe, then what possible public criteria can there be for inferring any reliable conclusions from them? How could you ever tell if the experience has been interpreted correctly? How would you tell a valid experience from an invalid one? It's not that I doubt that certain people have experiences of a certain kind (even if they seem to have difficulty in giving an intelligible account of them) - my skepticism arises from the lack of any basis for placing a religious interpretation on them.
Incidentally, the blindness analogy is a rather poor one. It's possible (to an extent, anyway) to describe visual experiences to blind people by analogy with other senses (e.g., different colours as being akin to different textures as felt by touch). More importantly, it is possible to demonstrate to a blind person that you are able to sense things in a way that they can't - because the very same things are detectable by other senses. That's not the case in religious experiences.
"Embraced by totality" is a phrase that inevitably evokes for me the image of Nuremburg rallies, but I don't want to Godwin the conversation so let's set that aside.
More to the point, "being embraced by totality" sounds like a metaphorical description of an emotional/aesthetic state. Indeed,
when believers do talk about religious experiences, it seems to me that what they're talking about most of the time is an state of heightened emotion (commonly awe, wonder, fear etc), rather than experiences in any cognitive sense. And the point is, you don't need anything supernatural to induce such states.
I'm more interested in getting out and exploring the house. But if, during my explorations, I keep encountering people who insist (a) on regaling me with elaborate tales about the Thing That Lives in the Attic and (b) that I have to accept their claims on faith because they are incapable of demonstrating that the house even has an attic, let alone that anything else they say is true, then I'm going to conclude that they have nothing useful or interesting to tell me.
Then I hope to God (rhetorical) that I never see it. I can imagine few things worse than such an abject surrender of a person's moral and intellectual integrity. Well, maybe for a few hours, if the show was particularly good, as long as I retained the ability to switch my brain back on later. But forever? What a completely appalling prospect. Sorry, but your idea of heaven sounds very like my idea of hell. I have no wish to spend eternity effectively lobotomised and hooked up to a morphine drip.
But thanks for taking the time to respond, despite creeping me out with that last bit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2008 3:18 PM
Just to be clear, no one has the right to not be offended.
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 3:20 PM
Unitarian Christians or Unitarian-Universalists? Because not all Unitarian Churches merged with the Universalists.
If they were UUs, which is perfectly possible, then, well, that's the problem when you, by your nature, don't manage from the 'top-down' in matters of doctrine. Every now and then enough hide-bound reactionaries or zealots will take over the governing body of a congregation and go regressive instead of progressive.
Case in point, when our congregation decided to be a "welcoming" congregation for the LGBT community, a number of members walked. I found it ironic that they could handle the atheists, but not the gays whose beliefs were closer to theirs than mine.
Their loss. As it is to the one-third of congregations who still refuse to take that path.
Still though, the rock-solid majority of UUS are like our congregation. And if we sport a few regressive elements stuck in their dark-ages (1950's) religious viewpoints, well, in time, I suspect they'll end up with the rest of us as the Overton Window in our church moves, by fits and starts, further left with each generation.
And when you look at the composition of our beliefs, you can see why:
In a survey, Unitarian Universalists in the United States were asked which provided term or set of terms best describe their belief. Many respondents chose more than one term to describe their beliefs. The top choices were:
Humanist - 54%
Agnostic - 33%
Earth-centered - 31%
Atheist - 18%
Buddhist - 16.5%
Christian - 13.1%
Pagan - 13.1%
Mine were Atheist and Earth-Centered. My wife was Agnostic and Earth-Centered. I have friends who are Atheist-Jew-Earth-Centered UUs. I have friends who are Christian-UUs.
Anyway, they are free to be closed-minded and throw-backs. And we continue to push the agenda to acceptance and social justice. Eventually, like the nearby UU church in Murfreesboro, they'll come around (it was the LGBT issue, they were already "atheist friendly" (or whatever you want to call it)) and it'll all go down the memory hole.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 3:22 PM
Richard, what vitriol you may find here is not for catholics but for catholicism, i.e. to paraphrase one of your xian phrases, hate the belief not the believer. Especially when we see it make people ready to assault and send death threats over what is, whatever it may mean to catholics, still only a cracker. Any belief system that allows its adherents to consider an inanimate object as of more value than a human being is seriously screwed up. That is our problem with religion in general. And please, no arguments about no true Scotsmen, we have heard it before and those you wield it against often reply in kind about you.
Posted by: JimNorth | July 17, 2008 3:24 PM
Spoof Alert!!!
Professor Myers should break into the RNC, dressed in a shepherd's smock, preferably when Mr. Foley is speaking (sermonizing), force Foley to drop trou, and proceed to f___ the s___ out of him.
Now, that would be desecrating a frackin' cracker.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 3:30 PM
Richard #1141
What injustice is there in the desecration of the Host? Truth is not a matter of opinion. The communion wafer is not and never will be the body of a dude who died 2000 years ago. That's the whole point of the exercise: to demonstrate the stupidity of the belief.
Not all beliefs must be respected equally. If you believe the Jews should be exterminated, I have no reason to respect that belief, and, in fact, I can treat it with utmost derision.
That's how we view superstitions. If you weren't already acculturated and desensitized to the idea that a processed wheat product takes on magic properties, you would realize just how insane that idea is.
We should challenge insane thinking.
Posted by: Richard | July 17, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment to post #1145
What is hateful is when someone tells you that your words, actions and threats cause is hateful towards them and you do not acknowledge that point or care about that point. Yes, its true you don't have to respect another's beliefs, but what is gained by disrespecting their beliefs? Certainly not a dialogue or a reasonable coexistence? Perhaps if all sides had more respect for the rights of others with whom they disagree there would be fewer incidents like this?
To threaten desecration or to desecrate that which is sacred to Catholics is hateful toward Catholics. As a Catholic, that is how and I and many others I know view it. I'm not saying you or anyone else has to respect our beliefs but as long as no one respect's the beliefs of another we will only see similar situations increase in number, and perhaps worse.
To #1148,
I did not claim to speak for others. I wasn't making accusations, and no I don't claim to understand your world view. If you look at some of the responses to my post, you will see few attempts to explain your world view or create a dialog. I did not accuse "you" of not understanding my position, but rather understanding how your actions and threats are received by Catholics. If revenge was not the motive, "to hold the Eucharist hostage" then what is is the motive? As you state, many of those here who are not religious have been so in the past, and are well-versed in philosophy then from that perspective, isn't it obvious what the impact of "holding the Eucharist hostage" and threatening desecration would be on those who are religious? Knowing this makes the actions all the more vitriolic, hateful as you do know what you do?
And no, I was not being ironic: mutual respect has to start somewhere, it seems as if many people here simply ridicule, belittle and attack those who are religious or don't agree with their positions and then often wonder why they aren't respected, taken seriously or feel as if they are a minority view under attack.
Peace,
Richard
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 3:37 PM
How is it that theists continually ask the same silly questions? I wouldn't go there if I was a believer, afterall, I'd have to say goddidit in some convoluted way and have no evidence for that at all. While the atheist will bury me with natural explanations that work fine.
Of course, you could go the ID route. Just decree that some process is to complicated for nature (even though it isn't) and give credit to whatever god you prefer. Then walk away and pretend you don't have to give any evidence for your assertions.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 3:42 PM
There's a simple but important distinction that people fail to grasp when they call us "bigots." It's wrong, and it's bigotry, when you judge someone based on characteristics that are out of their control, such as race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. It's perfectly acceptable to judge people based on things that they can control -- actions and beliefs -- and we do it all the time.
We judge people when they murder, rape, or steal. We throw them in jail. We publicize sexual offenders. Some cities even publicize the names of men who solicit prostitutes. Society provides legal, social, and financial disincentives for dangerous behavior. Unfortunately, we don't provide enough disincentives against stupid and dangerous ideas. Now, I wouldn't want to create a thought police scenario by creating legal disincentives for beliefs, but we can and should create social disincentives for stupid and dangerous beliefs.
People who entertain absurd beliefs should be challenged in the public sphere. If the beliefs are insane or dangerous enough, they should be openly ridiculed.
To rationalists, truth is a moral value. We don't respect absurd claims, and the transubstantiation of the communion wafer is an absurd claim.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 17, 2008 3:44 PM
@ E.V. post #1071
:Thank you for your comment.
You're welcome E.V.
:Since you only added your own irrelevant cluelessness, don't feel slighted when we consider you to be sub-troll and unworthy of further attention.
Actually what I posted was neither irrelevant nor clueless. If anything it exposed some rather inept cluelessness on the part of P. Z. Myers when it comes to public relations aka PR. When a professed "unbeliever" aka atheist describes Professor Myers as a "fundamentalist atheist" in expressing his disapproval of P.Z. Myers anti-religious antics you can be sure that a good number of moderate atheists are not very happy with P.Z. Myers' PR for the atheist community.
:Oh, and your website is pure shite.
Which one? Presumably you mean my StumbleUpon blog which is the URL that I provided for all of my posts here so far. You are entitled to your opinion but it is outweighed by over 800 people from around the world and all walks of life, including a good number of atheists I might add. . . who have clearly indicated that they like it with a thumb's up SU "review".
Posted by: qbsmd | July 17, 2008 3:45 PM
That gives me an idea: imagine if this site had FAQ pages, and whenever someone tried to post certain keywords (morals, Stalin, Koran, etc.) they would be sent to the appropriate page and then briefly quizzed about it before being allowed to post.
I wonder if that would work under Scienceblogs. It doesn't seem like it should be too difficult.
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 3:46 PM
I have Goth acquaintances. I'm guessing you're talking about the whole unconventional-thinking, frequently sardonic, generally creative, my-own-kind-dude/look thing that is part of, but not actually owned by, the Goth movement.
As for cutting the hair, that's what daughter says. Which is why it's nearly 3' long and she's 11.
Posted by: Richard | July 17, 2008 3:47 PM
to #1157.
And who appointed you the ultimate arbiter of the what is and is not stupidity for the rest of us?
This goes to my basic point: live and let live; and allowing others to have their beliefs.
Since you have decided unilaterally or within a small minority that something is stupid, you will resort to hateful actions against those who see value, and see sacred in what you see as stupidity? Do you think this hate will change the minds of those who believe, or is it to impress others who believe as you do with who can make Catholics more upset or suffer more?
And how are the beliefs of Catholics impacting you to the point where you are motivated to actions of hate, vitriol and derision? How do our beliefs hurt you? Why do your beliefs demand you must hurt us? (to my earlier point about a worldview that only accepts approved perspectives, ideas, thoughts and beliefs.)
Peace,
Richard
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 3:47 PM
I think PZ's threat to desecrate a host ... was a bit juvenile
Perhaps it was not juvenile at all.
Perhaps
he is
The MYER!!
The Myer saw the suffering of his fellow man.
Then PZ spaketh: 'Cast not stones upon the children, cast them upon me,' and he saideth unto them: 'It's just a frackin' cracker'
And the youth was saved and the mob turned and casteth stones upon the Myer. And through this selfless act of sacrifice was born the Church of The Myer, and it shall be written for it is true.
And that, children, is why crackers are forbidden in the Church of Myer, to this day, for The Myer proclaimed, Spilleth not your grain to build graven images, Idols, nor crackers, but ferment the sacred wheat into holy beer and drinketh on the house."
Wow that made me thirsty.
-----------
You Tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 3:48 PM
There needs to be a Wiki of common theist / Christian claims and our answers, much like the codex of creationist claims. It would save millions of hours in time wasted on the Internet.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 3:52 PM
And who appointed you the ultimate arbiter of the what is and is not stupidity for the rest of us?
The ultimate arbiter of truth is reality, which can be consulted through observation and experiment.
A claim about the "substance" of a wafer can never be verified, and the information seems to come from the divine revelation of another being that can't verified.
Ultimately, the utter wastefulness of the time, resources, and rituals spent on this delusion is what makes it stupid.
Posted by: Neural T | July 17, 2008 3:54 PM
How do our beliefs hurt you?
You vote, and you pump money into the political system, affecting public policy. And you send death threats when someone challenges your delusion, and a few Catholics have carried those threats to their conclusion.
Posted by: Everbleed | July 17, 2008 3:55 PM
Someone posted this link from Pete Rooke which may have been overlooked by many of you, what with over a 1,000 comments here.
[url]http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/stchadsomegachurch/[/url]
Hopefully Pete Rooke is done with this topic and us. He is an idiot by the way. Just check out his website. He has maybe a 6th grade education. Just an idiot. And a con-artist. A "moocher" as Ayn Rand would say. Snake oil sold by a charlatan.
I agree with many of you who said they were pleased we got trolled by Pete Rooke. It reminds me (and apparently some of the rest of you) how sick these people are and how much they are influencing our world and our lives. Negatively.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 17, 2008 3:56 PM
Richard,
The motive is to show that it is superstitious and inane to believe that a cracker is the body of god. This is, in turn, one act in a bigger movement to secularize the society by exposing the ridiculousness of religious beliefs. Again, see Overton's Window.
Like I previously stated: knowing this, I find your christian sensibilities narcissistic. You are offended to be sure, and that is the point. But your thinking that this rather mild act is somehow hateful or bigoted is due to a cultural brainwashing that allows you to think that religion is above criticism.
It's no secret that we don't respect your beliefs and you don't respect our beliefs. We do, however, respect each other's *right* to hold such beliefs. There is no mutual respect, and none is needed. That is the nature of the relationship between any two groups with drastically different worldviews.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 17, 2008 3:58 PM
Posted this on July 12, 2008 as #266 in the FYI thread, time for a repeat for the new people, especially those asking for an apology.
"OK, I am now convinced that the catholics are due an apology so here goes, and speaking only for myself:
I am sorry that your vision of a god is so weak that he cannot protect his cracker form.
I am sorry that you engage in idolatry in regards to said cracker.
I am sorry that you are offended by people pointing out that religious people often believe things that many of us find silly at best and dangerous at worst.
I am sorry that you have continued to hide evidence of crimes within your church, thus giving people easy targets during verbal and/or blog battles.
I am sorry that you allow Bill Donahue to speak for many of you.
I am sorry you do not have the courage to speak out against those who make you look bad, such as Donahue.
I am sorry you hate gay and lesbian people - yes, YOU DO, you church requires you to hate them, or at least their "sin".
I am sorry your church continues to block AIDS awareness programs in places like Africa.
I am sorry your church compels you to hate Africans by requiring you to believe that them not having condoms is somehow good for them.
I am sorry you do not know what your own prophet and bible say.
I am sorry you do not practice what Rabbi Ben Jesu asked you to practice - you do not love your neighbor as yourself, you will not eat with publicans and prostitutes - you condemn them. (No, there is no need to comment on the name folks, I do not really care, call him what you like.)
I am sorry you are offended when someone tells you to fuck off after you offer to pray for our souls. As many have noted on here, "pray for you" often effectively equates to fuck you. On, to get ahead of the curve a bit, fuck you if you offer to pray for me.
I am sure there are catholics that do not believe in the oppression of gays and lesbians or allowing Africans to die of AIDS. I am sure there are catholics who do not believe the cracker and wine are more than a symbol. I am sure there are catholics that are outraged by the protection of pedophile priests. I am sorry you do not have the courage to slip off your chains and take responsibility for your own life, your own morals, your own dealings with the world. This one makes me especially sad.
Pax Nabisco"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 17, 2008 3:59 PM
Richard
No matter how many times you pretend to be persecuted... no matter how many times you incorrectly assign all "this" to us "atheists" going out of our way to pick on you poor catholics, you should not, will not, can not actually shift the focus away from what started this nonsense in the first place: namely the completely insane over-reaction of catholics threatening a young man with bodily harm and even death over the eucharist.
So please, stop acting so predictable. Stop pretending like you and other catholics are being persecuted here, remember who's actually been persecuted unnecessarily and take it to the Catholic league message board, and as has already been stated here, clean up your own house. I'm frankly sick of your whining.
Posted by: bastion | July 17, 2008 4:00 PM
At 1113 Tom P. said:
And as far as his suffering on the cross, your church did far worse than that to plenty of people who didn't accept their beliefs.
And, we shouldn't neglect to point out that god's son chose to suffer on the cross.
OTOH, the folks the church killed and tortured over the years usually didn't get much choice in the matter. Unless the choice was "choose to believe as we catholics do or choose to die."
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 17, 2008 4:00 PM
"desecrating a consecrated Host is one of the saddest things a human being can do."
Really? What about:
Murder
Rape
Assault
Theft
Damaging another's property
Dishonesty
Hypocrisy
Neglecting those in need (children, elderly, sick, etc.)
Mistreating someone who does not deserve to be mistreated
Willful ignorance
Being complicit in any of the above
Witnessing any of the above without attempting to intervene
I just pulled that moral code out of my ass and it's better than yours.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 17, 2008 4:00 PM
You can start here: http://richarddawkins.net/cat1_Reason,cat2_Debate-Points
I think the key is in making people read it before they can post the same old crap.
Posted by: kmarissa | July 17, 2008 4:00 PM
Richard,
The rationale behind the whole "cracker desecration" scheme has been explained numerous times in this thread. Have you understood any of the posted explanations as to why someone would bother to do this? If not, it would be helpful for you to ask specific questions or quote what you don't understand and ask for clarification. As it is, it just looks like you're not bothering to read or think about what has been written. Believe me, it has nothing to do with "I hate you so I'm going to do something to this cracker."
Statements like this "This goes to my basic point: live and let live; and allowing others to have their beliefs," are particularly ridiculous considering the context in which the cracker desecration post arose.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 4:00 PM
Richard asked:
I have some ideas on that here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/07/pzs-crackergate-scandal.html
The first 3 youTube videos explore some of the craziness in the belief that you can bless a cracker and it will become Jesus' body.
Posted by: Mike | July 17, 2008 4:02 PM
"And only where God is seen does life truly begin. Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. There is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Gospel, by the encounter with Christ. There is nothing more beautiful than to know Him and to speak to others of our friendship with him."-BXVI
Posted by: Patricia | July 17, 2008 4:05 PM
Ken Cope - Nice picture. At first I thought you were druid Kirk. *grin*
Moses - I'm with your daughter, no hair cuts. My hair is long enough to hang below my back jeans pockets.
#861 Truth Machine - That was too frelling funny!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 4:05 PM
Richard,
The problem you have is that as a Catholic you are in a very poor position to be lecturing others about hatred.
Your religion kill people. Granted it may not actually intend to do so, but it knows it kills people and it does nothing about it.
It kills people by opposing condom use in preventing the spread of HIV.
It kills people by opposing the legalisation of abortions so that desperate woman are forced to go to backstreet abortionists.
It kills people who take their own life because of the conflict between their sexuality and their faith.
It kills people through the opposition to stem cell research.
As a Catholic you are guilty of these things. Not only you, but if you choose to belong to a Church that does these things, you share the guilt. The only reason the Catholic Church has any power to do these things is because of the millions it claims as members.
Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 17, 2008 4:05 PM
Richard (1141)
Once again, putting a wafer in a pocket is not injustice, ridiculing fantastical ideas is not hadred and initiating civil discourse with Catholics is not the main purpose behind PZ's comments.
Again, we cherish difference of opinion, free speech and freedom of or from religion. At least some of the ones who use what you call vitriol are doing so out of hope to cut through the sky fairy blather. In a no nonsense way it's meant to help. For others the vitriol is as it appears on the surface -- an expression of anger. It might do you well to think freshly about why the anger exists.
End the end tho, wafergate is a diorama made for the vast numbers of people who have no personal stake in the outcome. All successful social movements have had to speak the truth and follow it up with consistent action when it was dangerous or unpopular to do so. Sitting down in a soda shop won't be remembered because it was illegal, nor the underground railway because it was literally stealing, nor Stonewall because it was a riot, etc., etc., a thousand times, etc.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 4:07 PM
Mike post 1178 nice way to say fuck off to atheists you sanctimonious prick. You believers complain about us having no respect for you and what do you do, you come in and shit in our living room, so to speak. So to return the compliment, and unlike you kot no death threats but, fuck off you deluded moron.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 4:10 PM
kot=lot doh!
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 4:12 PM
Kevin Cope #1140
Haha, I got the same reaction when I saw the picture, total Gandalf. Anyway it looks good, if ya got it , grow it.
Actually I was old enough to be a very young hippy when Freak-Out hit the record stores, but I didn't go out and buy a tamborine and find a rock band and become their ROAD manager.
I did get the shit kicked out of me on the streets by the cops but I didn't Love them.
I was never really accepted into hippydom because I was always a biker, with the black clothes and boots (not a fashion statement, those old bikes leak oil all over you), but I had a blast anyway with all the acid and grateful dead shows, and got along marvelously with the hippy girls.
You know what happens when an atheist takes alot of acid for a long time?
He doesn't see god.
Saw plenty of other weird shit though
-ciao
oh BTW, you wouldn't want to sleep on Owsley's floor, he's kind of abrasive to put it mildly.
------------------
You Tube Eucharist Challenge
Posted by: Tulse | July 17, 2008 4:13 PM
And we shouldn't neglect to point out that (according to Christians), god's son is frackin' immortal and thus one bad weekend over the stretch of all eternity is hardly that significant.
Posted by: karen | July 17, 2008 4:15 PM
Stop your mealy inferences that the jeezits have any influence upon our Mighty (and now, Cyberpistolly ENHANCED!)Overlord. His Squidliness will act when and how He sees fit.
Now, move along. BTW, Jesus spill in the wine section; what's the protocol? Do we have to call some priests to suck him up off the floor?
Posted by: Moses | July 17, 2008 4:19 PM
I believe that the Eucharist is, by it's nature and practice, pagan idolatry and baseless touting of a bronze-age, anti-materialist worldview which is entirely opposite to my own beliefs in the rational and knowable universe.
Why do you hatefully, with malice and forethought, continue to engage in, and defend, this anti-rational practice? It is HATEFUL to me that you practice bronze-age mummery and voodoo magic of a plagiarized and cobbled together religion. Your Catholic Faith, is, simply put, one of the most vile practices known to mankind.
Why won't you respect my legitimate beliefs and STOP THIS BARBARIC, BRONZE-AGE ritual that was co-opted from other 'mystery cult' and 'dieing god' religions?
Whether you recognize it or not, the vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus.
Virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual - the miter, the altar, the doxology, and communion, the act of "God-eating" - were taken directly from earlier pagan 'mystery' and 'dieing God' religions.
Sadly, nothing in Christianity is truly original. The pre-Christian God Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. His story, also borrowing from the martyrdom of Krishna, becomes your Jesus with a few inept changes.
December 25 is also the birthday or Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. All part of local legends from which Christianity has borrowed liberally (Dionysus was the the origins of "water into wine" story).
The phony birth-story of Jesus, which couldn't have happened because too many of the events and locations mentioned were not existent, but occurred well prior or much, much later than at that time was taken directly from a different myth - Hinduism. Yes, that's right, the newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans.
And don't even get me started on the Old Testament!!!
So, when will you change your entire life-style, and all of your belief systems, to stop offending me by with your presumption that your religion is 'true' and its rituals meaningful?
You won't?
No shit. I don't expect you to. In fact, it's not my right to try and force you to respect the religious beliefs I fail hold.
And that's because I have no religion. Because the facts and data tell me the likeliest conclusion - you're running with a kludged religion that invented itself as it went along by stealing from other local religions - is the most believable.
But don't ask for one iota of respect for your beliefs unless you can demonstrate, through DATA AND ARGUMENT that they're meaningful beyond your superstitious adherence to them. From my perspective, your beliefs aren't what you think they are and are as meaningless as the non-existent virtue of virginity which is an easily remedied condition for most people as they reach sexual maturity.
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 4:20 PM
"And only where FSM is seen does life truly begin. Only when we meet the living FSM in Sauce do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of religion. Each of us is the result of a thought of FSM. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. There is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by the Sauce, by the encounter with FSM. There is nothing more beautiful than to Her."
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 4:24 PM
Endor LOL, got to love the noodly one.
Posted by: D | July 17, 2008 4:25 PM
Respect? "I do not think it means what you think it means." Just about every time someone is asking people to respect catholic beliefs, it seems like privilege would be a more accurate word than respect. If respecting the belief that a "cracker" is a bit of a deity means I have to pretend to not disagree with said belief, it seems rather one sided. Why can't we try it the other way for a change? Can't you apologists respect PZ's view and not challenge him for doing what he wants with a bit of bread in his own time and space?
Posted by: scooter | July 17, 2008 4:29 PM
"Until PZ proves otherwise by treating them as such, the wafers he says he has in his possession are not 'just crackers'".
That's right, they are unjust crackers.
Finally we agree on something.
Posted by: frog | July 17, 2008 4:34 PM
MS: To be honest, I think PZ's threat to desecrate a host (meant seriously or not) was a bit juvenile (even taken as satire, it's hardly in the league of Swift's A Modest Proposal). But...a rational person's response to that would be to say, "Oh, that guy could grow up a little and perhaps try to be a little more sensitive to other people's beliefs and feelings," then forget about it and go on about his/her business.
And that's exactly why it's not juvenile. If folks had reacted as you describe, then it would have been a juvenile stunt. But since folks, folks with influence, have not responded as you describe, it's actually an important window into how our co-citizens think.
If you tell someone at a conference "Your fly's open", they look down, and you laugh "Made ya look", that's juvenile. If you do it at a parole hearing, and they try to tear your head off before being dragged back to their cells, not juvenile!
Posted by: J | July 17, 2008 4:46 PM
I guess I was under the mistaken belief that liberals were to be the party of peace and love. My mistake. But as I reflect on the whole situation, I wonder why faith is hard to believe in. Call me crazy, but it takes a whole lot of faith to believe in the "big bang theory." I am supposed to believe that out of absolute nothingness there just happened to be an explosion that created life? Really? But why the desecration? If you are truly intellectual, try to prove your point intellectually.
Posted by: Kryth | July 17, 2008 4:48 PM
#1178 I'll fix that for you.
"And only where captain Kirk is seen does life truly begin. Only when we meet the living captain Kirk do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of captain Kirk . Each of us is willed, each of us is loved by captain Kirk (esp green women), each of us is necessary. There is nothing more beautiful than to be surprised by horny captain Kirk , by the encounter with a naked captain Kirk . There is nothing more beautiful than to know captain Kirk and to speak to others of our friendship with him."-BXVI
Asshate get it right next time.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 17, 2008 4:53 PM
Matt Penfold: You listed the least of the Catholic Churches sins. Don't forget that encouraging high birth rates and opposing family planning and birth control. This has resulted in a population out of control. Soon, there is likely to be famine and pandemics. To take the heat off the leadership of various countries like Pakistan and India, there will be war. Likely with nuclear weapons. Death by back street abortion will be an insignificant footnote by comparison. The Catholic church and all of these "personhood begins at conception" cults will be largely responsible.
Posted by: Jud | July 17, 2008 4:54 PM
Andrew wrote: The point is that for Catholics, the Host is sacred -- a divine gift. It would be gravely wrong to ignore that fact simply because the host is not one I am consuming. Again, you may not agree -- you may find it foolish -- but why can this belief [not] be respected?
Easy to miss the jiu-jitsu moment here, whereby Andrew's personal beliefs are converted into something we all must respect, and implicitly, into conduct we all should follow.
Andrew, you're quite free to have your beliefs, and I can certainly respect you as an apparently polite and aware interlocutor, but you are not entitled, using the leverage of that respect, to convert your personal beliefs into speech or conduct norms for others. As you wrote in #1089: Step outside of yourself and realize that others have beliefs that are different than yours. Indeed.
Though you might dearly wish PZ hadn't written with such verve of his personal disdain for the concept of the consecrated Host, or threatened to pulverize a bunch of them on video, it's no infringement on any personal right you might have. Those are PZ's beliefs, and if you step outside yourself far enough, you might get to a place where you respect his right to express those beliefs in ways that seem to you to be rampantly vile taste.
Posted by: Endor | July 17, 2008 4:56 PM
"got to love the noodly one."
Definitely. And, in no small part because theists, ime, tend to get very incredulous at the thought of FSM. Mmmm, taste that irony!
---------------------
"I guess I was under the mistaken belief that liberals were to be the party of peace and love"
Atheists =/= liberals.
"Call me crazy, but it takes a whole lot of faith to believe in the "big bang theory."
you're not crazy, necessarily, just dumb.
"But why the desecration"
You'd have to ask your theistic buddies why a living, breathing human being is less important that a wafer. That's the true "descration".
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 5:02 PM
Endor, got to agree with every point and as for J if it is the usual one, well he is always looking for a way to be the concern troll. As for the big bang, I don't have faith in it, like most who have any understanding of physics, we accept it as the best explanation on the existing evidence. When more evidence comes along we will adjust our understanding accordingly, no faith necessary.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2008 5:02 PM
"Matt Penfold: You listed the least of the Catholic Churches sins. Don't forget that encouraging high birth rates and opposing family planning and birth control. This has resulted in a population out of control. Soon, there is likely to be famine and pandemics. To take the heat off the leadership of various countries like Pakistan and India, there will be war. Likely with nuclear weapons. Death by back street abortion will be an insignificant footnote by comparison. The Catholic church and all of these "personhood begins at conception" cults will be largely responsible."
I did think of adding that one as well. I decided I needed to restrict the number otherwise I would still be typing the list of sins of the Catholic Church.
Posted by: karen | July 17, 2008 5:05 PM
"Endor LOL, got to love the noodly one."
Yes. Now see, this would be an entirely different issue if we were talking about garlic bread.
Kryth @1194
Thanks for fixing that.
I so wanted to be a green woman in my teens.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 5:06 PM
J wrote:
What an incredible abuse of the English language. I actually do believe in faith, I have faith that when I put the key into the ignition of my car and turn it -- it will start up and I can drive it where I need to go. My car earned that faith.
Maybe if you're an uneducated twit who can't comprehend the evidence for the "big bang." Theories like that aren't something you actually "believe in" or have "faith in" until you have to bet on them. If that theory were overturned tomorrow only the cosmologists invested in them would have their lives significantly altered.
There is no such thing as nothingness. It's an artifact of the human imagination.
No, not really. It's a bit more complicated than that. What you take to be a scientific theory is nothing more than the straw man version your priests use to lie to you with.
See the videos on my blog post here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/07/pzs-crackergate-scandal.html
Posted by: cicely | July 17, 2008 5:06 PM
For years I've imagined getting a group of people to hang out around some big, politically-charged event and carry signs saying, "This Is A Peaceful Demonstration". Not for or against anything particularly. Just...peaceful.
Maybe I'm too easily amused. :D
Posted by: Jaycubed | July 17, 2008 5:07 PM
For those interested but too lazy to google, the Racial Slur Database is located at:
http://www.rsdb.org/
It's hardly a complete listing. Focused only on ethnicity/race (despite the vast repertoire of slurs available based on age, sexuality, gender, class, appearance, etc.), and nearly all are contemporary slurs.
But still worthy of my Reference Bookmarks folder.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 17, 2008 5:08 PM
"But as I reflect on the whole situation, I wonder why faith is hard to believe in."
It's in the very definition of "faith", that is, believing something without evidence. We don't do that.
"Call me crazy, but it takes a whole lot of faith to believe in the "big bang theory.""
I thought faith was a virtue with you. Why do you mock our "faith", you big poopy-head?
"I am supposed to believe that out of absolute nothingness there just happened to be an explosion that created life? Really?"
No. The origin of the universe and the origin of life on Earth are two entirely separate things. You'd be well advised to read up on both of them.
"If you are truly intellectual, try to prove your point intellectually."
Our point is that a cracker is a cracker. Any unbiased observer would have to conclude that by default. The burden is on you to prove that it's anything other than a cracker.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 17, 2008 5:12 PM
cicely: Some guy picketed Scientology by himself with a blank sign. He said the wrath was worse by far than any other picket signs such as "Scientology Kills".
Posted by: frog | July 17, 2008 5:17 PM
J: #1193
I guess I was under the mistaken belief that liberals were to be the party of peace and love. My mistake. But as I reflect on the whole situation, I wonder why faith is hard to believe in. Call me crazy, but it takes a whole lot of faith to believe in the "big bang theory." I am supposed to believe that out of absolute nothingness there just happened to be an explosion that created life? Really? But why the desecration? If you are truly intellectual, try to prove your point intellectually.
Is this a new concern troll J, or the same old one? Or did ya forget which sockpuppet you were using?
A) Big Bang did not begin life. Completely different scales, times, etc. Neither depends on the other theoretically.
B) No one is asking you to take it "on faith". Go learn the physics -- get yourself a Ph.D., look at all the data, design new experiments. If you find out that the Physics community is wrong, they'll give you a lot of money and a shiny metal, even a free trip to Scandinavia.
C) Big Bang does not imply that the universe came out of nothingness. It is just one location on the universal manifold. You can't have a "before time began"!
D) How can you prove a point intellectually to those who appear to lack any respect for intellect?
E) Peace and love is reciprocal. No one claimed that "liberals" were all Gandhi-ists (who himself was not a fan of Christianity, and insulted the entire panoply of Christian faith at least once). I'll respect you if and only if you return the favor; with the history of the monotheist religions, you have quite a bit to prove before I'm going to start "believing" that you're willing to play fair.
Posted by: gwangung | July 17, 2008 5:18 PM
"If you are truly intellectual, try to prove your point intellectually."
Tried to. The fanatics ignored that.
Posted by: Fez | July 17, 2008 5:19 PM
Sigh. The Washington Post providing a soapbox for more, "Oh woe is I, I are a victim!" bloviating.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/07/the_duty_to_defend_the_nearly.html#comments
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 17, 2008 5:26 PM
I should add to my earlier comments that by-and-large I do not think that PZ Myers necessarily deserves to be prosecuted for any hate crimes.
However, as Santi Tafarella pointed out:
What I think Myers is not yet acknowledging is that the destruction of cultural symbols typically forebodes the marginalizing and destruction of people, and that a civil dialogue between people is rarely possible in an atmosphere of iconoclasm.
Iconoclasm, in other words, is an ancient form of prejudicial expression that ought to draw as much horror from contemporary people as racism and sexism.
Catholicism is particularly vulnerable to these types of attacks. As as mentioned previously: would PZ have called for the desecration of the Koran? No, of course not.
Posted by: Jaycubed | July 17, 2008 5:28 PM
If the crackers are magical, then the magical priests who create the magical crackers with their magical rituals should be able to tell which crackers are magical and which are mundane.
This would be a trivial matter to test scientifically. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such a test could provide powerful evidence FOR the existence of god.
And not just any god, but their specific model of god.
IF THE PRIESTS COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAGICAL CRACKERS & THE MUNDANE CRACKERS!
An easy test that any true Priest should be able to pass infallibly, if the crackers truly are magical and made so by the ritual performance of the Priests.
Posted by: kevin colquitt | July 17, 2008 5:32 PM
I hope that PZ goes through with the cracker stunt-I don't think that atheists should even consider the use of the religious term "desecrate," which conveys that the user is in agreement with Catholic ideology. No harm can be done to communion wafer-"It's just a frackin' cracker."
Does anyone know if Mr. Kroll sent the apology that he said that he would (if, indeed, that was really him apologizing on Greg Laden's blog)?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 5:34 PM
would PZ have called for the desecration of the Koran? No, of course not.
LIAR!
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 5:37 PM
Karen, you splitter you, it appears we will have to fire up the inquisition once again :)
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 17, 2008 5:43 PM
"What I think Myers is not yet acknowledging is that the destruction of cultural symbols typically forebodes the marginalizing and destruction of people"
Well, you guys are certainly the experts in that.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 5:50 PM
@Rey Fox
Good thing I double checked the thread before pressed post or people would think we were sockpuppets.
Posted by: Tom P. | July 17, 2008 5:54 PM
As as mentioned previously: would PZ have called for the desecration of the Koran? No, of course not.
Don't you bother reading anything else except what you write? He has done it.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 5:55 PM
Santi Tafarella + Pete Rooke expressed this:
So far the only people who have threatened that are on your side of the argument. If they continue to behave that way, then yes, your fears are justified in some long term and abstract way.
I would suggest it is only possible in an atmosphere of iconoclasm. Great changes necessarily demand iconoclasm.
Good, glad to hear it. Those bastards used to crown the kings of Europe who ruled by divine right. They set up the Spanish Inquisition. And they still need to be taken down a few more notches.
We don't live in a majority Muslim country. And those bastards really will kill you, not just send email death threats. No doubt when religious change comes to Arabia it will be bloody as hell.
Posted by: windy | July 17, 2008 5:57 PM
"Argument from linguistics"? Let me try:
The Finnish word for the Host is öylätti, and that sounds pretty silly.
Posted by: Robert Thille | July 17, 2008 6:02 PM
inkadu @ 562 wrote:
Robert Thille is cribbing off Orson Scott Card. Which is fine. That one was a good story.
Maybe, but it's been a long time since I read any Orson Scott Card (since before I found out he was a Mormon wack-job), and I don't remember any story like what I postulated.
I was just trying to come up with something of equal insanity to the cracker saga. Maybe I should have used fingernail clippings instead of poop, since that's something easier to store and less offensive to the non-believers, so there's more likelihood that a non-believer would steal and desecrate them...
In response to 'why do you hate catholics', I don't. I have some friends who are catholics. I find them to be mostly reasonable people, though their statement that they'd rather have their daughter in a abusive hetero relationship than a loving homosexual one really put me off.
The idea that if I take a consecrated cracker, which you have no idea how I obtained, and crap on it or feed it to my dog or whatever harms you in any real way is something I reject. You are free to believe that it harms you and take offense, but don't assume I'll care. And if you threaten me with death because of your perceived offense, then expect me to be offended (at the minimum).
Posted by: Bradley | July 17, 2008 6:04 PM
Time to class up this thread with the Word of God.
John Chapter 6
1* After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberi-as. 2 And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased. 3 Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples. 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. 5* Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?" 6 This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. 7 Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii * would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little." 8* One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, 9* "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?" 10 Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 11 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. 12 And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost." 13 So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. 14* When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!" 15* Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. 16* When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, 17 got into a boat, and started across the sea to Caperna-um. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. 18 The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing. 19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, * they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened, 20 but he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid." 21 Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going. 22 On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 However, boats from Tiberi-as came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Caperna-um, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?" 26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27* Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal." 28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29* Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." 30* So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? 31* Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." 34* They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always." 35* Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37* All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. 38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; 39* and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. 40* For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44* No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45* It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46* Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52* The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 59* This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61* But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62* Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63* It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64* But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65* And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" 68* Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." 70* Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71* He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
Posted by: BobC | July 17, 2008 6:08 PM
Richard (#1158): "Yes, its true you don't have to respect another's beliefs, but what is gained by disrespecting their beliefs? Certainly not a dialogue or a reasonable coexistence?"
I don't want to coexist with religious assholes. I want them off my planet. I'm willing to wait until they drop dead, but the brainwashing of young children has to stop. Now.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 17, 2008 6:12 PM
Bradley.
You suck.
Posted by: Bradley | July 17, 2008 6:15 PM
The Word of The Lord. Thanks Be To God. Here's another to class up the joint.
Trash me all you want. Praise God for it. I've got work to do and won't be coming back to see your trash talk, so save your time. May Almighty God Bless you, in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, Amen.
1 Corinthians, Chapter 23* * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 17, 2008 6:18 PM
Oh and you're an asshole.
Posted by: Kryth | July 17, 2008 6:20 PM
Bradley, eat shit and die slow.
Posted by: Patricia | July 17, 2008 6:21 PM
#1187 - Moses - Excellent post! Notice how carefully all the godists are ignoring it. If memory serves Gilgamesh was about 1182 BC, but they don't want to hear that either.
A tip of my Canada Dry to you! :)
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 6:24 PM
Bradley, go pollute somewhere else you insufferable little death cultist prick and take your garbage with you.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 6:26 PM
Why don't you just go out and send some more death threats Bradley?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 6:29 PM
Time to class up this thread with the Word of God.
"here comes that Bible Duuuudeee!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VTqWi8BhvU
Posted by: Nino | July 17, 2008 6:30 PM
Bradley, I think we all have a copy of the book (right next copy of the Koran in my case)
If we want to read ne of them, we can any time we want to. But not in this thread?
But we dont see the sense in either of them.
So please stop spaming?
Or is that what the bible is for you? Material to use in spam??
I'm shure your "God" will love that concept.....
Posted by: El Herring | July 17, 2008 6:31 PM
Bradley, did you type that out by hand? It must have taken you ages. What devotion.
... or just cut & paste it from some xian site? Religion - no brains required.
Posted by: Geoff Tipley | July 17, 2008 6:33 PM
There's little violence that you can do to Christ's body in the Eucharist that mankind hasn't already done to Him in His Passion and Crucifixion.
And there's nothing you can do to the Eucharist that will shake my faith that Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity. I'm angry and you make many people very sad, but your plan is going to backfire.
You're expecting that lightning won't strike you down, and that if nothing extraordinary happens to evidence God's existence, that it will "prove" something. It just really shows your pride and misanthropy, your bigotry toward people of faith.
We don't pray for you out of spite. We pray that your heart of stone will become a heart of flesh and that your outrageous cry for attention will ultimate lead to your humbling.
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 6:34 PM
John Phillips, FCD wrote:
I don't think Bradley has any idea how pathetic what he is doing is. However, I appreciate his reminder of just how loony tunes the Bible actually comes off as... Believe me or else said Jesus.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 17, 2008 6:36 PM
Somebody mail me this plan pls.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 6:42 PM
Norman Doering, yes, sadly I have to agree with you, on both points. And oh look, it must be letting out time somewhere as all the religiotards are oozing out of the intertoobz.
Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 17, 2008 6:43 PM
@ Bradley.
Hah! That was perfect, buddy!
Imagine the hilarity that would ensue if you were able to sprinkle "virtual holy water" on this crew. We'd be treated to several minutes of watching PZ's flying monkeys "run around" clawing at their pointed little heads screaming "gaah, it buuuurns!"
Good on ya.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 17, 2008 6:46 PM
Keep prayin Geoff.
Bigotry again???? It's not our fault you believe in magic and imaginary ghosts, demons and angels. I mean, its understandable in the dark ages and earlier, but really? Still?
We don't hate religious people. I just think they're wasting their time, and perhaps a little unthinking.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 17, 2008 6:46 PM
Laughin_Gay: It wouldn't be the virtual holy water that would burn but the real stoopid being displayed by you and yours. But I don't expect a simpleton such as yourself to understand such a difficult concept without pretty pictures, if then.
Posted by: El Herring | July 17, 2008 6:48 PM
#1221 the brainwashing of young children has to stop. Now.
THAT's the plan. Tackle the problem at the root. The rest will follow.
Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 17, 2008 6:50 PM
"real stoopid"
Gee, I didn't know PZ taught spelling *and* biology!
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 17, 2008 6:51 PM
Geoff Tipley wrote:
Really? How about a couple of questions?
When exactly does an ordinary cracker become the truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity? When a priest says some specific bit of mumbo jumbo over it? What if the priest who was saying the mumbo jumbo over your cracker was a pedophile who cheated and lied his way through seminary, can he still consecrate your toast?
Could you tell if a cracker was consecrated or not?
Yes.
No. You'll prove it for us by doing what you're doing now.
Explain how that works, please.
I would pray too if I thought it would do any good, but it never has.