…and this is a 
The Catholic League is preparing a stake for me. They're going to go straight for the jugular and threaten my job — notice how they repeat that you can access my post from my faculty page, nicely avoiding the fact that the post they find so offensive is not hosted on any university server, and that they are urging everyone to harass the president of my university and the regents and the Minnesota legislature. Extortionists and witch hunters, that's all these scumbags are.
Paul Zachary Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, has pledged to desecrate the Eucharist. He is responding to what happened recently at the University of Central Florida when a student walked out of Mass with the Host, holding it hostage for several days. Myers was angry at the Catholic League for criticizing the student. His post can be accessed from his faculty page on the university's website.
Here is an excerpt of his July 8 post, "It's a Frackin' Cracker!":
"Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?" Myers continued by saying, "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."
Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:
"The Myers blog can be accessed from the university's website. The university has a policy statement on this issue which says that the 'Contents of all electronic pages must be consistent with University of Minnesota policies, local, state and federal laws.' One of the school's policies, 'Code of Conduct,' says that 'When dealing with others,' faculty et al. must be 'respectful, fair and civil.' Accordingly, we are contacting the President and the Board of Regents to see what they are going to do about this matter. Because the university is a state institution, we are also contacting the Minnesota legislature.
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ. We look to those who have oversight responsibility to act quickly and decisively."
When dealing with others, I must be respectful, fair and civil. Hmmm. Doesn't seem to say anything about when dealing with crackers.
That last paragraph is marvelously blind. Hey, Bill! I can think of something more vile! How about intentionally desecrating the bodies of young altar boys who respect the position of trust held by Catholic priests? I think that is a lot more vile than mistreating a cracker. In fact, I can think of innumerable vile acts going on all around the world right now, and not all of them even involve Catholicism. It takes the moral vacuum of a purblind ideological bigot like Bill Donohue to think that goring his sacred cow is the worst thing in the world.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Brain Hertz | July 10, 2008 10:45 AM
Well, that's mightily disingenuous. Isn't there something about bearing false witness somewhere in church doctrine....?
Posted by: chrisD | July 10, 2008 10:46 AM
Oooh that's low. Very low. Granted they didn't have very far to fall since nearly all their knickers were touching the floor, but now they're giving us meat AND veg. The depravity!
Posted by: Jim D. | July 10, 2008 10:47 AM
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ. "
Bill, when you produce the body of Jesus Christ, and show PZ desecrating it, than I'll agree with you. Until then, go mutter over your cracker magic.
Jim D.
Posted by: Donalbain | July 10, 2008 10:48 AM
Has your boss talked to you about it yet PZ?
Posted by: alcoolworld | July 10, 2008 10:48 AM
Oh, Goddamn...
The soggy-snackfood-saga continues!!!
Death to cracker infidels!
man they are so lame.
PS worst. scandal. ever.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 10:48 AM
But it's a cracker. Not the body of Christ that, if it actually existed, has substantially, if not completely, been reduced to its component molecular and atomic structures.
I do love his lawyering though. This is a SEED blog. Not a UMM blog. Donahue doesn't seem to grasp that you're not a slave to the UMM owing 27/7 fealty and what you do on your time is, well, not the Universities business.
It's like he's an 8-year old crying to your daddy because you hit his bullying ass back. Last time that happened with me, my dad laughed at the kid and told him he deserved to get his ass kicked.
Posted by: Doug | July 10, 2008 10:49 AM
Is the Catholic League made up of only one guy, Bill Donohue?
Posted by: chgo_liz | July 10, 2008 10:51 AM
Hey, Moses, I want to live in your alternate world. As a mom to two, I could use an extra 3 hours a day!
Posted by: Bodach | July 10, 2008 10:52 AM
PZ, you need to watch out for Bill. I have it on good authority that he has ninjas in his employ! (I'm pretty sure Southpark is a documentary.)
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 10:52 AM
holding it hostage for several days
Bwhahahaaaa
Posted by: John | July 10, 2008 10:53 AM
My, cannibals sure are touchy! If you anger him even more, he might do a magic dance that will poison your cattle and wither your crops!
Posted by: Danley | July 10, 2008 10:53 AM
It's time to let loose the Hitch.
Posted by: CortxVortx | July 10, 2008 10:53 AM
Perhaps we should contact the server for catholicleague.org and complain about the hate speech and threats on that site.
Posted by: Aegis | July 10, 2008 10:54 AM
"In fact, I can think of innumerable vile acts going on all around the world right now, and not all of them even involve Catholicism."
My thoughts immediately. I wonder if they would be upset if I took a wafer, then pulled out a bit of Cheeze Whiz and added it for flavor?
Posted by: Ygern | July 10, 2008 10:56 AM
Hmm. Freedom of speech obviously means nothing to some guys.
Its particularly insidious seeing as this forum is not hosted by a college website.
It seems that Witch-Hunter as a profession is making a comeback among zealots!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 10:56 AM
From stupid, to more stupid.
The adage is "cut your losses," Bill, not "make yourself look even more dumb and inept."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 10:56 AM
..."Paul Zachary?" That's what it stands for? Well, I guess that it's better than Mervin Rottingham. :P
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
Hm let's see... There's rape, the holocaust, necro, pedophilia, priests raping children, fundamentalists...
Is it really THAT hard? I think mister Donohue needs imagination.
Posted by: co | July 10, 2008 10:57 AM
My thoughts immediately. I wonder if they would be upset if I took a wafer, then pulled out a bit of Cheeze Whiz and added it for flavor?
But... but... Everyone goes better with cheese!
Posted by: CortxVortx | July 10, 2008 10:58 AM
I may have missed it in the previous post's comments, but I was under the impression that the wafer is just a cracker until it actually goes in your mouth, and then becomes the body of Christ.
So, until eaten, it's just a goddamn cracker.
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 10:58 AM
If you need a legal defense fund, just throw up the link to paypal or the like. I'm still a grad student, but my wallet and my mouth are in lockstep.
Posted by: Sally Lou Liz | July 10, 2008 10:58 AM
Some Catholics are getting extremely excited over possible cracker abuse. How come I've never seen this kind of anger/frothing at the mouth/accusing behaviour over the abuse of children by priests? This is ONE cracker, yet how many thousands of children have been abused? By priests who are *protected* by the Catholic Church? The hypocrisy of it all astounds me. It is one. damn. cracker.
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2008 10:58 AM
As a recovering catholic, I can tell you that those crackers don't even taste good. They're dry and tasteless, which makes it hard to see why anybody would care, if not for magical spell the priest casts on it.
Posted by: Woobegone | July 10, 2008 10:59 AM
This is embarrasing. I thought the Catholic Church was meant to have a little dignity if nothing else.
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | July 10, 2008 11:00 AM
Back in the 90s, the English double act Lee and Herring wrote a sketch for a character called 'Simon Quinlank, the Hobby King' which I cannot help but think of:
The Christian Church Crawl Hobby
http://www.leeandherring.com/simon.html
Posted by: Matilda | July 10, 2008 11:01 AM
What a sad, hateful man you are.
Posted by: alex | July 10, 2008 11:01 AM
my, what a quick, easy scandal to construct. imagine if everyone who reads pharyngula offered to crumble up said crackers with a rolling pin! instead of eating them! can you imagine anything more vile?!
surely there must come a point where Donohue and all are unable to keep up the facade of spluttering outrage and realise what a silly idea this transubstantiation is.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 11:01 AM
If Donhue finds it hard to think of more vile things than descerating a wafer then he must live a very sheltered life. Does Dafur mean nothing to him ? Is he unaware of what is happening in Zimbabwe ? How stupid can someone to either be unaware of these, or to think desecrating a host is worse ?
Posted by: Danley | July 10, 2008 11:02 AM
Hey Bill, you're a festering troglobyte. I sincerely mean that with love and concern.
Posted by: G Barnett | July 10, 2008 11:03 AM
I love how he's confusing "linked from" with "hosted by." Grade-A dumbassery for sure.
Posted by: Tosser | July 10, 2008 11:03 AM
If you want to see learn just how cracked this cracker-eating cracker Donohue is, watch his debate with Christopher Hitchens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8GTs1MISY
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 11:03 AM
Simple matter, Donohue--sensibly, scientifically, and legally, it is not the Body of Christ. It is a processed wheat product.
I would treat your superstition with some respect where individual persons are involved, simply as the decent thing to do. What you have absolutely no right to do is to require that everyone buy into your superstition, outside of simply respecting individuals (not the group).
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Oliver | July 10, 2008 11:04 AM
I think they should video tape the boy holding the cracker while jumping on a pogo stick, all while shouting "JUMPING JESUS ON A POGO STICK."
That is all. It would be the best hostage video ever.
Posted by: joseph collins | July 10, 2008 11:04 AM
Hey professor Let's talk about about some of the degenerate sexual deviates at the University of Minnesota like the three filth bag football players that were expelled in the spring of 2007. Does that ring a bell? Don't open your mouth about anyone else. Perhaps you can forward to me your published outrage about that incident. Don't try to hide behind the fact that you work at some satelklite campus of that loser University. If you were silent about that than I guess you and all your self righteous pseudo-intellectual liberal crapheads accept it.
Posted by: drew | July 10, 2008 11:04 AM
This whole thing reminds of this
Posted by: Andre Vienne | July 10, 2008 11:05 AM
Hmm. I say this leads to a terrible idea. We snatch a priest-blessed cracker, and actually hold it 'hostage' (maybe also torture it some) until they come clean and admit to covering up the child molesting, in as big an area as they can.
If they don't go out of their way to do anything they can to save their Jesus Pieces(tm) then they're obviously not doing the whole faith thing right, no?
Posted by: Lago | July 10, 2008 11:05 AM
I am so waiting for this fight.
Come on religious fanatics, here we are,..come and try and get us.
We are behind PZ 100% and if you try and persecute him for expressing his opinion about you stupid mythology, you will be dealing with people that will expose your child molesting religion for what it is...
In short, if you want a fight..you got one...
Posted by: Matt | July 10, 2008 11:06 AM
"Paul Zachary Myers..." that reminds me of when I was a kid and my mom used my full name when I was in really big trouble. Look out PZ, I think you are in BIG trouble with Mr. Donohue. What an idiot this guy is.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 10, 2008 11:06 AM
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
But they EAT the Body of Christ - after the priest drinks his blood! How is that ritual cannibalism less desecratory than sneaking a cracker out of the building?
Posted by: IB Bill | July 10, 2008 11:07 AM
PZ: I don't suppose I could talk you into not doing it. But what if I say please?
A Catholic
Posted by: leftie | July 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Hey, if you can't get a hold of a communion wafer, I'll gladly send you a copy of the Koran to desecrate. I'd love to see a video of that!!
Posted by: Mikey M | July 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Cheez Whiz?! This snack calls for Cheeses of Nazareth®!
Posted by: D- | July 10, 2008 11:07 AM
"I was under the impression that the wafer is just a cracker until it actually goes in your mouth, and then becomes the body of Christ."
Then its clear that PZ has to stick the cracker in his mouth and then desecrate it.
Posted by: True Bob | July 10, 2008 11:08 AM
Giong to their source book (no not the catechism, but the babble), I do not recall any unpardonable sins except one - blaspheming the holy ghost. Nothing about cheese' corpse, nothing about stale tasteless crackers.
Posted by: Umlud | July 10, 2008 11:09 AM
I agree with G. Barnett (#29). Anyone can go to the UM-Morris faculty page for PZ's department, mouse over to the link to his webpage, and notice that: HEY it's not hosted by UMM! Hmmm... What does THAT mean? I wonder.....
As to Matilda (#25), are you talking about Bill Donohue or PZ Myers? Please, if you're going to point fingers and accuse people of something make sure that you are clear about whom you are accusing. (Specificity of what you are accusing them of would also be helpful; "sad, hateful" is not specific. Proof of what would otherwise be baseless conjecture on your part merely shows itself to be on par with vacuous statements of pure opinion - which I'm not discouraging, but makes your accusations against people ring quite ... erm... vacuous.)
Posted by: stevogvsu | July 10, 2008 11:10 AM
I remember back in High School having a teacher tell us about scares far back in antiquity with Catholics locking up the Eucharist for fear of Satan worshipers kidnapping and torturing the host. But...we have electricity and science now....*head desk*
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 10, 2008 11:10 AM
CortxVortx said:
Not quite AFAIK - just before it's given out it's consecrated (the priest makes the sign of the cross and mutters at it) which is what causes the miracle to occur and the host to become the body of christ rather than the actual eating of it.
That's what I remember of my RE lessons at school anyway.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 10, 2008 11:11 AM
It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ.>/i>
I don't get this whole blasphemy/desecration thing. I mean, assuming there's a God, what real harm does he suffer if a few puny mortals say insulting things about him, or do nasty things to his earthly symbols? Seems to me that any Lord of the Cosmos worth his salt would just shrug those things off as beneath his dignity to notice. What's one of the lessons we try to teach our children? To ignore verbal taunting ("Sticks and stones...."). So how come Donohue's God is allowed to be more touchy than an insecure six-year-old?
Posted by: Kampar | July 10, 2008 11:11 AM
That whole Catholic League site seems to exist for only three key reasons:
1. To promote Bill Donohue's rants
2. To put out two or three press releases a month slamming Barack Obama (July 7 Press Release: "Reports have surfaced today by Deal Hudson and Jill Stanek that Sen. Barack Obama is dodging the issue of his support for selective infanticide.")
3. To solicit as much cash as possible in the form of donations, memberships, subscriptions, books etc.
Plus the usual apologetics ...oh, and to defend Mel Gibson's infamous commentary on judaism ...
Posted by: Disciple of | July 10, 2008 11:12 AM
2girls1cracker.com
Maybe??
Posted by: SC | July 10, 2008 11:12 AM
This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. I hope it doesn't cause you any real problems.
Posted by: techskeptic | July 10, 2008 11:13 AM
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate
the Body of Christcracker. "really? I can think of plenty of things more vile than that!
Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2008 11:13 AM
Donohue continues to demonstrate his spittle-flecked vapidity. Nothing new to see here. Move along.
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 11:13 AM
Bill D's useful idiots have started to roll in... anybody know where the cross-link is, or did it go out over the boy-bother-er's mailing list?
Posted by: Holy Cheezits | July 10, 2008 11:14 AM
Wow. If I were an ex-Catholic, I'd be dying of embarassment right now. If I weren't an atheist already, this nonsense would have convinced me to become one. If Jesus were here, he'd have to smack a few people in the head and say "I didn't mean it LITERALLY, ya moron!"
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 11:15 AM
"And therefore so should everyone else."
I have news for you Donahue, not holding your mythological deity in the same high regard you do isn't being disrespectful. It's having the freedom to believe what I like. My (and everyone else's) freedom of religion necessitates freedom from your religion. But I wouldn't expect a hypocritical bigot like you to understand that, or even try.
I really hope someone tries to sue you or get you fired because you were out after sundown on the Sabbath. Asshole.
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | July 10, 2008 11:15 AM
It doesn't have to be eaten.
The 'theory' goes that as soon as it is consecrated by the priest, it undergoes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that all though it looks, smells, tastes and *actually is atom for atom the same*, it has still somehow 'become' the body of Christ.
I'm not sure, but I believe it may use a similar mechanism to homoepathic medicine so that there is no detectable atoms of anything other than wafer, but it's nevertheless the body of Jeebus.
And if you eat enough, you can devour a whole Jesus.
Posted by: KnaveRupe | July 10, 2008 11:15 AM
PZ: Here's what ya gotta do.
Get a bunch of atheists to start palming wafers each week at church and smuggling 'em out. Gather them all together, and when you've got 20,000 or so, grab some superglue and start forming them into a life-size statue of Jesus.
EXCEPT... it won't be a STATUE of Jesus, it will ACTUALLY BE JESUS!!!!
See, it will be constructed entirely out of the mystically transsubstantiated flesh of Jesus! How can Bill Donahue be upset about the return of his Savior?
If that doesn't get the Vatican to dispatch the Opus Dei Albino hitmen after you, nothing will.
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2008 11:16 AM
I thought cannibalism was illegal in the Excited States. I know it's frowned upon in Canada! ;)
And, yes, I was raised catholic, but I've gotten better!
Posted by: iwdw | July 10, 2008 11:19 AM
I really want to hear what Mr. Condell would say about this.
Posted by: ted | July 10, 2008 11:20 AM
If God doesn't get you, ,I will
Posted by: Zan | July 10, 2008 11:21 AM
At #33:
That actually has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. You're derailing the conversation. Just because PZ hasn't posted on it (or has and you've been to lazy to read the rest of the blog) does not diminish the nastiness of the Catholic Church's habit of covering up sexual abuse scandals. Nor does it make victims of the Church any less hurt by what happened to them.
Hells, at least the footballers got expelled which is more than I can say for most of the priests in these situations.
Sorry for feeding the troll everyone.
Posted by: C Murdock | July 10, 2008 11:21 AM
An idea: horribly desecrate and mutilate an ordinary cracker (as if there's any other kind, but you get what I mean) that just *looks* like a Eucharist, but is not. Then wait for the cries of outrage. Then reveal that it was just a regular cracker you bought at the local gas station. A little practical Socratic method.
Posted by: Bickle | July 10, 2008 11:22 AM
I called up that Catholic League and told them I didn't think Bill Maher would fight them, but as one who has publically said much worse things about Catholics than Bill has ever said, and more than willing to say whatever it took to take his place
Bill Donohue has yet to return my call for our Madison Square Garden bout.
Posted by: Cetaceans Shall Rule the Earth | July 10, 2008 11:22 AM
Ho-hum, zzz! Satanism has encouraged the desecration of the eucharist for decades. It's all been done before - though it's nice to see you takig your own interest.
Might I suggest just taking the communion wafers and handing them to some homeless guy for a lunchtime snack? That'd probably be just as naughty to the Catholic Church... especially if the homeless guy is gay or Jewish or something.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 11:22 AM
Hey, if you can't get a hold of a communion wafer, I'll gladly send you a copy of the Koran to desecrate. I'd love to see a video of that!! - leftie
How about smashing the cracker to smithereens with a copy of the Koran? Two birds with one stone!
Posted by: TheBlackCat | July 10, 2008 11:23 AM
And here come the threats. Isn't it great how people who are supposed to "love your neighbor", "turn the other cheek", and "do unto others" are so quick to threaten violence?
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 11:24 AM
Oh, look... death threats at #60.
I guess we weren't off track with thinking these weren't nice people, huh?
Posted by: Lago | July 10, 2008 11:26 AM
Ted said:
"If God doesn't get you, ,I will"
Hm, are you serious here Ted? If you are truly trying to threaten, then remember this,..we hit back...
Posted by: Jose | July 10, 2008 11:27 AM
PZ,
You're convieniently omitting the fact that while your blog may be on separate servers, both your blogs servers and the university's servers do reside in the same series of tubes. Busted! One for the Catholic League.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 11:27 AM
More "love thy neighbor" I guess...
Bigot.
Posted by: BFire | July 10, 2008 11:27 AM
Perhaps Bill will organize a protest.
He can make signs that say, "Behead those who desecrate the cracker of christ".
I have no doubt Donohue would have been one of the most prolific 'inquisitors" of the dark ages. I cannot find the foul language necessary to describe him adequately.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 10, 2008 11:28 AM
Eamon Knight said:
More to the point what kind of omnipotent, omniscient deity is offended by the mockery of mortals and then practically begs for it by choosing an epic Maroon like Bill Donahue as one of his spokesman (not to mention an Emperor Palpatine lookalike as his Head of PR)?
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 10, 2008 11:28 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: katie | July 10, 2008 11:28 AM
I sense a contest coming on...who can desecrate a cracker in the most uncivil way!?!? Pictures required of course!
Posted by: Moggie | July 10, 2008 11:29 AM
"Catholic League"? It's pretty odd when a "league" purportedly representing a group as numerous (and, I suppose, diverse) as American Catholics appears to exist solely to provide a platform for one perpetually angry individual. Perhaps what is needed is a rival "League of Extraordinary Catholics", which could become the media's go-to group on Catholic issues and supplant Donohue. You just need to find Catholics with the right special powers.
Posted by: Zan | July 10, 2008 11:29 AM
At #68:
Indeed, no obligation to turn the other cheek as it were.
Posted by: darwinfish | July 10, 2008 11:29 AM
totally off-topic but...I need to read less pharyngula: I just had a dream that me, angelia jolie, and my ex-boyfriend were PZ's grad students. And it was kind of like House :s
Posted by: andyo | July 10, 2008 11:29 AM
ohmygodohmygodohmygod!!!!
Bill Donohue knows your name!
Posted by: BFire | July 10, 2008 11:29 AM
Perhaps Bill will organize a protest.
He can make signs that say, "Behead those who desecrate the cracker of christ".
I have no doubt Donohue would have been one of the most prolific 'inquisitors" of the dark ages. I cannot find the foul language necessary to describe him adequately.
Posted by: AemJeff | July 10, 2008 11:29 AM
You've got K-Lo's attention at The Corner:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODZlYmE3ZjcyMTY4OGMxOTg4ZDczMjNiMWFmMmYxMTQ=
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | July 10, 2008 11:31 AM
"If God doesn't get you, I will"
If God doesn't 'get' PZ, does that not tend to suggest a very particular scenario for a believer*?
Namely, if the omnipotent and omnipresent God who definitely exists and isn't made up or anything** hasn't bothered doing something that He must both know about and be capable of doing something about, He probably doesn't give a damn.
And if God doesn't give a damn, who the hell are you to go against Him, you supersized fuckwit?
* I'm ignoring those of us who have successfully worked out God is imaginary.
** He is.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | July 10, 2008 11:32 AM
So, when can we expect everyone to steal a wafer and desecrate it, putting the video on YouTube? I'm contemplating an infiltration of my local True Catholic Church (TM) for just such an evil, vile hostage/torture scheme. I wonder what one could get in terms of ransom for said Body of Christ (R).
I'd laugh about this, except that it's not even a Poe.
Posted by: william | July 10, 2008 11:32 AM
Something disturbing about someone who names a cracker and refers to it in the first person. And why are even atheists capitalizing "Eucharist"? Is it a brand name? Its still a cracker, or a wafer, or maybe just a piece of bread (depending on where the church falls on the divine baked goods scale).
Posted by: sterge | July 10, 2008 11:34 AM
So, using this 'respect logic' that our 'challenged' friend Bill uses, shouldn't we stop eating burgers and steaks. If a cow is sacred to Hindus, man should America be ashamed. Honestly, I'm having trouble stomaching this whole story. Anybody who sides with the 'crackers' on this one is in need of a god damn lobotomy.
Posted by: barry | July 10, 2008 11:34 AM
PZ -
Whatever you do to the host you are sure to receive, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hold it hostage for several days first. I would LOVE to see a photo of a blindfolded cracker, perhaps with a cigarette graciously provided by its captor.
Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 10, 2008 11:34 AM
Does the transubstantiated Jesus-cracker somehow decay back into a mere gooey gob of digested grain sometime before it hits your colon, or does it come out your poop-chute still full of that Jesus-y goodness?
If the latter, isn't crapping out the Lord of the Universe somewhat worse than merely palming a cracker for a later snack?
I'm really trying to understand how this works here, Bill. Help me out, wouldja?
Posted by: Patrick | July 10, 2008 11:34 AM
Dr. Myers,
Well done! Any chance to get these religious wackos in a tizzy is a good one to take. I hope you do get ahold of some of these crackers. If I were still a practicing Catholic I might have been in a position to help you, but alas.
Posted by: Jeff | July 10, 2008 11:35 AM
I grew up Catholic- even spending 13 years in private Catholic schools. I somehow managed to avoid molestation before renouncing my faith and the cannibalism/necromancy it entails.
Nowadays, I'm also a huge Pharyngula fan. The Expelled, ID, Creationism, fraud preachers are fine targets to beat on, but now that PZ has turned his gaze on my roots- the church- I can only wait with bated breath.
This is kid-in-a-candy-store exciting.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 11:35 AM
You know, I can't help but wonder why, if these crackers are so important to them, they don't keep a closer watch on them.
I mean, really, they just let a piece of their deity walk out the door? Hell, Walmart has tighter security for much less valuable stuff.
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 11:35 AM
Myers,
You're a fucking giant sized scumbag. I hope you die slowly and painfully. Cunt.
Posted by: steve8282 | July 10, 2008 11:35 AM
If we waterboard it is it still not torture?
Mackerel snappers of the world repent!!!
Posted by: J-Dog | July 10, 2008 11:36 AM
Hey Ted - I like to use Holy Jesus Body Wafers(TM) to wipe my butt - It's now nice an clean so you can kiss it - when you're done kissing Bill's and Pope Benny's.
Posted by: gg | July 10, 2008 11:36 AM
Should PZ be removed from his job?
Clearly, this is a question that can only be resolved with...
AN INTERNET POLL!!!
Who wants to start one? :)
Posted by: Tuck | July 10, 2008 11:37 AM
So if you take a cracker out of church and photograph it, it is sacrilege.
If you chew it to bits, expose it to acid, mix it around with your feces, and expel it through your anus, it is not sacrilege.
Got it.
Posted by: Zan | July 10, 2008 11:37 AM
Wow, SFG, you really are a shining example of Christian love, where can I sign up?
Posted by: NonyNony | July 10, 2008 11:38 AM
CortxVortx -
I may have missed it in the previous post's comments, but I was under the impression that the wafer is just a cracker until it actually goes in your mouth, and then becomes the body of Christ.
So, until eaten, it's just a goddamn cracker.
No, if that were the case then there wouldn't have been a big stink about the kid "kidnapping" Jesus and the previous article wouldn't have been written.
First its a cracker. A whole plate of these crackers and bottle of wine are taken to the alter. The priest says some magic words and waves his hands in particular ways. At that point, the cracker becomes the "body of Christ" and the wine becomes "the blood of Christ".
Uneaten and undrunk portions have to be carefully disposed of, lest you desecrate the Lord. For example, the former-wine has to be drunk completely by the priest and the laity responsible for distribution. Uneaten former-crackers are gathered up into a little golden box and placed in another special box (usually at the front of the church in a place of honor - though newer churches might have it at the back). Those "leftovers" can be used in ceremonies later in the week, where the priest doesn't have to do any magic because it's already God. (And hey there's precedent - the Hebrews apparently kept God locked up in a golden box for a number of years before the box got stolen from them! So that part's traditional!)
And the cups holding the wine and plates holding the crackers have to be washed in a special sink with a drain that leads directly into the ground - bits of Jesus should not end up in the sewer. And as far as the whole "eating==desecration" goes, well, the Jesus parts don't get digested and defecated because it's a miracle. So there.
Seriously, the whole thing is really, really silly. As I mentioned in the other thread, learning about how it was supposed to work was really the first time I started to question whether the whole religion thing wasn't some big joke at our expense. And a lot of younger Catholics I know already feel kind of awkward about the whole thing and don't like to discuss it in public because they know it's silly. But it's also a foundation of the faith, so you can't really talk much about how silly it is (unless you're willing to leave the whole package behind, of course).
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 11:38 AM
This is almost getting funny. More Catholics showing their true colors.
Why don't you pray for him to die slowly and painfully? I'm sure your kind and loving god would be only too happy to oblige you.
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | July 10, 2008 11:39 AM
PZ ... I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone here, let alone everyone.
But if there's anything anyone reading this can do that might help - or indeed anything you don't want done in case it hinders - tell us.
Posted by: Nick | July 10, 2008 11:40 AM
@SFG:
You forgot Shit, Piss, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits. Asshole.
Posted by: Paul | July 10, 2008 11:40 AM
@ Moggie (#75)
Splitter!
Posted by: me | July 10, 2008 11:41 AM
Bill Donohue: You said it, man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.
Walter: Eight-year-olds, Dude.
Posted by: andyo | July 10, 2008 11:42 AM
It's telling how the religidiots are the actual ones who are wishing painful death and actually making death threats, while the worst we do is call them names. I don't even do that. How cute them getting all offended for a cookie.
Posted by: Taz | July 10, 2008 11:42 AM
Glue crackers all over a copy of the Koran, wrap the whole thing in an American flag, and burn it. Let's go for all the sacred cows!Posted by: sterge | July 10, 2008 11:42 AM
To "ted"... I can feel your 'Christian Love'... you seem like such a kind fellow, probably well worth conversing with... well representative of the religion that fills up this increasingly larger and larger cesspool of a society. Thanks for stopping by and please consider reading more than just ONE book in your life. You'd be amazed what even your brain might be capable of comprehending ;)
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 11:43 AM
TSG,
I'm not a Catholic or anything else. Myers is a total sack of shit for saying what he says and doing what he does. The "man" is a cunt and so are you.
Posted by: X | July 10, 2008 11:45 AM
Game of "Limp Biscuit" anyone?
Posted by: TheBlackCat | July 10, 2008 11:45 AM
The question is how we would get the cracker to PZ in the first place. Aren't there strict rules regarding transferring human tissues through the mail? (ooh, we get to play with dry ice) Wait, speaking of which isn't the Catholic church violating the rules regarding the safe handling of human tissues? We're dealing with blood and other tissues from someone who lived 2000 years ago, who knows what sort of vile diseases it has that we might not have immunity to because those strains are extinct. Wow, suddenly I'm worried. Every Catholic church in the country is generating potentially high-grade biohazardous substances without any protection and handing them out willy-nilly to unsuspecting visitors with little or no security, not to mention FDA oversight.
Posted by: Niobe | July 10, 2008 11:46 AM
And don't forget, he's telling on you to MOMMY so there!
Posted by: Zan | July 10, 2008 11:46 AM
If you're not a Catholic are you an alien then, SFG? Using your alien powers to discern who is a sack of shit and who isn't?
Though really I'm not sure exactly what it is that PZ "does" that has you on edge so badly. Do you not like teachers or something? Or is it only people who have an opinion differing from your own that set you on edge?
Posted by: True Bob | July 10, 2008 11:47 AM
It's nice to see the outpouring of christian love, now that the catlickers are showing up.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 10, 2008 11:47 AM
Idea:
Cut pieces off of the crackers people send you and mail then to Donohoue with ransom notes demanding he apologize.
Also, be careful who you give your mailing address to. I would bet anyone who uses a lot of capital letters, misspells simple words, etc. intends to send you death threats rather than holy crackers.
Posted by: katie | July 10, 2008 11:47 AM
I sense a contest coming on...who can desecrate a cracker in the most uncivil way!?!? Pictures required of course!
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | July 10, 2008 11:48 AM
So, SFG, you charmer, you're not religious, yet PZ is a 'total sack of shit', a 'cunt' and apparently not actually a man because he dare point out that a cracker is...
a CRACKER.
It's not the only thing that's crackers round here.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 11:49 AM
/me waits with bated breath for complaints from the Framist Quarter
KnaveRupe (#57):
Dude. Awesome.
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 11:49 AM
Zan,
Alien? What drugs are you on you cunt? Fuck off and die. Twat features.
Posted by: Drew | July 10, 2008 11:49 AM
@SFG
No you are!
Posted by: andyo | July 10, 2008 11:49 AM
Wow, 0-to-100 in 60 minutes. catholic love.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 11:50 AM
Oh! Speared by your rapier wit! How will I ever recover.
Twit.
Posted by: Zan | July 10, 2008 11:51 AM
Well, I guess it's the latter, general hatred of people with ideas and minds. Thanks for clearing that up SFG! :D
Posted by: nobi yuno | July 10, 2008 11:51 AM
battle of the titans here, eh? two of the most implacable, hardheaded personalities on earth in a cage deathmatch. of course, pz has truth and freedom of speech on his side, and bill donahue has an army of mythological creatures and, er, lawyers.
pz, i'd go ahead and lawyer up. you're such a high profile person now i can't imagine it would be hard to find pro bono support from the aclu or americans united. bill donahue is a bullyboy and this is a good fight to have. he will lose.
Posted by: Andrew | July 10, 2008 11:51 AM
I propose a competition which I'm going to call the:
Crazy Christ Cracker Challenge!
Presumably these crackers must come from a Holy Processing Factory where they get made, packaged and shipped out.
The Crazy Christ Cracker Challenge is to see how how many crackers you can eat in one sitting without drinking - depending ont he size of the packages this might only require 1 packet.
If they are anything like cream crackers i package size I reckon eating a whole pack will be a near impossible feat. Perhaps if you do the combined christiness will do something AMAZING - perhaps miraculously create a strong thirst where once there was none.
In any case I'm sure this is a solid proposal - can I have a grant for it? Please?
Posted by: ddr | July 10, 2008 11:51 AM
#56 "The 'theory' goes that as soon as it is consecrated by the priest, it undergoes transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that all though it looks, smells, tastes and *actually is atom for atom the same*, it has still somehow 'become' the body of Christ"
I see. It is Homeopathic Christ.
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 11:52 AM
Drew,
I don't know what you're talking about. Cunt.
Posted by: F. Jardim | July 10, 2008 11:53 AM
Bravo, PZ. Took quite long for someone to actually dare them to be their medieval selves. As a former catholic who was frankly embarrassed (even as a believer) by that fake cannibalism show, I'd get a cracker for you myself if I was sure it'd survive postage all the way from Brazil.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 11:53 AM
Oh, for the love of chocolate cake and orgasms, it's like Pharyngula has become YouTube.
Posted by: Mr_P | July 10, 2008 11:53 AM
@ #61
If you feed the trolls, PLEASE make sure it is crackers.
Whoever photoshopped the face of PZ on the painting of jeebus a few days ago, PLEASE make one with the face of PZ on a cracker.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 11:53 AM
I'm not a Catholic - SFG
Liar.
Posted by: Lago | July 10, 2008 11:54 AM
Why did Jesus cross the road?
Because he was nailed to a chicken.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 10, 2008 11:55 AM
Or instead, obtain an roughly human shaped robot, and glue crackers around the outside of it. Then use a speaker inside it to give commands to Catholics. For example, you could order then to give you money; that seems to work for Donohue.
Posted by: CortxVortx | July 10, 2008 11:56 AM
Re: #46 & #56 (and probably others)
Okay, I bow to superior knowledge on the timing of transubstantiation.
Vampires, mummies, and the Holy Ghost
These are the things that terrify me the most
No aliens, psychopaths, or MTV hosts
Scare me like vampires, mummies, and the Holy Ghost
-- Jimmy Buffett
Posted by: X | July 10, 2008 11:56 AM
http://www.almy.com/commbread.html
Not sanctified, but a good place to start; I know a few defrocked priests who will say the mumble over it for the price of a bottle of Mad dog 20/20.
Posted by: TheBlackCat | July 10, 2008 11:56 AM
I'm glad this conversation is being conducted at a mature, adult level.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 11:57 AM
Look, I have the perfect solution to the people so offended by what PZ or anyone else might do to a cracker: believe it stops being Jesus as soon as it leaves the church. Problem solved. It shouldn't be that hard to do. You already believe a man in a robe can magically turn a cracker into god by waving at it, why not believe a doorway can magically turn it back? Have the guy in a robe wave his hands at the doorway if it makes you feel better.
Really. Your offense is entirely of your own doing. Stop being offended and it will go away.
Posted by: Elyse Hart | July 10, 2008 11:57 AM
#62, good idea. That'll make them really furious they'd been duped!
PZ, I'm going to design you a crocheted testicle bra, because you are falling out! Ooh! That just gave me a great idea....how could you desecrate the B of C anymore than releasing certain manly bodily fluids all over it? Or....enjoying a little nosecandy off it?
Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 10, 2008 11:57 AM
Try rolling your squab in crumbled up Jesus crackers, shake, and bake!
That way you can eat both the Son and the Holy Ghost!
Posted by: mr_p | July 10, 2008 11:59 AM
Anyone wanna bet that SFG is a prepubescent boy who learned some new vocabulary and is trying to impress everyone by using them as often as he can?
Posted by: SGFG | July 10, 2008 11:59 AM
HEY GUYS I'M SWEARING AT EVERYONE AND CALLING PEOPLE NAMES LIKE A SIX YEAR OLD PLEASE TAKE ME SERIOUSLY
guys?
GUYS???
Posted by: CortxVortx | July 10, 2008 11:59 AM
Re: #17
It's spelled Paul Zachary Myers, but it's pronounced Tentacled Overlord.
Posted by: Adam Janke | July 10, 2008 11:59 AM
"Hey, if you can't get a hold of a communion wafer, I'll gladly send you a copy of the Koran to desecrate. I'd love to see a video of that!!"
I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know if the comment of someone with a different opinion will be approved on this blog.
All of the accusations of "magic" and "cannibalism" tell me that most of those who are replying here aren't acquainted with history. These are asinine comments at best. The debates about magic and cannibalism took place in the first few centuries after Christianity was founded and Christians are bored by them because they don't hold muster. It might make you feel good to pat each other on the back and call our worship these things, but you won't be taken seriously by anyone with a different point of view.
The old "let's throw out the priest sex scandal and accuse the whole organization of treachery for the sins of very few within that organization" is also nothing new and has gotten boring. The leaders of the Catholic Church have already pinned predator priests for what they are - monsters. That anyone, especially someone who is suppose to model Christian virtue would prey on children is horrific. In the overall debate it is impossible though to ignore the numbers - the occurrence of criminal sexual behavior in the Catholic Church is far lower than any other system - such as the Protestant churches or secular schools. And in a secular society that is completely obsessed with sex it is no wonder that innocent children end up caught in the middle.
I'm sure there is a reason Professor Myers is a college professor and I doubt it has anything to do with his personal religious opinions, the argument "its just a cracker" has nothing to do with the debate. It misses the debate in its entirety. Whether it is a cracker or whether the substance is truly changed to the "body, blood, soul, and divinity" of Jesus Christ wherein the accidents remain is not what is at question in this debate with Bill Donahue.
What is at question is whether or not we should respect others beliefs. Christians really don't care what choice phrases you have for them, anymore than an atheist cares if a Christian thinks they are an "idiot". The poster that mentioned the Koran has an excellent point. Would Professor Myers be inclined to urinate on, or set fire to a Koran, or desecrate it in some other manner and post it on the Internet? Probably not? How about another idea, if you were exploring an African jungle on a biological research trip and came across a previously unknown tribe who worshiped a stone statue and believed it to be their god, would you be immediately inclined to desecrate the statue?
While atheists may believe Christians are morons for believing that the wafer is Jesus Christ after it is consecrated, you are showing a profound disrespect to a whole group of people by desecrating something that is important to them - and for what? I'm not really sure what the point is. For fun? Because you are bored? Because you think you will make a point? The only point I can think of is intolerance. Isn't tolerance the mantra of liberals?
Adam Janke
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 11:59 AM
Just on a serious note for a minute before I go back to calling PZ and the rest of you cunts.
I have no problem with religion, none at all. If people want to worship and venerate God, that's all good with me.
It's people like yourselves, Myers, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris (wankers all) that give people like me a shit image and terrible name in the public eye. People think we're all aggressive, insulting, vile little dipshits like you lot are.
None of you know the meaning of live and let live. If all you've got to do all day is insult people that are believers then you've obviously got no lives in the first place.
You don't see the damage you're causing by being pointlessly nasty and churlish in your "observations." If there is/was any battle, you've already lost it by acting like a bunch of spoilt brats who sound like they've had their toys taken away from them. Fucking grow up.
What a shower of, you guessed it, CUNTS.
Posted by: Moggie | July 10, 2008 12:00 PM
@ #131:
Are you sure that an ex-priest retains the ability to perform cracker magic? I'd assumed that they lose all their super-powers when they're no longer allowed to wear the funny frocks.
Posted by: cerebral cortex(01) | July 10, 2008 12:01 PM
You could do one of those experiments to see how many calories are there before and after one of the cracker's is "blessed."
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 12:01 PM
@123: I think the list of things that you don't know would be rather substantial. But rather than attempt the herculean task of creating that list, I will just point out one thing. You have no concept of how to creatively insult, you are boring. Go read up some Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and H.L. Mencken for inspiration, and then get back to us.
Posted by: Yoo | July 10, 2008 12:01 PM
Unless Bill Donohue is a vegetarian, which for some odd reason I doubt, and regularly eats beef, then he's being hypocritical. For a Hindu, there's probably not much that can be more vile than desecrating cows (I think), so does this mean that Bill Donohue should be fired from his job?
(Of course, maybe the Catholic League is all for being disrespectful to everyone and everything. They're certainly acting ridiculously in this cracker case.)
Posted by: lori | July 10, 2008 12:02 PM
All of this fuss over a little snackrament?
Remember, Jesus loaves you.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 12:02 PM
Fuck the cracker. It's time to desecrate Bill Donohue. Maybe that'll give the professional whiner a bit of perspective.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 12:04 PM
SFG is a good example of what can happen when parents neglect to supervise their children's internet access. I would also blame his English teacher. Surely he should have been taught to curse and insult people with a bit more creativity than he has shown.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 10, 2008 12:05 PM
By telling Bill Donohue to go fuck himself (oh, wait, that's a sin, too).
BTW, Dr. Myers, I'm still of the opinion that you were over the line with this one. I'm partly convinced you made that crack (har!) about desecration to deliberately goad Donohue into responding, but it was still the wrong thing to do. We rationalists need to show we're the mature ones in the group, not that we stoop to the same childish tactics as the opposition.
Posted by: andyo | July 10, 2008 12:05 PM
#139,
Care to elaborate on your assertion that the catholics have the lowest rate of criminal behavior?
Also, the pedophile thing is not about the catholics being pedophiles, but how the church protected and keeps protecting them.
You miss so many points, I'm sure others will get what I didn't.
Posted by: tom | July 10, 2008 12:06 PM
It's time to Disemvowel SFG
Posted by: Ploon | July 10, 2008 12:06 PM
SFG @ # 140
"It's people like yourselves, Myers, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris (wankers all) that give people like me a shit image and terrible name in the public eye. People think we're all aggressive, insulting, vile little dipshits like you lot are."
And you are proving that *you* aren't how exactly? Nobody here dropped the C-bomb 'till you came along, so nice touch. I suggest you stop while you're way behind.
Posted by: Josh West | July 10, 2008 12:06 PM
#139 starts out sounding like a Courtiers Reply and ends claiming that "Oh, all that happened a long time ago, lets just ignore it."
#140 "aggressive, insulting, vile little dipshit" Pot, meet kettle.
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 12:06 PM
@140: Please see comment #143 & 147. Finish your homework, and get back to us.
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 10, 2008 12:07 PM
I would just like to point out that our troll here "sfg" may read too much of that comic "The Punisher". That is the only other place I have ever heard the term "shower of cunts".
Unless someone has heard it used somewhere else? I'm not too sure.
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 12:07 PM
Oh Penfold, what a wit you are...The sort of mindless, aggressive atheism on display here is a total embarrassment to real people who believe that folks should be allowed to do what they want. You're a bunch of damn children.
Posted by: J | July 10, 2008 12:07 PM
TSG & Ted:
Widdle bitty babies going bwaaaa! "We hate you PZ, you big bad meanie! We know naughty words too, and we'll USE 'em, 'cause we have iddy bitty bwains and itsy bitsy vocabularies (and even smaller peenies). We'll even lie about not being religious! Take THAT!!!" (holds breath, kicks and pounds floor)
Posted by: Alex | July 10, 2008 12:08 PM
"When dealing with others, I must be respectful, fair[,] and civil. Hmmm. Doesn't seem to say anything about when dealing with crackers."
Taken out of context, it looks like you're really racist, and don't believe those of European descent are human. :O
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 12:08 PM
Talk's cheap. What have they done about it?
Hmmm. It's a good thing nobody pointed that out to the abolitionist movement, the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, the LGBT movement. . . .
And you call us "pointlessly nasty and churlish". In technical terms, I believe specialists describe this condition as "the pot calling the kettle black as goddamn obsidian wrapped in velvet on a moonless night".
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 12:08 PM
PZ, I'm so proud of you! You got your own CL press release!
Posted by: Snarkles | July 10, 2008 12:08 PM
Oh, so SFG is one of those wussy "let's not rock the boat" soi-disant atheists. Yeah, let's just be invisible and apologetic for our existence, that'll convince people.
Plus, he thinks the worst insult in the world is calling folks a certain lovely part of the female anatomy.
Posted by: Kagehi | July 10, 2008 12:08 PM
If you where not a "Catholic or anything else", you wouldn't be getting your fracking panties in a wad over someone calling this stuff silly or making jokes about it, while the people taking it seriously, like you, make fucking death threats. I realize you have your head up your ass, but seriously, it must be so far up your ass that your brain is going septic.
Posted by: Beowulff | July 10, 2008 12:09 PM
In #96, NonyNony said
This is what bothers me: how do they know they got the incantation correct? How much mumbling is allowed before the cracker stays just a cracker? How much can a priest's hands tremble when doing the hand-waving before the miracle refuses to occur? Can you tell by the cracker if you got it wrong? If not, how do they evaluate student performance on transubstantiation in seminaries? How do we know priests are even doing it right?
Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 12:09 PM
What, all electronic pages everywhere? Even ones not on the University's servers? Even ones in private households and/or in completely different countries? Even ones on the International Space Station or on unknown alien worlds and in UFOs?They may be Catholics but they're definitely over-reaching in demanding such catholic application and imposition of non-catholic tastes.
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | July 10, 2008 12:09 PM
'Wait, speaking of which isn't the Catholic church violating the rules regarding the safe handling of human tissues?'
This is a very good point, and any university that Bill Donahue complains to should be made aware that there are people *congregating* to violate the biohazard rules.
Posted by: Lago | July 10, 2008 12:09 PM
Adam
PZ has made fun of Islamic beliefs and been critical as well many a time. To make the claim he wasn't shows you know nothing of PZ. You may try and act the martyr and act as if people are picking on you, and maybe they are. Despite this, facts are facts and there is no Jesus body being produced. It is a cracker, and nothing more.
Why would PZ not make fun of a tribe's beliefs? Well, most tribes are still living in the stone age and do not claim to know better. The Catholic Church claims it is consistent with modern times, yet thinks a crack is turned into the body of a dead mythical Jewish preacher. I mean seriously now, do you guys hear yourselves?
Posted by: Chris | July 10, 2008 12:09 PM
Wouldn't eating the body of christ be illegal? I don't think Canibalism is legal, maybe they will make an exception for eating a religious figure. I want to see the magical powers of the Cracker in action.
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 12:11 PM
Adam Janke:
The problem is, your sitting Pope wrote the document on systematic conspiracy to aid and abet the flight of justice of those molesters, to blame victims, etc.
It isn't just the crime... it is the cover-up.
As for your suggestion that Catholic pedo-rape is so rare... perhaps you should direct your ire at the "One in Four" charity in Ireland. Who beg to differ, as you probably know.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for defending such an organization. Either you're ignorant or deceitful.
Posted by: Valmorian | July 10, 2008 12:11 PM
@139: "What is at question is whether or not we should respect others beliefs."
No. What is at question here is whether lack of respect for someone's beliefs should warrant threats of bodily harm and employment. Do you really think anyone here would care if the reaction to this event was only "We're offended!"?
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 12:12 PM
Adam @139: Do you respect the beliefs of Scientology? What about the beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult? Basically, we who comment here tend to think that no, we do not have to respect other people's silly beliefs, religious or otherwise. Generally speaking, PZ and the commenters here respect people's rights granted by law, and we respect people's rights to hold silly beliefs, but we do not respect those beliefs. Nor do we respect people until people prove themselves worthy of respect.
Posted by: Jeff | July 10, 2008 12:12 PM
@ #139, Adam Janke:
The cracker issue is a bit of a wedge for us. The real meat of the problem is how we answer questions like:
How should we treat women?
How should we treat homosexuals?
How should we use contraception?
These are all very, very easy questions- questions that secular western societies answered correctly decades ago... questions that Catholics (among other religious people) get dead wrong. Why do they get them dead wrong? Their ridiculous superstitions.
Once superstitions lose their undeserved status of being untouchable, lunacy in public policy stops.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 12:12 PM
No, what is at issue is whether Donahue and others like him have the right to tell others what they should believe. Because that is exactly what he is doing. That some people don't hold the belief that the cracker is the body of Christ is unacceptable to them. Period. What do you think Donahue would say if Orthodox Jews threatened violence and legal action for his operating of a light switch on the Sabbath? Do you think he'd take it seriously? Would you suggest he refrain from operating light switches on the Sabbath out of respect for their beliefs? I doubt it.
I'll tell you what it is: it's to point out their own intolerance. Because insisting others hold this symbol in the same high regard they do is nothing less.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 10, 2008 12:12 PM
What is the Catholic League for? Don't Catholics already have powerful lobbying organization called the "Roman Catholic Church"?
Kudos to PeeZed for having this arse trying to have him sacked for a personal blog post. You truly know that you've arrived.
Posted by: sfatheist | July 10, 2008 12:12 PM
When it's all said and done it is just a stupid cracker. PZ, is there anything we can do to help?
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 10, 2008 12:13 PM
Natural of a Bill Donohue type to fudge the facts to make the situation fit a right-wing meme, that beig that a "taxpayer-funded" professor is bucking society and tearing down the very fabric that binds us! Shock, horror.
Hey SFG: shut off the computer and get a job.
Posted by: Rabid Atheist | July 10, 2008 12:13 PM
"Smithers, release the Hitchens..."
Posted by: Matt | July 10, 2008 12:13 PM
PZ, its about time you turned the tables. Try to get Donohue sacked from whatever the hell he does.
Posted by: j | July 10, 2008 12:14 PM
Oops that'sSFG, my apologies to TSG.
Cunt- what a wonderful word. You must feel so frustrated and impotent SFG. Too bad you aren't capable of expressing yourself intelligently.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 12:14 PM
Wait a minute. If "folks should be allowed to do what they want", doesn't that include, e.g., taking a wafer home instead of eating it? Or making a statue out of crackers and superglue?
Freedom of expression has to apply to expressions we find offensive, if it is to have any meaning at all.
Posted by: Wallace Turner | July 10, 2008 12:15 PM
Be very, very wary now. Catholic witch-hunts and inquisitions are notoriously long-drawn-out affairs. Their chief weapon is surprise, surprise and fear ...
Their two chief weapons are fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency ...
Their three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope ...
Their four weapons are ... no ...
Amongst their weaponry are such elements as fear and surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope and ...
... soft cushions and a comfy chair.
Posted by: kcrady | July 10, 2008 12:15 PM
PZ, this calls for a contest! Most creative and amusing suggestion for what to do with a Magic Jesus Cracker (band name??) wins a Molly and maybe a plushy pink stuffed octopus!
A few ideas off the top of my head:
1. Get someone who's good at sleight of hand to perform the Cups and Balls trick using Communion wafers instead of balls on YouTube.
"And now, for a little magic...Shub Niggurath!" (taps cup with wand, then lifts it up to reveal three wafers where one was before) "Oh, look, the Trinity!" And then finish up by producing a crucifix, a rosary, and a piece of the True Cross instead of fruit.
No doubt these wackaloons would scream, "It's reaaaal magic!! AAAAaaaAaaAAAaaaaa!!!"
2. Get the physics department at your university to loan you a cyclotron, Tesla coil, or some other suitable bit of apparatus, hook the Host in, and theatrically threaten to flip a big, Frankenstein-style knife switch and hit Jesus with a stream of accelerated protons...unless they either give you... >pinky to corner of mouth
3. Get one of those replica Harry Potter wands, wave it at the cracker and say, "Crucio!"
4. See if an octopus can get the cracker out of a jar.
Oh yeah: Hey, Bill Donahue: you have to shut up when a biologist is talking. I wonder if a giant squid could get Bill Donahue out of a jar...
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 12:15 PM
I like the cut of your jib, Dr. Meyers. While I think Donohue and his followers are dangerously crazy, I admire your courage and forthrightness in standing up to them.
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 12:16 PM
No one here has yet answered me with any intelligence. You do act like spoilt brats and you've all proved me right. You are all such an embarrassment to yourselves. What a sad representation of humanity you are. Getting all uptight because some people like to worship something no-one can prove, including EVERYONE here. But then egotism often leads to abuse. The IQ quotient here is below 0.
I'm no "intellectual" (the thought of those people makes me violently sick), but I can tell what a bunch of nerds you really are.
BTW, if a little cursing really hurts and offends you, then so what? Fucking deal with it.
Oh, and I got the phrase "shower of cunts" from English "comedian" Roy Chubby Brown. Punisher? Don't read comics, I've grown up.
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 12:16 PM
Matt @ 176:
Writing angry letters like the above -is- what he does for a living. Pays pretty well too, I'm sad to say.
Posted by: raven | July 10, 2008 12:16 PM
Oh gee. Now I have to update my list of science people who have been EXPELLED. Or beaten up, threatened, or murdered.
PZ Myers attempted firing by The Catholic (fascist) League.
Lenkski threatened by Andrew Schlafly of Lieapedia.
This running tally is going to get much longer. If the fundies ever gain a lot of power it might end up being a few tens of millions of names. If they manage to "help" god bring about the apocalypse, it would be a few billion but no one would be around to read it. These people have managed to plumb the depths of evil. No bottom in sight yet.
Posted by: Lago | July 10, 2008 12:17 PM
Yes, Adam, go on about tolerance, and then why don't you tell us the church's opinion on Gay rights? We should be tolerant of your intolerance? Hm, you are right...I am confused...
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 12:17 PM
Bill Donohue, your moron jesus christ preacher man decomposed a long time ago. Get over it.
Posted by: Lucretious | July 10, 2008 12:18 PM
Hahahahahahaha. Tards everywhere.
Posted by: Blondin | July 10, 2008 12:18 PM
Surely this is between PZ and Jesus!? Does the son of god really need the son of a bitch (Donohue) to defend him? Is he not capable of arranging one little avenging lightning bolt all by himself?
Anyway, you'd think Donohue would be glad to see PZ damning his own soul to eternal hellfire. I mean, regardless of how "offended" the christers might feel, the only person who stands to suffer any real harm (ie: eternal damnation or heavenly retribution) is PZ.
Perhaps Billy D is afraid PZ might NOT get his comeuppance for some reason. Maybe, in his heart of hearts, Billy D has doubts?
Posted by: Brian K. | July 10, 2008 12:18 PM
Wait a second. The Catholic League puts out a press release about PZ, something that goes out to the mainstream media, thereby allowing news organizations like Reuters, AP and the like to pick up the story and run with it? I get the impression that the legend of PZ Myers is about to grow larger.
As for the link from the UMN website, I went to that site recently and remember having to navigate around serveral departments and auxilary sites to get to the link. It's not like there's a huge banner ad at the top of the front page with dozens of pop-up ads directing you to the Pharyngula blog.
Posted by: dave | July 10, 2008 12:18 PM
My first visit here, if your thesis was so important and thousands of researchers are working on zebrafish, why are you still associate professor at a satellite campus and not full professor at the main campus?
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 12:19 PM
Dammit. Should have said Dr. Myers, not Meyers. Can't spell today.
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 12:19 PM
SFG @ 182:
Generally speaking, you don't open with "You're a cunt" when you're looking for serious dialog.
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | July 10, 2008 12:19 PM
'The old "let's throw out the priest sex scandal and accuse the whole organization of treachery for the sins of very few within that organization" is also nothing new and has gotten boring.'
To be clear, it's not one allegation of abuse, it's many thousands, over decades. I'm sure the victims would be delighted to hear you find it 'boring'. And I'm sure when they weren't raping boys or aiding those who raped boys, they're wonderful, well-rounded people. And I'm sure plenty of Catholic priests resigned in horror when Ratzinger - one of those who relocated paedophile priests - got the top job ... you can list the names of those heroes here, if you like.
But if you want a more recent stick to beat Catholicism with, there's only been an ex-Nazi in charge since 2005. Is that novel enough?
You, presumably, agree that Ratzinger should be prosecuted for any crimes he committed? If you don't say you do, it's OK, we'll assume you do.
Posted by: scote | July 10, 2008 12:19 PM
Well, this should be easy to settle. Tell Bill Donohue that he's welcome to have the cracker back if he can correctly identify the blessed one from a group of otherwise identical crackers which are not blessed. I'd hate to think Donohue wouldn't know the body of Jesus when he see's it!
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 12:19 PM
Because you haven't displayed any.
Posted by: Skelli | July 10, 2008 12:21 PM
CortxVortx @ 130, I see your Jimmy Buffet song and raise you one:
My head hurts, my feet stink, and I don't love Jesus
It's that kind of mornin'
Really was that kind of night
Tryin' to tell myself that my condition is improvin'
And if I don't die by Thursday I'll be roarin' Friday night -- Jimmy Buffett
Oooh, PZ's in tru-ouble, Bill used his middle name...
I once went to church with a Catholic friend, and when he came back from taking communion I asked him how his Jesus was this morning. Answer? "Bland. He could use some pepper or something."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 12:21 PM
By the way, if the suggestion to build a Jesus statue out of communion wafers really hurts and offends you, then so what? Fucking deal with it.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 12:21 PM
By the way, I had six years of Opus Dei Catholic religious eduction/full-on indoctrination, and I used to believe that transubstantiated wafers really were Jesus. Not "just Jesus", but that each Eucharistic wafer was the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of Jesus Christ. So I will tackle a couple of the recurring questions on here.
First, the belief is that when a priest speaks the words, "This is My Body" during the consecration in the Mass, THAT is when transubstantiation occurs and the wafer becomes Jesus in his body, blood, etc. NOT when you put the wafer in your mouth.
Secondly, even laicized priests (and probably defrocked ones) supposedly retain the ability to consecrate wafers. So yes, if you could find a willing ex-priest, you could get him to "authentically" transubstantiate a bunch of them for you.
Thirdly, the belief is that as long as a consecrated Eucharist retains all of the essential "accidents" (characteristics) of bread, it remains Jesus. So supposedly when saliva and stomach acids de-nature the consumed wafer such that it no longer is recognizable as bread, it ceases being Jesus. That's what I was taught, anyway.
Now, if the host wafer had some indigestible particles in it (such as the whole-grain wafers my church gave us used to), do those particles remain Jesus even after digestion? Don't laugh, but this was one of the intellectual problems that always bothered me, and that eventually helped to lead me out of Catholicism. I've always wondered why the GIRM (the Vatican publication that sets out the rules and rubrics for Mass) didn't specify that the host wafers had to be 100% digestible in nature, with no bran bits in them.
Also, any tiny enough particle of the host ceases being Jesus when it gets so tiny it no longer retains the essential characteristics of bread. I know, you examine this closely and it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, but this is what I was taught.
Posted by: Aric | July 10, 2008 12:22 PM
Anyone acting in good faith would recognize that the actions discussed here refelct a bad character.
You lack Catholic faith in the Eucharist. That's lawful in this country. Why go further?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 12:22 PM
Actually I think respect is an issue here.
Donohue, Jancke et al demand it as a right rather than seeing as something to be earned. Given the Catholic Church's position on the rights of women, of gays and their rigid insistance on adherence to their teachings on contraception rather than showing intelligence and compassion in trying to prevent the spread of HIV infection, and the issue of child abuse by clergy, it would be hard to make a case for them deserving any respect at all.
Posted by: Hap | July 10, 2008 12:22 PM
Hey S,
I think you got the winners and losers wrong. At worst, Professor Myers looks like an eighteen-year-old on the Web finding YouTube and sacrilege for the first time. On the other hand, you and your compatriots sound like people who should be wearing hoods and beheading people who disagree with them. Guess who looks worse?
I might think you were a character from a Monty Python skit but I don't think you have the depth. (Though I could hear "Come over here, I'll bite your legs off" coming from your mouth.)
Oh, and you use the C-word a lot. You might want to find an alternative outlet for your sexual frustration.
Posted by: minusRusty | July 10, 2008 12:22 PM
@ 19 (CortxVortx):
Well, that depends on whether you are a Consecrationalist or a Consumptionist. Such minutae are extremely important to some Christologers in determining whether or not to be "in communion" with other Christologers; this is serious stuff, don'tcha know, as it hinges around whether or not the leftovers are required to get eaten, whether they can be distributed to local wildlife (birds), ow whether tossing them in the trash/down the drain is acceptable.
It's amazing the inanity some people go through whether they'll accept someone else as part of Teh Group or not. Teh horrorz!
Posted by: Zan | July 10, 2008 12:23 PM
SFG,
The thing is, this site isn't about anything other than the opinions of one man, a prolific and well-known one, but a single man all the same.
And you know what? For the most part he's preaching to the choir. This site isn't here (as far as I know) to make a special difference in the religeous community, it's here for PZ to go on about whatever he wants to and if he wants to be what you term a cunt about it, then so be it.
Nobody is foring the religeous public at large to view the site. That they come by and torture themselves with material they don't like seeing is their own problem.
Not to mention that your complaints about our being aggresive, vile, dipshits really don't ring true when you've been sitting around insulting people yourself.
As for me, wonderful they're worshipping something, it makes them feel better, and really, I don't care all that much. However, when the church gets worked up over something so simple and petty and starts comparing it to kidnapping of actual human beings it starts to bother me. Not to mention mockery can sometimes be effective at getting people to see exactly how much they're overreacting.
Then again, sometimes it isn't.
As for the vocal and so-called nasty atheists out there, we weren't getting our voices heard by being polite. I'm not sure what else to do because for the most part, religeons are evangelical. Spreading their faith (sometimes through any means nessicary)tends to be primary a goal. Just because I'm not bothering anyone with my own unbelief certainly doesn't mean they won't bother me.
I'll cut it off now since I'm rambling, and in response to your previous question: no I'm not on drugs I'm just a fucking freak-cunt. :D
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 12:23 PM
Kagehi,
I may have sworn on here, but I have not once made any death threats. Learn to read and not get so testy when someone doesn't share your sad little teenage rebellion opinions.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | July 10, 2008 12:23 PM
The Christian Right response to the Cracker Desecration is similar to the way Muslims responded to the Danish cartoons of Muhamed. Again, when religion is concerned, stupidity is at its worse and logic takes a hike.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 10, 2008 12:24 PM
SFG:
"No one here has yet answered me with any intelligence..."
and:
"I'm no "intellectual" (the thought of those people makes me violently sick)..."
You want an intelligent response from intelligent people that make you sick. Your communication skills are terrible, hence the lack of replies.
Posted by: nicnicholson | July 10, 2008 12:24 PM
Thank goodness you didn't post an image of their prophet!
Wait a minute...are these those guys? I can't keep those cults straight.
Posted by: The 502 | July 10, 2008 12:25 PM
I love it when Bill Donahue gets upset - it always provides a good laugh for all of us. Since he gets upset daily, I always have a smile on my face. :)
I'm glad you pointed out the problem with priests and alter boys. Nice job!
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 12:25 PM
Aric @ 199:
Because their privileged position of respect in society allows them to get away with hiding child-rapists, approving misogyny, opposing prophylactics in Africa, harming Gay rights, etc.
See the above post about 'wedge issues.'
Posted by: KJB | July 10, 2008 12:25 PM
It's not a wafer, it's a Death Cookie
Posted by: LOLWUT | July 10, 2008 12:27 PM
#182 SFG
Getting all uptight because some people like to worship something no-one can prove, including EVERYONE here.
In this thread the main reason why we're upset is that people who are stupid and deluded start threatening reasonable people for pointing out that stupid beliefs are stupid.
I'm no "intellectual"
I'm absolutely SHOCKED.
(the thought of those people makes me violently sick),
That explains a thing or two!
but I can tell what a bunch of nerds you really are.
To me, nerd is not an insult. Quite the opposite.
Posted by: spencer | July 10, 2008 12:27 PM
The leaders of the Catholic Church have already pinned predator priests for what they are - monsters.
Sure, after spending decades doing everything they possibly could do to cover it all up. Which they are actually still trying to do, if you want to get technical about it.
Other than that, though, great point!
Posted by: kryptonic | July 10, 2008 12:28 PM
Andre Vienne #35
That's priceless.Posted by: SeanH | July 10, 2008 12:28 PM
Adam,
You believe:
1. A priest, calling upon a spirit through incantation, transubstantiates wine and bread into the body and blood of Christ.
2. You enter into communion with this spirit by ritually consuming His (transubstantiated) body and blood.
Protest all you want, but this is a belief in magic and ritual cannibalism. Calling the magic "the miracle of transubstantiation" and the ritual cannibalism "Holy Communion" is just semantics and the opinions formed during debates among ignorant savages during the iron age doesn't change that a whit.
Posted by: Copache | July 10, 2008 12:28 PM
http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/it-gets-me/
They say I'm pretty hardcore. :)
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 10, 2008 12:29 PM
"Myers,
You're a fucking giant sized scumbag. I hope you die slowly and painfully. Cunt."
"Myers is a total sack of shit for saying what he says and doing what he does. The "man" is a cunt and so are you"
"Fuck off and die. Twat features."
"I've grown up."
sure.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 12:29 PM
Damn you PZ Myers!
Every time I spend a day reading these 1000 post threads about crackers I consume 2 boxes of Triscuits.
As they say, "It's not just a cracker, it's the body of our Holy Lord."
.+.
+++
.+.
.+.
mmm, damn good cracker!
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 12:29 PM
Thanks Adrienne, for that summary on the dogma related to communtion crackers. When you spell it out, it even seems sillier, which is probably why they don't want anyone to get away with mocking it. Once you get away with mocking one of the sillier dogmas, the whole house of cards my begin to fall. [please excuse the mixed metapor, at least I didn't use 'slippery slope' as was in the original draft of the sentence]
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 12:29 PM
"Oh, and I got the phrase "shower of cunts" from English "comedian" Roy Chubby Brown. Punisher? Don't read comics, I've grown up."
Oh that is priceless. That is simply priceless. Such irony, and that it should be so inadvertent as well. Brilliant. John Cleese himself would be proud to have written that. Stepehn Fry would have died to have come up with something this good.
Posted by: TheNaturalist | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM
Dearest Adam Janke:
The short answer is NO people aren't obligated to (or even SHOULD) "respect" the beliefs of others just because they are really, really attached to them. Beliefs should have exactly as much respect as they warrant based on evidence. Showing disrespect for the idea that a cracker takes on magical properties after someone mumbles some words over them doesn't show disrespect for individual Catholics, it shows disrespect for a STUPID IDEA. You are not your ideas.
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM
Zan,
That's spelled r-e-l-i-g-I-o-n. Sorry, but there's no E in that word. See what I mean about the IQ on here.
Preaching to the choir Myers might be, but he's just a two-bit prof looking for a bit of fame and notoriety. Myers: 15 minutes and counting...ho ho ho.
Posted by: fastpathguru | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM
FUNNIEST. BLOG. ENTRY. EVER.
I have this picture in my head of Donohue receiving a little box in the mail, and the look of horror on his face as he opens it to find a tiny chip of a cracker...
Posted by: raven | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM
Looks like Bill D. could use some new eyeballs. If you look at the magic crackers, they look just like regular crackers. I've yet to see any tiny little homiculi running around trying not to get cannibalized.
As to anything more vile, that is a no brainer. The list would be in the millions. High on the list would be:
1. Catholic priests raping children.
2. Catholic Popes turning a blind eye while the Nazis killed 6 million people in death camps.
3. Bill Donohue's seriously defective mind.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM
How about another idea, if you were exploring an African jungle on a biological research trip and came across a previously unknown tribe who worshiped a stone statue and believed it to be their god, would you be immediately inclined to desecrate the statue? - Adam Janke
Like your missionaries, you mean?
Posted by: Jason | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM
@ #49:
YES!!!!!
Posted by: rarus.vir | July 10, 2008 12:30 PM
Actually the cracker in question has the answer we are all dancing around. If one were to use a powerful enough magnifying device, such as a microscope, one can see written in plain English the disclaimer. I have taken the opportunity to do just that with a similar cracker here. Just click my name if the link doesnt work.
I'm with ya PZ.
Posted by: Eli | July 10, 2008 12:31 PM
PZ, these goddamn crackers are really really easy to get a hold of. If you want the unconsecrated ones (easier to get en masse no pun intended, and really no different than the consecrated ones) you can get a bag of 250 for about six bucks. If you want a consecrated one, you've got to get it in person, which means only one (per person anyway) and it's got spit on it. Plus, you have to sit through all the bullshit of a Mass, and someone may pick you out during that hour-long snoozefest.
http://www.religious-supplies.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=398
Posted by: Aric | July 10, 2008 12:31 PM
B.,
You are free to explain why the Church is wrong on all those points. But the law does not permit trespass.
Aric
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 12:31 PM
Anybody like my cwoocifix?
Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 12:32 PM
You mean we can torture crackers so much more effectively now? ;-)Do we have a list of tortures for this/these cracker(s) yet? Waterboarding seems to be topical. It doesn't matter that a cracker can't drown since the Catholic witch-hunters apparently believe in it's magical Jeezusy witchiness. They can imagine some lungs and respiratory reflexes for it. Since electrickery has been mentioned, microwaving a cracker in vinegar might be an enlightening experience (albeit a brief one).
Posted by: leomona | July 10, 2008 12:33 PM
Adam Janke - the point is not that the belief is moronic, it's that Catholics are reacting with assault, death threats, accusations of hate crimes, trying to get people expelled/fired, etc., for not respecting the belief. PZ would have to speak for himself as to what he hopes to gain by this, but as for myself, I'd find highlighting the absolute insanity of this episode to be motivation enough.
Posted by: Steven | July 10, 2008 12:33 PM
For years I thought that all of this "body and blood of Christ" business was symbolic. It was a little disturbing to realize that some folks really believe that some hand-waving and incantations change bread and wine into something that they normally wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole(human blood, human flesh?)
What I want to know is - can I use this same technique to transform other things? I'd like all of my junk to be transubstantiated (if that's the right word) into solid gold.
It will still look the same, but I ought to be able to sell it to Catholics - after all, if they swallow a cracker really being Jesus then a lawnchair that is "really" solid gold should be a breeze.
A tad disrespectful, I know, but this whole affair seems too ridiculous to dignify with any respect.
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 12:33 PM
Nick at 224 brings up an important point.
Your people burned a hell of a lot of books in South America, Monk.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 12:33 PM
Perhaps because quietly sitting with folded hands in accord with somebody else's definition of "good character" is not a path to social change.
To illustrate: I lack the Catholic attitudes about contraception and homosexuality. Speaking about my views is lawful, but to an extent, acting on them is not (outside of California and Massachusetts). Thanks to medieval mysticism and authoritarian dogmatism, people I love and respect are second-class citizens.
Saying this is, for the moment, legal. "Why go further?" you ask. Excellent question.
Posted by: Citizen Z | July 10, 2008 12:33 PM
The image that pops in my mind is Jesus trapped in a cracker like it's the Phantom Zone from Superman II. "Help! Let me OUT!"
Posted by: j | July 10, 2008 12:34 PM
Oodles of religitards, creotards and just plain 'tards, oh my!
That Jebus loving, fat. Irish -descent bastard (I'm a fat Irish-descent bastard as well, just not Jebus loving) is going to have to watch his blood pressure or he'll die of an apoplectic fit, and we wouldn't want that now would we?
Actualy, I don't wish Bill D. any harm, I just wish he wasn't so damned ignorant.
Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 12:34 PM
Aarrgghh - an apostrophe got away from me: "it's" there should be "its" (and "drown since" be "drown, since"). The "electrickery" was intentional (cf Catweazle).
Posted by: Zan | July 10, 2008 12:35 PM
SFG,
Congrats, you found a spelling error. You aren't looking for a discussion at all are you?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 12:35 PM
Since the ideas that a wafer can really turn into the body of Christ, and wine can really turn into his blood show a total lack of respect for rationality, reason and science, can I ask if those who are so critical of PZ will also criticise the fact the Catholic church clearly lacks any respect for those concepts? Or is respect a one way thing ? We have to show it the Catholics, but they do not have to bother showing it to others ? Maybe at the time you could tell us how the Catholic dogma of denying gays the same rights as the rest of us is showing them respect.
Posted by: Flonkbob | July 10, 2008 12:35 PM
I decided I had to give 'im a break and set him straight. Sent him a nice email...
=========================================================
Check your facts.
PZ's blog is on scienceblogs.com; not on a university server. Of course, believing in the Sky Fairy has rotted your brain so I guess I shouldn't expect even a modicum of intelligence from you or your hysterical friends.
You moron.
--
========================
Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted, and heaven crammed with these phantoms. -- Robert Green Ingersoll
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 12:35 PM
SFG: "I have no problem with religion, none at all."
Then you had no problem with the religious 9/11 terrorist attacks? How about religious attacks against science education? Is that OK with you? What about the religious training of young children to harass their science teachers? You have no problem with that?
Religious insanity is out of control in this world. The only solution is relentless constant ridicule of bible thumping idiots. Being nice to religious assholes doesn't work.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 10, 2008 12:35 PM
I admire your courage PZ.
Just two articles you might find interesting in this affair, one on "fighting words and desecration of religious symbols", and one on "DISPARAGING THE RELIGION OR BELIEFS OF OTHERS" :
from http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn't found the "fighting words" doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn't meet the narrow criteria stated above. Ignoring that history, the folks who advocate campus speech codes try to stretch the doctrine's application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain.
Q: What about nonverbal symbols, like swastikas and burning crosses -- are they constitutionally protected?
A: Symbols of hate are constitutionally protected if they're worn or displayed before a general audience in a public place -- say, in a march or at a rally in a public park. But the First Amendment doesn't protect the use of nonverbal symbols to encroach upon, or desecrate, private property, such as burning a cross on someone's lawn or spray-painting a swastika on the wall of a synagogue or dorm.
In its 1992 decision in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited cross-burnings based on their symbolism, which the ordinance said makes many people feel "anger, alarm or resentment." Instead of prosecuting the cross-burner for the content of his act, the city government could have rightfully tried him under criminal trespass and/or harassment laws.
The Supreme Court has ruled that symbolic expression, whether swastikas, burning crosses or, for that matter, peace signs, is protected by the First Amendment because it's "closely akin to 'pure speech.'" That phrase comes from a landmark 1969 decision in which the Court held that public school students could wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. And in another landmark ruling, in 1989, the Court upheld the right of an individual to burn the American flag in public as a symbolic expression of disagreement with government policies.
from http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/religion.pdf
Posted by: Fr. J | July 10, 2008 12:35 PM
Mr. Meyers,
Most anti-Catholic bigots use the abuse card to attempt to silence or attack the Church. Actually most children suffer abuse at the hands of parents and teachers, not priests. Aren't you a teacher? Hmmm...
That aside I would remind you that disrupting a worship service of any religion is a violation of federal civil rights laws. It is interesting that you choose to pick on Catholicism. Not much risk and you get all the usual sycophants to pretend that you are "brave." I doubt you will go to a Mosque and desecrate a Quran. If you are really brave you might defend intelligent design at a biologists convention. Then you would find your life in danger from the allegedly open-minded. I suspect any student in your class who is a believing Catholic probably suffers from discrimination.
Frankly I find it hard to believe that someone who is supposedly educated and is a professor would even consider doing something so asinine much less publicize it. It is simply juvenile. Obviously your parents neglected teaching you manners and respect. They are no doubt ashamed as you should be. Grow up.
Fr. J
Posted by: Ken Cope | July 10, 2008 12:36 PM
WE'RE AT UR ALTER, KIDNAPPING UR GOD
Who'll supply a picture for me?
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 12:38 PM
Aric, apparently you and I share different opinions as to what "open to the public" and "handed out freely" mean, but I'm confident my understanding is more in keeping with the law.
Similarly, I'm sure I've got a good handle on what constitutes ethical protest, and when a protest is ethical but not legal, I am not especially troubled.
Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 10, 2008 12:38 PM
When you spell it out, it even seems sillier, which is probably why they don't want anyone to get away with mocking it.
This seems to be a general Law of Religious Whackaloonery"
The more ridiculous the belief, the more vehement and violent the overreaction to mockery of it.
Posted by: Kenny P | July 10, 2008 12:40 PM
I am still wondering what they did with the soggy cracker after Mr. Cook returned it.
Did they find a little Cracker Casket to put it in before having a funeral mass for the deceased and soggy cracker?
Then, did they go to the nearby Catholic Cracker Cemetary to bury said cracker in a grave dug out with a spoon?
I thought Muslims were crackers for their outrage and death threats over a cartoon of Mohammad, but I guess Catholics like Bill Donohue are just as crackers.
Perhaps PZ should apologize and offer to do the Vatican Rag. For those who are younger than I am, the Vatican Rag was a spoof of Catholic rites written my Tom Lehrer. Tom calls the cracker a wafer which is how most Catholics and lapsed Catholics think of the small bit of food transubstantiated into flesh.
Or perhaps PZ could get Bill's goat by reminding him that he is a cannibal. I was taken aback when I first heard this, but if you believe the wafer or cracker is the Christ; then it follows that you're a cannibal.
Maybe GOD could help Bill transubstantiate PZ into a cracker! I am sure Bill would think that was Intelligent Design!
Apparently, a copy of the "Vatican Rag" is at youtube. Find it, watch, listen, and laugh.
Here is an introduction along with the lyrics:
Another big news story of year concerned the ecumenical council in Rome, known as Vatican II. (Note: The Vatican II council was from 1962 to 1965. KP) Among the things they did in an attempt to make the church more commercial was to introduce the vernacular into portions of the mass, to replace Latin, and to widen somewhat the range of music permissible in the liturgy, but I feel that if they really want to sell the product, in this secular age, what they ought to do is to redo some of the liturgical music in popular song forms. I have a modest example here. It's called The Vatican Rag.
First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Do whatever steps you want, if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.
Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!
So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman,
Ave Maria,
Gee it's good to see ya,
Gettin' ecstatic an'
Sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican Rag!
Posted by: bob | July 10, 2008 12:40 PM
"If you are really brave you might defend intelligent design at a biologists convention. Then you would find your life in danger from the allegedly open-minded."
Poe.
Posted by: AWMTI | July 10, 2008 12:41 PM
I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, but I dislike Donahue. The priest scandal is beside the point here; suffice it to say that most sincere Catholics were appalled by the actions of certain members of the hierarchy.
That said, the prescient point here is that PZ has offered to go out of his way to desecrate something the world's one billion Catholics believe to be very sacred. I don't care if you think it's just a "goddamnned cracker"; I do, however, expect you to give me the respect to eat what I believe to be the Body of Christ in peace.
When you fail to show basic respect, and, worse, when you applaud those who so fail, you come across as inconsiderate jerks.
I'm sorry a couple of bad Christians stopped by and wished ill upon you. For what it's worth, I'll pray my rosary for you folks tonight.
Posted by: Escuerd | July 10, 2008 12:41 PM
Adam Janke @#139:
Something that has amused me for some time is how many Christian and Muslim apologists are fond of accusing atheists of being selectively harsh or disrespectful toward their own religion, and soft and sympathetic toward the other. Each typically doubts that this occurs with the other.
It seems to me to be a case of someone who believes this to be true strongly enough that they don't bother to check whether it actually is. This behavior seems to be related to that of people who ask an off-topic, bait-question about what someone else would or wouldn't do, and then prematurely blow their wads by presuming to answer their own question.
Posted by: hyperdeath | July 10, 2008 12:41 PM
Has anyone seen that "Saw" series of films, where people are forced to do horrible things (such as sawing off their feet) in order to escape a worse fate?
I wonder what "Jigsaw" would do with Bill Donohue? How about presenting him with a holy cracker contaminated with the ebola virus? He would then have to choose between an agonising death, or (gasp!) desecrating the host.
Posted by: rarus.vir | July 10, 2008 12:41 PM
#243
You could at least spell Myers correctly.
Posted by: TlalocW | July 10, 2008 12:41 PM
Well, crap... I was all set to introduce my new snack cracker for Catholics, "Jeeze-Its," and have Bill Donohue endorse them, but this whole holding crackers hostage and then PZ ticking him off, there's little chance of that happening. Then there's all those jars of "Plasma of Christ" grape jelly I was going to introduce as a spread for the Jeeze-Its... I'm ruined!
TlalocW
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 12:41 PM
Fr. J wrote:
Silly priest, don't you know that PZ is a founding member of the Darwinist Mafia that actively seeks out and forcibly squelches dissent from His High the Most Holy Charlie D? And of course, waterboarding is involved. As a warm-up.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 12:42 PM
Grr. My previous post should have had the phrase "endorsed by the Catholic Church among others" after the word "dogmatism". Anyway.
R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N. Derived, possibly, from Latin religare "to bind fast", or from relegare "to read again", in either case coming to us via religionem "respect for the sacred", entering English via Old French. Etymologically speaking, the spelling relegion would be defensible based on Cicero.
Posted by: J | July 10, 2008 12:42 PM
SFG:
"That's spelled r-e-l-i-g-I-o-n. Sorry, but there's no E in that word"
No you fucking retard, there IS an E in that word. It's the second letter asswipe. You even spelled it. You are stupid beyond words.
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 10, 2008 12:43 PM
"That's spelled r-e-l-i-g-I-o-n. Sorry, but there's no E in that word."
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/1/picard-facepalm.jpg
Posted by: MikeM | July 10, 2008 12:44 PM
Well, I'm not very handy with a video camera and/or video editing software and/or youtube, but here's my idea anyway:
Get 4 cell phones. Arrange them in a circle around the frackin' cracker. Call all four cell phones at once. Pop!
What would appear? Well, propose a statue, but others may have better ideas.
PS: Since I have a known history of really being down on religions, I have to say that Donohue is clearly a fool. He's saying this is worse than child-molesting. Just look at his statements. Pretty unimpressive. I wish Donohue's outrage over child-molesting priests was proportional to his outrage over cracker abuse.
I want a new bumpersticker: "Cracker Desecrator."
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 12:44 PM
Fr. J said "If you are really brave you might defend intelligent design at a biologists convention. Then you would find your life in danger from the allegedly open-minded."
Fr. J, I don't think biologists have murdered too many shit-for-brains creationists like yourself, even though the world becomes a better place every time one of you religious assholes drops dead.
Posted by: Ploon | July 10, 2008 12:44 PM
#243
Ad hominem. Ad hominem. Ad hominem. False premise. Wrong assumptions. Yup, solid sophisticated thinking from an (I suspect, judging from the Fr.) catholic priest. Par for the course.
You're late to the party, padre, and you obviously know nothing about the person or what he does. Bringing in the parents is just shameful. You show here your greatest crime, and that of all priests: you add nothing and try to pass off uneducated guesses as truth. Go away.
Posted by: Mena | July 10, 2008 12:44 PM
If they really think that this is human flesh, shouldn't they store it in biohazard containers?
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 10, 2008 12:44 PM
@ J and BLake:
lol hivemind
Posted by: Cody | July 10, 2008 12:44 PM
"real people who believe that folks should be allowed to do what they want."
The irony of posting this on this site and especially this topic is very funny. Also, I'd like to inform everybody that we are not "real people".
Posted by: Aric | July 10, 2008 12:44 PM
B.,
I believe you will find that the law allows the Catholic Church to exclude people from its property and from its sacraments. (If you wish that to change, you could certainly propose repealing the First Amendment.)
As for what is ethical, is it anything other than what is acceptable to B. in a moment of pique?
Posted by: James | July 10, 2008 12:45 PM
Granted the the professor is a "godless liberal" (per his own blog site) I understand where he is coming from. However, considering that his comments do violate some state and, to an extent, federal hate laws, there should be no suprise in the reaction. Professor Myer also slanders Priests as well and gave personal attacks against a religous organization which was uncalled for. Professor Myer should of kept his comments toward the Catholic League and to the situation in Florida, not all Catholics in general. This shows a lack of professionalism that all Academics should follow (and what I follow myself). It sounds to me that he completly does not understand what the Eucharist is or means to Catholics, not just Romans, but the 30+ other Churches that fall under Catholicism (Eastern, Byzantine, Greek, etc) who all hold the same belief in what the Eucharist is. If there was an understanding on this on all parties, then it would not have received international attention. It is sad that Professor Myer puts himself down to the same level as those Jack Chick Comics. I encourage him (and all) to go into dialogue and keep the focus on what it should be. I also ask for mutual respect: Catholics towards the Professor and the Professor towards Catholics. I think if he (and all who reads this) sees what the Catholic Church really teaches on Faith and Reason (and not what most people think it is--The Catholic Church does not believe in Creationism) there could be great, professional, and candid dialogue. Take a look at Cardinal Schonborn's work on Evolution and Creation, would make for great dialogue here if we could get past this issue.
Let's all keep the attacks away, focus on the true issue that is at hand, and leave the Anti-Catholic comments out of this. I also call on Professor Myer to maintain and set the example of the professionlism that his university expects from their Faculty. Remember, the true issue here is Professor Myer and the Catholic League. Not Professor Myer and the Catholic Church. Theology should only come in to clarify for those who do not understand what the Eucharist is.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 12:45 PM
No, then you'd be surrounded by people who'd be wondering what you had been smoking. There's a difference.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 12:46 PM
Fr. J,
Cleary you value respect so much you could not even be bothered to spell PZ Myers' name correctly even when it was at the top of this very page.
Is hypocrisy no longer a sin, or do you get special excemption from Jesus ?
Still just carry telling gays they are not fully deserving of the same human rights the rest of us take for granted. After all no gay person really wants to marry their partner do they ? Why do gays not qualify for the respect you claim as a right ?
Why do you lack respect for women to decide what to do with their bodies ? Why should a bunch of men who it has to be said are not exactly going to be experts on the matter of sex and reproduction get to decide ?
Why do you prefer millions die from AIDS rather than relax the ban on the use of contraception. Condoms save lives.
When it comes to respect you seem to want, but you seem very unwilling to give it. Unless and until you do, you and your church stands charged with bigotry and condeming people to death.
Posted by: LOLWUT | July 10, 2008 12:46 PM
If you are really brave you might defend intelligent design at a biologists convention. Then you would find your life in danger from the allegedly open-minded.
Biologists will not kill you or threaten to do so just because you're not ashamed of your ignorance and scientific illiteracy.
Posted by: J | July 10, 2008 12:47 PM
Glue crackers all over a copy of the Koran, wrap the whole thing in an American flag, and burn it. Let's go for all the sacred cows!
Ah, but you're forgetting ACTUAL sacred cows! Rustle one of those painted bulls that wander around New Delhi spreading cholera and being worshipped and use the flag/qur'an/eucharist bundle as fuel for a barbecue of it.
Oh and use the barbecue as an occasion to celebrate the birth of your son. . . . whom you will NOT be circumcising! If you include the mere act of meat-eating (contra-Buddhism and Jainism) that's SIX religions mocked at once.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 12:47 PM
Didn't they learn anything on the playground? When the wierd little kid goes batshit when someone steals his blankie, it doesn't mean the other kids will hand it back and apologize, it means he's suddenly front and center for nonstop ridicule. Cause it's funny.
and if they had any class whatsoever they'd just sigh and ignore the whole stupid incident. It would've been utterly forgotten.
Posted by: Phil Doubet | July 10, 2008 12:47 PM
Since the Catholic League is so free about giving others email addresses, please send them an email about the friggin cracker-
cl@catholicleague.org
Posted by: Matt | July 10, 2008 12:47 PM
I have read most of the responses in this blog regarding this issue. What strikes me most is the anger, the lashing out, the mockery. Where does this rage stem from, if this is an issue about a plain 'cracker'?
We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs. I respect and honor that. As a Catholic, I believe that the Eucharist is the body of Christ.
I respect Prof. Myers right to disagree with what I believe about the Eucharist. I simply ask Prof. Myers to respect my beliefs and refrain from his proposed action.
Thank you.
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 10, 2008 12:48 PM
@265 james:
What he has posted violates shit all, take your head from your ass.
Posted by: Fidei Defensor | July 10, 2008 12:48 PM
You're an idiot. How dare you speak of the Lord that way. I hope you loose your job over this. Maybe there should be another Inquisition (the Church was provoked by the Muslims by the way) to hunt down the scumbags like you.
And anyway, it has been estimated that "educators" rape children 100 times more than priests.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 10, 2008 12:48 PM
BD is a whiny little prick.
He's a disgusting little man.
Any thing that gets him riled up is awesome.
When is his heart gonna burst anyway?
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 10, 2008 12:48 PM
Wow, you guys should see my inbox! Nothing can generate a good two-minute hate like that old time religion.
Anyway, a couple of points:
1. I've got two messages from good Catholics who want to send me communion wafers laced with arsenic or rat poison. Are you people nuts? I'm getting random crackers from strangers on the internet -- there's no way I'm putting any of this in my mouth, even if you weren't threatening to poison them.
2. The most common kind of message I'm getting is roughly "Don't you dare desecrate an article of Catholic faith! And I dare you to desecrate a Muslim article of faith, but you don't have the guts." They don't even notice the hypocrisy in their message.
3. In a few weeks, I'll commit sacrilege on items from a couple of faiths, just so they don't feel left out (this was part of the plan all along, actually). I'm not telling you what I'm going to do, except that it won't involve eating anything. Yuk.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 12:48 PM
Oh, and you do? Then why don't you fuck off and let us live, you hypocritical little fuck.
Oh, and let's not get into a profanity pissing contest, you fucking dog-rimming malaka, because you'll surely lose, you polyp-brained douchelicker. Ai gamisou and yob tvoyu mat, you little shitstain.
Also, I banged your mom. She was good.
Posted by: raven | July 10, 2008 12:48 PM
Death Threats!!! That is a felony right there. Someone should turn "ted's" cute little message over to the local, state, and federal cops. With enough effort, any internet postings can be traced back to the sender.
Yo ted, we have a nice tropical resort for terrorists like you. It's called Guantanomo. You will find it already populated with pleasant serious religious fanatics. But don't worry, waterboarding isn't torture, just light entertainment.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 12:49 PM
The IQ quotient here is below 0. - SFG
That's "Intelligence quotient quotient?"
Oh, and I got the phrase "shower of cunts" from English "comedian" Roy Chubby Brown. - SFG
For those who don't know, Brown is a racist, sexist, homophobic scumbag. A role model for SFG, presumably.
Posted by: J | July 10, 2008 12:50 PM
Fr. J.
I doubt you will go to a Mosque and desecrate a Quran.
Actually, I bet he would.
If you are really brave you might defend intelligent design at a biologists convention. Then you would find your life in danger from the allegedly open-minded.
Actually, I bet he wouldn't.
I suspect any student in your class who is a believing Catholic probably suffers from discrimination.
Actually, I bet they don't.
Posted by: j | July 10, 2008 12:50 PM
" For what it's worth, I'll pray my rosary for you folks tonight."
(shakes head, slaps forehead)
Thanks AWMTI, I'm sure you are a nice guy and sinserely mean well, but I can't think of a better waste of your time and effort. If you can prove that prayer actually accomplishes anything beyond bolstering your own sense of delusion, be sure to let us know...
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 12:50 PM
lol.Anyway, I think transubstantiation is great. It's a way for people on Atkins(TM, R, C, etc.) to still eat crackers.
Posted by: Josh West | July 10, 2008 12:50 PM
Post #9 by SFG
"Myers,
You're a fucking giant sized scumbag. I hope you die slowly and painfully. Cunt."
What was that about no death threats?
Posted by: Elastico | July 10, 2008 12:50 PM
I thought smart-asses had a tougher hide. Nice bigotry and self-righteous, anti-intellectual schtick ya got going prof. Kitchen/heat. Goose/gander.
Posted by: ddr | July 10, 2008 12:51 PM
Adam and SFG
What you're seeing is some push back. People are tired of the religious right trying to push their beliefs into every ones lives. Trying to teach belief in science classes, trying to impose belief on woman's health issues, trying to impose belief on personal relationships, and trying to impose belief on scientific research.
The constant, shrill, cries of the various belief systems as they try to impose their beliefs on our lives has reached the point where people just can't take one more stupid thing. So when the church raises another shrill cry of outrage over a cracker, when they have remained silent on so many other issues, it causes people to release some of their stress and ridicule the church and the stupid belief.
No, most people here would not do anything to the jungle tribe's sacred stone. But the jungle tribe is happy letting their magic stone rule their little world and they are not trying to push stone belief onto the rest of the world. They are not telling me that the stone god does not like the way I live my life. But the various religions in the US are making it clear that they don't like they way a great many people are living. So far, saying "so what" to them has not worked very well. So there has to be some push back. But it is not a fight we started.
Posted by: Kcanadensis | July 10, 2008 12:51 PM
It's too bad that it's probably too late for this to end up in "Religulous".
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 12:51 PM
"Let's all keep the attacks away, focus on the true issue that is at hand, and leave the Anti-Catholic comments out of this. I also call on Professor Myer to maintain and set the example of the professionlism that his university expects from their Faculty. Remember, the true issue here is Professor Myer and the Catholic League. Not Professor Myer and the Catholic Church. Theology should only come in to clarify for those who do not understand what the Eucharist is."
I think nearly everyone here knows what the Eucharist is. It is just that a good number of us see no reason why it should be due any respect when it is nothing but a load of superstitious clap-trap.
However I have a proposal for you. How about we have some consecreated bread and wine tested. If they really have turned into flesh and blood then you will stand vindicated. If, as I suspect, they are found to still be a wafer and fermented grape juice, you stop demanding respect where it is not due, and do all in your power to inform Catholics they are victims of fraud. Do we have a deal ? Or do you not stand behind your convictions ?
Posted by: rarus.vir | July 10, 2008 12:51 PM
#265
"It sounds to me that he completly does not understand what the Eucharist is or means to Catholics, not just Romans, but the 30+ other Churches that fall under Catholicism (Eastern, Byzantine, Greek, etc) who all hold the same belief in what the Eucharist is."
Didn't your mother ever tell you that you couldn't do something, to which you probably replied Catholics in 30+ other countries are doing it".
So if every one is jumping off metaphysical cliffs would you do it too?
Posted by: andyo | July 10, 2008 12:51 PM
AWMTI #249
If all catholics were like you, just praying or even just complaining, or hell, even just insulting us when we "disrespect" your beliefs, then all this wouldn't have happened.
It's the people who get scandalized and threaten who we're trying to ridicule, with the purpose of pointing out the insanity. It's just an act of civil disobedience.
They demand idiotic and nonsensical punishments for whatever idiotic belief (from most non-catholics' point of view), we'll do it more. That's how it works.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | July 10, 2008 12:52 PM
Well, gosh, SFG, if you don't like the IQ quotient on here, why not go down to your local ATM machine, punch in your PIN number, and withdraw some cash to BUY A FUCKING CLUE?!Posted by: SteveM | July 10, 2008 12:52 PM
Getting all uptight because some people like to worship something no-one can prove, including EVERYONE here.
No. Wrong. Try again. Try reading the post that started this whole thing. What we atheists are upset about is not what Catholics think about "the cracker", but about how they reacted to some boy "stealing" a cracker and holding it "hostage". Does such a prank really deserve death threats and calls for physical harm? "It's just a cracker" was not an attack on their beliefs, just to their over reaction to some kid taking a cracker out of church. That is what is being ridiculed. Can you see the difference?
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 10, 2008 12:52 PM
Re:
Jesus loaves you...
I loled.
Re:
Glue crackers all over a copy of the Koran, wrap the whole thing in an American flag, and burn it. Let's go for all the sacred cows!
... I dig. Sorta a sacrilege s'more...
Mmmmmm... s'mores...
(Unrelated note: Funniest. 'Outraged.' Concern trolls. Evah.)
Posted by: ddr | July 10, 2008 12:52 PM
Adam and SFG
What you're seeing is some push back. People are tired of the religious right trying to push their beliefs into every ones lives. Trying to teach belief in science classes, trying to impose belief on woman's health issues, trying to impose belief on personal relationships, and trying to impose belief on scientific research.
The constant, shrill, cries of the various belief systems as they try to impose their beliefs on our lives has reached the point where people just can't take one more stupid thing. So when the church raises another shrill cry of outrage over a cracker, when they have remained silent on so many other issues, it causes people to release some of their stress and ridicule the church and the stupid belief.
No, most people here would not do anything to the jungle tribe's sacred stone. But the jungle tribe is happy letting their magic stone rule their little world and they are not trying to push stone belief onto the rest of the world. They are not telling me that the stone god does not like the way I live my life. But the various religions in the US are making it clear that they don't like they way a great many people are living. So far, saying "so what" to them has not worked very well. So there has to be some push back. But it is not a fight we started.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 12:53 PM
Matt@272 wrote:
Why should we show any respect for your beliefs? Your beliefs are not worthy of respect. We respect your rights, including your right to hold silly beliefs, but we do not respect your batshit beliefs. Period.
Posted by: CortxVortx | July 10, 2008 12:53 PM
Re: #155
So, you defend the right of folks to do what they want?
Us folk want to make fun of Cathoholics and their cracker fetish.
Gonna defend that, now?
[watches SFG's head asplode]
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 12:53 PM
Just don't bother burning any Buddhist relics. The early Zen masters already did lots of that to demonstrate the folly of worshiping idols.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 12:53 PM
Why is it the ranting xtians can never spell properly or use the correct versions of words? Loose instead of lose?
And since when does ANYONE have to respect christians for their beliefs? Their beliefs include stoning those who would not convert to their religion? They deserve nothing but contempt.
Posted by: LOLWUT | July 10, 2008 12:54 PM
I wish people would accept observed reality instead of the obviously untrue myths.
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 12:54 PM
We should take a transubstantiated cracker down to the CoS to see how Jesus does on an audit.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 12:54 PM
That's fine. Where it stops, though, is when you insist that I do as well and threaten violence, lawsuits and trying to get me fired when I don't. If you do, don't be surprised when I aggressively and very publicly flout those conventions you insist I follow, because now you're not respecting my right to believe or not.
Respect is earned, not automatically deserved. I respect your right to believe whatever you want. But I don't have to respect your beliefs, nor should I be required to. Believe it or not, not respecting your beliefs is not an attack on you as a person. It's an attack on an idea. As far as being inconsiderate jerks, it's kind of the point. All I can say is, what comes around goes around.
Thanks for nothing.
Posted by: chuko | July 10, 2008 12:54 PM
It's all a little juvenile and silly, but the phrase "walked out of Mass with the Host" is hilarious.
Posted by: lurker_above | July 10, 2008 12:55 PM
I wonder how many people have called the UMM president's office over the years to complain about you, PZ? They must have a staff member whose job is just to handle the calls about you.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 12:55 PM
Guys, they sell remainders of these disgusting crackers in grocery stores. STOP IT. It's just a cracker and the very idea that it transform into jesus is idiotic. Face it, it would be cannibalism.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 12:55 PM
First, who is this "Professor Myer" to whom you so insistently refer? To make one typo looks like carelessness; a persistent error smells of indifference.
Second, what possible hate crime could have been committed here? No, seriously. If pointing out reprehensible behavior counts as "slander", then we are all, as the specialists say, royally screwed. The Zenger principle still holds: truth is not libel.
Oh, and one cannot make personal attacks on the character of an organization. Criticizing the business policies of Microsoft, for example, should not be considered a personal attack or ad hominem, unless one makes a derogatory remark about the people associated with the corporation ("Bill Gates is a big stupid idiot").
Really: all the people insisting that we atheists should learn to "live and let live" ought to reflect that their right to eat Horcrux crackers in peace is also our right to build sculptures out of those crackers should we so desire. None of us have the right to live our lives without being offended.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 12:55 PM
Matt said:
"I respect Prof. Myers right to disagree with what I believe about the Eucharist. I simply ask Prof. Myers to respect my beliefs and refrain from his proposed action."
Why ?
We know it cannot become the body of Christ. Can I demand you respect science and reason and stop saying such stupid things ? Why should your rights trump mine ?
Posted by: J (not J) | July 10, 2008 12:56 PM
"And anyway, it has been estimated that "educators" rape children 100 times more than priests."
Oh. I guess it's okay then since priests have lower quotas.
Posted by: J | July 10, 2008 12:56 PM
For what it's worth, I'll pray my rosary for you folks tonight.
Absolutely: pray away, for what it's worth.
Posted by: rarus.vir | July 10, 2008 12:56 PM
#265
"It sounds to me that he completly does not understand what the Eucharist is or means to Catholics, not just Romans, but the 30+ other Churches that fall under Catholicism (Eastern, Byzantine, Greek, etc) who all hold the same belief in what the Eucharist is."
Just because you believe something doesn't make it right. Just because many people believe something doesnt make it right.
If everyone in 30+ countries jumped off a cliff, would you?
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | July 10, 2008 12:56 PM
http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=1517940
Where is you God now?
Posted by: blueJan | July 10, 2008 12:57 PM
PZ made it into the local news, place your comments here:
http://www.startribune.com/local/24313139.html?location_refer=Local%20+%20Metro
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 10, 2008 12:57 PM
Intentionally desecrating the body of Christ? Did he really just say that?
What the fuck do you assholes think you're doing when you do the eucharist? When you drink his blood and eat his flesh, what the fuck? And that's your imaginary god you're eating and drinking? Wow, the rational part of your brains must have dried up and been replaced with irrelevant bullshit. You religious fucks and nitwicks never cease to shock me with your hypocracy.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 12:58 PM
AWMTI #249: "I'm a practicing Roman Catholic" "I do, however, expect you to give me the respect to eat what I believe to be the Body of Christ in peace."
AWMTI, do you believe in the Resurrection? That's the story about when the dead maggot-infested jesus became a zombie, later flying up to the clouds.
You believe that crap, don't you?
Should I respect your breathtaking stupidity? I don't think so. I've had it with religious assholes who think I should respect their mental illness. Maybe if you shit-for-brains bible thumpers ever learned how to keep your sky fairy magic out of our schools and governments, I could ignore you.
"I do, however, expect you to give me the respect to eat what I believe to be the Body of Christ in peace."
AWMTI, do have any idea how bloody stupid that sounds? You believe a tasteless piece of bread is really the dead body of an asshole who claimed to be a god? And you want to eat it? I'm sorry, but you're badshit crazy and people like you should be locked up and forced to wear straitjackets.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 12:58 PM
@#138: "It's spelled Paul Zachary Myers, but it's pronounced Tentacled Overlord."
OOOOOhhhh. It all makes sense now.
Posted by: J | July 10, 2008 12:59 PM
Let's not casually mock all hosts: The K-horror film The Host was very good, after all.
Posted by: LMR | July 10, 2008 12:59 PM
To #274 - You're actually wishing for another inquisition?
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting that.
Probably because "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanish_Inquisition_(Monty_Python)
Posted by: octopod | July 10, 2008 1:00 PM
Fr. J: They'd desecrate Qurans if they lived in predominantly Muslim countries. Here all the loony theocrats are Christian, so guess who's a bigger target?
Also, re: the Whole Body of Jesus plan: Wouldn't it be better to chew 'em up into paste before using them as a sort of clay? Then it's 100% Jesus with no Superglue in between. I'm pretty sure no-one claims they're able to transmute Superglue into Jesus.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 1:00 PM
I do trust all the Catholics here saying they expect to be respected extend that respect to women seeking an abortion, to gay people seeking to marry and to people wanting to stop themselves being infected with HIV by using a condom.
Posted by: sfatheist | July 10, 2008 1:00 PM
B.Dewhirst, your comment @192 is priceless. I'm still LMAO.
Posted by: Noadi | July 10, 2008 1:00 PM
Since no one else has said it yet, I feel that I must:
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 1:01 PM
Is "A Shower of Cunts" Paul Schaefer's new sequel to "It's Raining Men"?
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 1:01 PM
Actually, we just pronounce it "Tentacled Overlord" because his real name is an eldritch screech which only mere fancy can transmute to sound, driving to madness all feeble mortal minds who hear it. He is the great amorphous blasphemy which bubbles amid the abyss at the center of all infinity.Posted by: liz | July 10, 2008 1:01 PM
The constant hammering of gullible individuals by evangelists - that muslims, homosexuals are evil, earth is some 10000 years old and that humans are superior beings and the universe was created for humans - is a more horrible widespread and deadly form of violence that the one here against crackers..
Posted by: Beowulff | July 10, 2008 1:02 PM
At SFG, #155
So you are the self-appointed defender of people's right to do what they want? Great! You can help us defend PZ's right to do what he wants to a cracker!Posted by: Aric | July 10, 2008 1:02 PM
This reminds me of what Allan Bloom used to say, that given the state of high school education in this country, one cannot begin to teach undergraduates until one makes them outraged. But it only reminds me of it because in this case the Professor's goal is a shallow, dessicated vision of teaching. Rather than supplant outrage with a fully-fleshed out version of the best-lived-life for man, the Professor is solely seeking to persuade to the truth of the proposition that "Catholic faith in the Eucharist is incorrect." I guess what I'm saying is, you're no Allan Bloom.
Posted by: RCWilson | July 10, 2008 1:04 PM
I would have thought that once you put a food object on another person's tongue, that person can do with it as he pleases -- swallow it, stash in her purse, take it home, add it to her salivated cracker collection, whatever. I can't think of another situation where post-hoc limitations are customarily invoked. (Swallow that glass of chardonnay, buddy, or I'll have you fired!)
Posted by: Milo Johnson | July 10, 2008 1:04 PM
"Obviously your parents neglected teaching you manners and respect."
---You, sir, are a moron. I am under no requirement to respect your foolish and primitive superstition. I respect and defend your RIGHT to believe it or any other idiotic delusions of your choice, but your superstition itself is one of the worst aspects of humanity and it will die under the weight of its own inanity soon enough.
I say take a monumental dump on the crackers, shoot some nice photos of it, send them to Donohue, and let's watch those veins in his head rupture as the big aneurism finally happens.
And finally a special message of love for "shower of cunts" boy - you can choke on my cock, you steaming piece of sewage.
Posted by: SeanH | July 10, 2008 1:04 PM
Fr. J,
If the "father" part of your name is true you know full well that no federal court in the country would rule that failing to consume a communion wafer was a disruption of services, no federal prosecutor would even attempt to argue that it was, and anything he chooses to do the wafer afterwards is not prohibited by any US law. Trying to hint otherwise is simply lying.
Shame on you, sir, for lying and you should truly be ashamed for this:
He thankfully never lived to see the state of the Church today, but my childhood priest Fr. Dan would have wept to see a man calling himself Fr. excusing child molestation in the clergy in that way and implying that an innocent man molests children.
Posted by: mas528 | July 10, 2008 1:05 PM
@ #139 Adam Janke,
There should not have been any issue, except
The church offended every decent person through these actions:
1) someone grabbed him bodily
2) spokesman for the diocese Susan "I'm an ignoramus" Fani) claimed it was a "Hate Crime"
3) One of your doltish priests, Migeul Gonzalez, called it a kidnapping.
This over, what should be, by all lights a piece of Matzoh.
I do not have to respect your beliefs. I dogive provisional respect upon learning of a belief system.
Of course, if the system does not live up to that respect, it loses that respect.
Posted by: Heathen Matt | July 10, 2008 1:05 PM
I have read most of the responses in this blog regarding this issue. What strikes me most is the anger, the lashing out, the mockery. Where does this rage stem from, if this is an issue about a plain 'cracker'?
We are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs. I respect and honor that. As a Catholic, I believe that the Eucharist is the body of Christ.
I respect Prof. Myers right to disagree with what I believe about the Eucharist. I simply ask Prof. Myers to respect my beliefs and refrain from his proposed action.
Thank you.
The problem, my dear credulous namesake, is not what you believe, but the hatred, death threats, and attacks on Myers's employment. Believe whatever whacky fables you like, but don't threaten others for laughing at them. If they are real, they should be robust enough to withstand a little mockery.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2008 1:05 PM
Fr. J, how do you justify the conspiracy to protect and hide, through relocation, pedophile priests, a conspiracy perpetrated by those at the very highest levels of the Catholic hierarchy? This conspiracy has lasted decades, if not centuries, and has only recently come to light - and come under attack - by those brave enough to speak out against the abuses, both sexual and administrative, of those members of the Church hierarchy. And still the Church attempts to avoid the harsh light of public opinion and the damning judgements of the secular system of law and order, by insisting the problem can be handled "internally".
Sorry, we've seen where that leads.
All this, from one of the largest organizations in the world, an organization which claims hegemony over human morality, and which dares to dictate, amongst other things, the dos and donts of the bedroom to its billion-member flock.
Does any such conspiracy exist amongst parents, or educators, on anything even remotely approaching the grand scale of the Catholic child abuse conspiracy? Does any such conspiracy even exist? Has one ever existed?
Still, I do recognize the good intentions behind your noble, if misguided, attempt to draw attention to the kidnapped cracker over in the corner, and away from the steaming pile of rotting garbage that has filled the room for centuries.
Your room - not mine.
Incidentaly, crackers and catholicism aside, the second-best predictor, after drug and alcohol abuse, of sexual abuse of children in Christian homes is conservative religiousity coupled with rigid gender roles.
Ask yourself: What's wrong with your religion?
What an utterly moronic thing to say. Are you a creationist, too?
For what it's worth, I agree that desecrating a consecrated cracker is juvenile and crass. Almost as juvenile as consecrating it in the first place, and almost as crass as visiting threats of bodily harm on a college student who dared take one out of the building.
Get your priorities straight, man.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 1:06 PM
Is it more vile if you eat a bacon, lettuce, tomato communion cracker sandwich? I would imagine that such a snack would mortify Muslims as well.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 1:07 PM
Hi ted, you little cowardly bully, come see me first please. I live in Edmonton. You can contact me via my blog, linked in my name.
I will happily help you get on your local parish's list of people needing intercessory prayers for the recovery of their health.
Posted by: Kazim | July 10, 2008 1:08 PM
Given the incredibly small number of "degrees of separation" between any given web site, I wouldn't doubt that you can access porn -- or Kevin Bacon's IMDB profile -- within six clicks from a University page. Is the University now responsible for policing the content of the entire internet?
Posted by: eric | July 10, 2008 1:08 PM
You don't believe in transubstantiation (which is understandable, since it IS ridiculous, from anything but the religious viewpoint) -- but THEY do. To them it IS something most sacred, and they do take that very seriously.
I have to wonder, PZ, what you aim to get out of your proposed activities around "the cracker" other than riling them up? And then you seem shocked when they get riled up.
So you don't believe in it, and you don't understand or agree that the kid who took it should be attacked as he was. I agree, and your post about it was right on. But still... why do you feel the need to exacerbate the issue?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 1:08 PM
For what it's worth, I'll pray my rosary for you folks tonight. - AWMTI
For what it's worth, eh? Let me see, that would be approximately - no precisely - nothing.
Posted by: LOLWUT | July 10, 2008 1:09 PM
The Jesus story and the transubstantiation thing where a cracker or wafer becomes the actual Jesus, are both really stupid and ignorant beliefs. They go against our understanding of nature, and understanding based on evidence, reason and logic. How anyone could reject those things and accept a story they were told as kids for no reason at all, is beyond me. It's disgusting.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 10, 2008 1:09 PM
"Most anti-Catholic bigots use the abuse card to attempt to silence or attack the Church. Actually most children suffer abuse at the hands of parents and teachers, not priests. Aren't you a teacher? Hmmm..."
The abuse card was played in response to Donahue's ridiculous statement that he could think of nothing more vile than desecrating the eucharist. Context, it's important.
"That aside I would remind you that disrupting a worship service of any religion is a violation of federal civil rights laws."
No need for that, he can just quietly palm the cracker and walk out with it. Fair enough? Or do you honestly consider that kidnapping or offensive?
Nice way to imply that PZ sleeps with his students, have any actual evidence of this? No of course not. Of course, the fact that the vast majority if not all of PZ's students are adults makes it somewhat different than molesting children don't you think? Not that I approve of teachers fraternizing with their students, but it's a heck of a lot different than molesting children.
"It is interesting that you choose to pick on Catholicism. Not much risk and you get all the usual sycophants to pretend that you are "brave." I doubt you will go to a Mosque and desecrate a Quran."
You don't read PZ's blog often he enough, he frequently criticizes other religions. He criticizes Christianity more often than others because as it happens he lives in America, which is populated mostly by Christians.
"If you are really brave you might defend intelligent design at a biologists convention. Then you would find your life in danger from the allegedly open-minded."
Har har har.
"I suspect any student in your class who is a believing Catholic probably suffers from discrimination."
PZ has said repeatedly that he is objective in class. If you have any evidence that suggests otherwise I suggest you show us, otherwise quit making unsubstantiated accusations.
"Frankly I find it hard to believe that someone who is supposedly educated and is a professor would even consider doing something so asinine much less publicize it. It is simply juvenile."
Perhaps you should forward this message to all your buddies freaking out over what some college student did with a cracker.
"Obviously your parents neglected teaching you manners and respect. They are no doubt ashamed as you should be. Grow up."
Grow up? Perhaps you should do the same. I do not consider it very adult to make baseless accusations.
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 1:09 PM
Sacraments According to the Uncyclopedia:
Eucharist - The consumption of flesh and the drinking of blood. Early critics once argued that this was hypocritical considering the Vatican's strong opposition towards vampires and the demonic. These critics were consequently eaten.
Confession - Intended as a means of catching the most stupid sinners by having them give themselves up. This sacrament involves people who disobey God confessing to the priest that they have erred. They are subsequently purged following the admission of the sin. Hence, explaining the need for confessions to be kept private.
Baptism - There are two forms of Baptism; adult and child. A child's Baptism involves an infant being splashed with a special liquid which seeps into the brain cavity causing lifelong devotion and servility to the priests. Adult Baptism involves drowning the Baptismal candidate for not being Catholic in the first place.
Confirmation - The sacrament by which the priest raises the rank of new recruits from Baptised to Confirmed. The Confirmed are given License to Purge upon receiving the honours of Confirmation.
Marriage - The ultimate punishment a priest is able to deliver. Writings of its horrors will cause my hands to drop off.
Anointing of the Sick - Since all diseases are caused by Satan, this involves a whole lot of purging and gallons of blood in order to anoint the world by removing the Satanically affected.
Ordination - The sacrament by which a person is ordained a priest and therefore obtains all of the uber powers inseparable from that office.
Posted by: PuckishOne | July 10, 2008 1:10 PM
Expanding on ddr @ #285:
Tolerance is not, and never has been, the exclusive domain of liberals any more than it is of Christians, atheists, or people who tuck their trousers into their socks while cycling. There are tolerant atheists as surely as there are tolerant Christians.
However, there has never been a law stating that a Christian could not hold public office. No President has ever publicly stated that members of were not, in his view, citizens of this country. In no polls do a majority of respondents state that they would not vote for a Christian candidiate. Yet all are expected to respect (if not revere) the Christian traditions without question.
If that is what it means to be tolerant in America, is it any wonder why some of us are speaking out?
Posted by: amk | July 10, 2008 1:11 PM
Care to point us to these debates? There have been cover ups of those sins. Large chunks of the Catholic hierarchy are responsible. What numbers? Where? a) You have not explained how open sexuality can lead to the view of children as sexual beings.b) Viewing children as sexual beings is not sufficient to lead to sexual child abuse. The abuser also needs to see children as objects to be manipulated.
Here's some numbers you could produce to back that claim: rates of sexual child abuse in a sexually open nation (e.g. Netherlands) versus a Catholic nation (e.g. Ireland) - although I'm struggling to think of one that bans contraception.
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 1:11 PM
Aric: "I believe you will find that the law allows the Catholic Church to exclude people from its property and from its sacraments. (If you wish that to change, you could certainly propose repealing the First Amendment.)"
It may, however it doesn't. I can walk into a Catholic Church right now, walk up during the service, and accept a communion wafer in my hand. There isn't anything illegal about doing that, since (like a vampire) they invited me in and handed me the Christ-cracker. No laws violated.
If they asked me not to enter, that'd be another story, but they don't know me from Adam, so to speak.
"As for what is ethical, is it anything other than what is acceptable to B. in a moment of pique?"
Sure. Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness without God is very close to my feelings on the subject, and since I don't have time to pen a 300 page book, it'll have to do.
Sorry, I don't have the time to continue following this thread.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 10, 2008 1:11 PM
PZ's transubstantiation lab (it's as much a lab as Marks' "ID lab" ever was) must be expelled from UM's links.
We could make a movie about it, couldn't we?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kx
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 1:12 PM
If that's all it was, it would be fine. The problem is that they want everyone to take it that seriously.
I can't speak for PZ, but the point is exactly to provoke the expected response so everyone can see it.
To bring the intolerance out in the light where everyone can see it.
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 1:12 PM
Adam Janke #139 wrote:
As you put it earlier in your post,"What is at question is whether or not we should respect others beliefs." And I think that's a more complicated -- and difficult -- issue than it may seem.
What does it mean for something to be "sacred?" After the high and inspiring words, we get to untouchable, unquestionable, entitled to absolute reverence and devotion. Not to be analyzed, or disputed, or doubted. And there's a rather dark side to that, because we're dealing with human nature, and human nature is flawed. Once something is determined to be "sacred" we forget that WE are the ones who made it so. Nothing then should ever be more sacred -- more unquestionable and entitled to absolute devotion -- than we are ourselves.
And we shouldn't think ourselves sacred. That's never been a good idea.
It's interesting. When you asked whether we would callously desecrate the statue "God" of a previously unknown African tribe, Lago at #165 answered with "Well, most tribes are still living in the stone age and do not claim to know better." I think there's a significant point there.
If the Catholics are doing something we think is wrong, ignorant, mistaken, moronic, silly, or just plain dumb, we should indeed refrain from criticizing or mocking them if we think they really "don't know any better." They've been brainwashed. They're too stupid. They're stuck at an immature stage of development. They're weak. They're needy. They're not part of our culture. They're from a different world. They're primitive or feeble-minded or hopelessly ignorant or somehow, in some critical, important way -- they're not like us.
They should be treated differently, because they're different. Lower expectations, be gentle, bring out the kid gloves and the hushed voices and the kind nods and the sorrowful smiles and the understanding and compassionate glances, because -- they can't handle the truth. The dear things. They're not ready, or they're not capable, or they're not willing to give up illusions. And we respect that fact.
People who believe in God are not like us. So we need to be tactful.
Is that really the respectful attitude we should adopt? Is that really "respect?"
I think that the concept of the "sacred" should be de-sacralized, because in placing something beyond question, we place ourselves beyond doubt. Humans need to doubt.
And I think that the Catholics can and should learn to take some abuse and mockery, because we none of us human beings are above needing that -- and if we refuse to do that out of "respect" for them as Catholics, we lose respect for them as fellow human beings.
It goes beyond just thinking transubtantiation is wrong, or God doesn't exist. If I respect your "belief," that means I'm no longer respecting you.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 1:13 PM
#243 "Fr. J"
Don't you get sick of yourself? How about you check this blogs archive before you go straight into whine mode with the most selfcentered argument you can think of?
Any suggestions for a short name referring to "you wouldn't say/do this if were muslims" whines?
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 10, 2008 1:13 PM
Fr. J #243
Where is PZ disrupting a worship service ? Do you see PZ disrupting a worship service ? You have any evidence for that ?
He is merely expressing an opinion. It might be "disparaging" for you, it might be "for the purpose of exposing your religion to contempt and ridicule ", or might fail to "exhibit adequate sensitivity to your particular feelings", but it's still his right. Also, if he were to desecrate some Eucharists, it would also be his right, it would also be "closely akin to 'pure speech.'".
So, please read again those articles which I left in my post just before yours, there's nothing wrong with what PZ is doing. You might not like it very much, but that's another matter, there are also many things he and many of us here do not like very much from the religious side.
Now of course, if some of the religious folks would answer with violence, this would be a different matter all together, they would clearly be guilty of breaking the law. But PZ is not guilty of any violent behaviour, what violent behaviour ? Declaring that he would like to desecrate some Eucharists ? You gotta be joking of course !
Posted by: thePetey | July 10, 2008 1:13 PM
"In fact, I can think of innumerable vile acts going on all around the world right now, and not all of them even involve Catholicism."
My thoughts immediately. I wonder if they would be upset if I took a wafer, then pulled out a bit of Cheeze Whiz and added it for flavor?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Jes-whiz
Posted by: Copernic | July 10, 2008 1:13 PM
Hey Fr. J
Before you pop off, get the facts straight.
I would venture to say that the boy-rapes-per-thousand is a bit higher amongst Catholic Priests than for college professors.
Nothing in that story suggests that he disrupted a service. It says he walked out with it
Yes, one hopes to get death threats from all sorts of kooky religious types.
Life in danger? Ha! At worst they get laughed at, as any dumb idea would at science symposia....except they don't often present their "work" at meetings...they have no "work" to present. Instead they try to convince 9th graders and legislatures with their intellectual welfare projects.
PZ's on the record that that doesn't happen.
Fr. J, we're pissed because the Catholic League wants to take action against this guy. They want to impact his education. People want him killed. This is a serious matter. It is your clenching to an absurd mythology that is jufenile. Grow up and join the 21st century. Mythical men do not crackerize!
Copernic
Posted by: Jon | July 10, 2008 1:13 PM
What about masticating it and then disolving it in acid, before mixing what's left of it with fecal matter and flushing it down the can? I mean, that's what everyone else does with them, isn't it?
Posted by: Charlie Matthis | July 10, 2008 1:13 PM
Send an email to Katheryn Jean Lopez at The Corner for her snide comment at http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODZlYmE3ZjcyMTY4OGMxOTg4ZDczMjNiMWFmMmYxMTQ=
Mine went a little something like this:
"I would love to see you try to do anything to PZ, but something tells me you're all talk. That little threat was just an attempt to get attention from your readers wasn't it? To show them how angry you are so that they'll give you their approval even though you'd do absolutely nothing even if PZ was standing right next to you? How weak. You've added nothing to the dialogue except to simply repost the story with your little tag line. I'm sure your readership is off the charts."
Posted by: RodeoBob | July 10, 2008 1:14 PM
Quick recap for anyone coming to the party late:
Person takes cracker from religious cerimony instead of eating it.
Person gets death threats from religious zealots, is called hateful & intolerant for not eating cracker.
Blogger writes about absurdity of death threats for taking cracker instead of eating it. Blogger is called intolerant by religious zealots. Then blogger gets death threats on blog comments.
Troll shows up, throws around the word 'cunt', adds nothing of value. Concern trolls show up, saying we need to be respectful & tolerant of others' beliefs, or else those people will threaten to kill us. Many fun cracker-related activies are planned by gleeful, happy folks.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 1:14 PM
@334: I don't get the feeling that PZ is shocked by the CL's reaction, actually. Although maybe he was surprised by the volume of e-mailed death threats?
I have to agree, doing a transubstantiated-wafer desecration is rather juvenile. On the other hand, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is such a prick, it's hard for me to tut tut anything that gets his dander up. And I like the idea that maybe getting Catholics to think long and hard about the cherished belief in transubstantiation might just get some of them to realize how silly and illogical it is. Maybe it will even lead them out of Catholicism and into atheism, as it did for me.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 1:14 PM
you know I'm starting to get a theory about where this body of christ crackers thing came from. Forget the last supper, see my theory!
Back in the days, the disciples had stolen DEAD JESUS! They had smuggled his body from the drunk roman guards, and the roman legion was tracking them down for it. They were desperate, they were hungry, they were thirsty. There was just no way they could hide the body properly without the kickass romans finding it.
So they ate him and drank his stinking blood. Now that there was no evidence left beyond some bones that could just be ANYBODY'S (and their mouths still covered in blood), the roman legion had to let them go.
And to remember this day they eat crackers cuz they wish they had crackers to go along with Jesus's caked blood.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 1:15 PM
I simply ask Prof. Myers to respect my beliefs and refrain from his proposed action.
I can't speak for Dr. Myers, but I can say that I respect your right to HAVE your beliefs, but I don't really respect your beliefs. Why should I have to? They're silly. A cracker isn't a divinity, and it never will be. As far as what PZ plans to do, it's a symbolic act. I applaud it, but I don't think he needs to go through with to prove his point. The hysterical (in both senses of the word) response of the Catholic League has already proven his point.
Having said that, I honestly believe that PZ is going to do it. Why? Because he's a man of his word. I kind of wish he wouldn't, because the craziness is might get worse, but I've never seen him back down ...
Posted by: Lord Zero | July 10, 2008 1:15 PM
Man, chistianhood equal intolerance for definition,
since they are sure they hold the absolute truth
about their non-existant so called god... so everyone
else its going to hell and suffer excruciating pain
for all eternity.
PZ, we all support you, this its pure hate by the hand of those suposed to be merciful and forgiving christians...
Just tell us, there will be a army of atheists supporters there to help you out !!
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 1:16 PM
One of the years I spent in Catholic grammar school I was lucky enough to have a lay teacher instead of a shit-for-brains nun. One day my teacher had to leave for an hour and a nun replaced her. The asshole nun spent the entire hour telling us we were going to hell, and she described hell in great detail. Even though I was only in 3rd grade, I knew this nun was full of shit, but most of the other students were terrified. What she did can only be called child abuse. I'm sure this child abuse continues today, every day, millions of times a day, throughout god-soaked America. It's impossible to ridicule religious assholes enough.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 1:17 PM
"Most anti-Catholic bigots use the abuse card to attempt to silence or attack the Church. Actually most children suffer abuse at the hands of parents and teachers, not priests. Aren't you a teacher? Hmmm..."
Um... You're saying that as if most of his students weren't big enough to kick his ass... Seriously, he's not a grade school teacher.
Posted by: BetterFredthanDead | July 10, 2008 1:17 PM
Now you've gone and really stirred up the hornets nest. Remember that "desecration" of the eucharist was commonly used by the loving Catholic church to justify pogroms against Jews in the good old days of the Middle Ages. That gave them the moral authority to torture, rape and pillage in the name of their loving god.
Nothing like a bunch of crazed godbots with torches and pitchforks out to right a wrong.
Posted by: Flit | July 10, 2008 1:17 PM
If you can keep eating little bits of jesus every Sunday and he never runs out. Does this mean that The Magic Pudding is really about jesus and not about a pie after all?
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 1:18 PM
Fr. J @243,
Hooboy! You are one for the books!
"Actually most children suffer abuse at the hands of parents and teachers, not priests. Aren't you a teacher? Hmmm..."
And as a Catholic, I bet you're probably a parent! Hmmm... Please, your stupid burns.
"That aside I would remind you that disrupting a worship service of any religion is a violation of federal civil rights laws."
Please give the defining arguments that would be pertinent in this case. Define "disrupt" for example. Not letting a cracker melt in your mouth is disruptive? Again. Please, the stupid...
"It is interesting that you choose to pick on Catholicism. Not much risk and you get all the usual sycophants to pretend that you are "brave." I doubt you will go to a Mosque and desecrate a Quran."
Well, no, it's not interesting. If you actually came to this site once in a while, you'd know PZ and the rest of us are happy to point out the idiocy of Islam or any other religion equally. You just noticed it this time cause it's yours. Were you up in arms over the desecration of a Quran at Gitmo? Yep, thought not. Only your magic stuff matters...
"If you are really brave you might defend intelligent design at a biologists convention. Then you would find your life in danger from the allegedly open-minded."
How would defending something you know not to be true be brave? Using that thinking I could say that "I think if you were really brave you'd go to the your Bishop and tell him he's a complete fucknut because there is no god and he's a child molester". Then you'd find yourself in danger from people that claim to be full of the love of god. Oh, and as stated before, when was the last time you heard of a group of professors (if they aren't religious) threatening anyone in this way?
"Frankly I find it hard to believe that someone who is supposedly educated..."
Come now, everyone knows that PZ is indeed educated. Just because he doesn't believe what you do doesn't cast that into doubt. Care to have a "degree holding" pissing match with the people who post here? What ya got?
"It is simply juvenile. Obviously your parents neglected teaching you manners and respect. They are no doubt ashamed as you should be. Grow up."
Is it truly juvenile? Or does this not just shine light on how totally screwed up your priorities are? You show your lack of understanding of cause and effect also. Even if I agreed that PZ didn't have good manners, that doesn't mean he wasn't taught them. It's sad that you don't understand even one of the most basic tenants of rational thought.
"Grow up."
Who believes in a make-believe sky daddy with no evidence? Who's still clinging to fairy-tails? Who really is the little boy in this discussion?
You are a dumbshit. Sorry, but you proved it with that bullshit you just spewed, so I'm calling it like it is.
Not one of your sentences made any kind of sense. You have given yourself reason to be ashamed. But I'm sure you aren't. More the pity.
Posted by: ckerst | July 10, 2008 1:18 PM
If it's the body of christ, the living christ and you eat it, what does that make you? I would think that cannabalism is a crime.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 1:18 PM
http://www.ranum.com/linkedimages/behead-insult-crackers.jpg
Posted by: PuckishOne | July 10, 2008 1:19 PM
Correction to my post #339:
No President has ever publicly stated that members of were not, in his view, citizens of this country
should read:
No President has ever publicly stated that members of (insert Christian group here) were not, in his view, citizens of this country.
Sorry about the confusion.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 1:19 PM
Just don't bother burning any Buddhist relics. The early Zen masters already did lots of that to demonstrate the folly of worshiping idols. - Brownian
Well then, maybe PZ could be really disrespectful to the Buddhists by not doing anything sacreligious to a Buddhist relic!
Posted by: Barron | July 10, 2008 1:19 PM
This is crazy over long so I may have missed it, but where did PZ say anything about disrupting someone's religious service? Mocking their beliefs sure, but having someone say your beliefs are silly doesn't stop you from practicing them.
Catholics I know and have known are interesting, thoughtful people. I'm sure most catholics I am likely to meet are equally so. But this kind of magical thinking scares me.
NB: Mr. Donohue is neither interesting nor thoughtful. He's an angry, angry nutcase.
Posted by: NickG | July 10, 2008 1:21 PM
Donohue can't imagine anything worse than desecrating his christcrackers. So it would seem that he things like abortion, while bad, are not *quite* as bad as dropping a flaming turd on the body'o'christ.
So I have a great idea... and anyone with access to the consecrated christcracker(s) could do. Repeatedly. With startling regularity. Auction them off to the highest bidder (but minimum say... $1000). The proceeds of the auction go to Planned Parenthood. If the Satanists get it, PP gets a G. If the Catholic League gets it, PP gets a G and the Catholic's opposition to reproductive freedom, same-sex marriage, etc. takes a hit. Win-win all around.
Unless of course the Catholic League is too *cheap* to pay a mere $1000 to save their precious christcrackers.
Posted by: Beave | July 10, 2008 1:21 PM
Please, oh, please, somebody get PZ some crackers! I'm loving this!
Posted by: Concern Troll | July 10, 2008 1:24 PM
Hey PZ, don't you know that the best way of dealing with a sociopathic bully like that douchenozzle Bill Donohue is to let him push you around? I am shocked and offended that you don't have a better sense of propriety, respect, and that you can't conduct yourself in an appropriate manner.
I can't believe that you don't have the common decency to act like a gigantic boob about this. No, you've just got to go out there and show them what their bullying will get them, don't you?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 1:24 PM
My mother went to a convent school. A few years after she had left and begun training to be a nurse, and got married she went back. The headmistress asked her if she was planning to start a family. My mother had to explain that she did, but not until she had finished her training. The headmistress asked if she was on the pill and when my mum said she was, told my mum she thought that was an excellent idea.
There is an ironic epilogue to this tale. Despite being on the pill, she became pregnent with me and had to give up her training anyway.
Posted by: sam green | July 10, 2008 1:25 PM
If it's just a cracker, why would you abuse it "gladly"? Would you get pleasure from abusing an oreo? By taking pleasure in its abuse, by asking for crackers that have been consecrated, by taking the trouble to post it on-line, you admit that you know that at least to some people, there's more to the cracker than just a cracker. And surely you know that desecrating it is an act of disrespect to those who regard it as sacred. Why else would it matter if your blog is linked to or hosted by your university?
A cloth is just a cloth, and no one minds if you burn it, but paint the stars and stripes on it, and try it in Washington Square, and it becomes an act of disrespect, and not just to the cloth.
It doesn't matter if it's not as bad as child abuse. It doesn't matter if there is hypocrisy in the catholic church. Desecrating a religious symbol for entertainment is an act of profound disrespect. And all it does is show that atheists can be as thick as religious people.
It's not surprising that you would have an occasional lapse of judgment, considering the volume you generate, but it is amazing how your flock supports you. People, there is no god; not even PZ. He's wrong on this. Call him on it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 1:25 PM
Eric, this isn't about exacerbating the issue--it's about calling a cancerous organisation up on the table for its attempts to bully and intimidate. Sure, they just slapped around a kid, but even Jesus (supposedly) said, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
They opened Pandora's box when they lost their nut over that fucking wafer.
Posted by: Dennis | July 10, 2008 1:26 PM
#180: I rather wonder if a giant octopus could get Bill Donahue INTO a jar...?!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 1:26 PM
Koran envy?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 1:27 PM
I guess what I'm saying is, you're no Allan Bloom. - Aric
Flattery will get you nowhere around here Aric.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 1:27 PM
"I simply ask Prof. Myers to respect my beliefs and refrain from his proposed action."
I have to ask you to respect my beliefs and go stab yourself in the face.
Where do these people get the idea they can use their religion to tell others what to do? Is it that the older your silly beliefs are, the more arrogant you can go around demanding people do as you want them to do?
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 1:28 PM
A cloth is just a cloth, and no one minds if you burn it, but paint the stars and stripes on it, and try it in Washington Square, and it becomes an act of disrespect, and not just to the cloth.
The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is constitutionally protected speech. You are aware of that, are you not?
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 1:28 PM
It's not about the cracker, dumbass. It's about them losing their shit about a cracker and going out of their way to make someone's college time miserable because of a goddamned cracker.Posted by: mox | July 10, 2008 1:29 PM
I'd love to see a communion wafer with a blindfold and cigarette, a giant Jesus statue assembled from actual Jesus wafers a la Frankenstein's monster, or any other number of must-YouTube shenanigans. But I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it. And my position has nothing to do with respecting superstitious/insane beliefs. Rather, I think there are a large number of people out there who are looking for a reason to finally let go of their superstition and start thinking on their own. An extreme display of disdain could have a damaging effect on that front, as Atheism could be too closely associated with anarchy. And while we free thinkers can pish tosh this line of reasoning easily, it's not so easy when you're first starting to learn how to re-engage those brain cells that someone else has been driving for so long. It took me some years to move from Christian -> spiritual -> "agnostic" -> "holy shit this is all there is, and I kinda like it!"
What I'd rather see PZ do with his liberated wafer(s) is to set up a series of controlled experiments, with the goal of either proving or disproving that communion wafers either undergo or do not undergo a change when subjected to arcane chanting. The fundies would of course still go nuts, but might prove invaluable for those who just need one more reason to climb down off the cross.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 1:30 PM
No, he's not, Sam. They showed their thuggish behaviour when they first when after Webster.
Backing down and apologising to them for provoking their bullying is plain stupid.
Posted by: J (not J) | July 10, 2008 1:31 PM
Um, Matt?
Were you having a "senior moment" when you decided to relate this story? Did I miss something? Hmm, you need to use Non Sequitur as your name from now on...
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | July 10, 2008 1:32 PM
I don't think Bill Donohue really believes that the crackers turn into Jesus, anyhow.
Here, let's test it.
Unless Donohue apologizes, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to get a hundred crackers smuggled out of churches all ver the country and/or world every day. If he really believes that said crackers are Jesus, and he considers Jesus more important than his own right to jump up and down and scream and spew spittle, then he'll issue a public apology for this nonsense of trying to do damage to someone for nothing more than expressing an opinion. As far as anyone knows, PZ isn't the one who stole the stupid cracker to begin with.
Waddya say, Donohue, you multi-wattled, obese, shrieking would-be Crusader? Are the wafers so important that their well-being would trump your venom?
My bet is, no, they're not. Bill Donohue, like most holy frauds, finds quite a friend in Jesus. Without him, ol' Bellicose Bill would be reduced to getting a real job.
Posted by: protocol | July 10, 2008 1:32 PM
I guess what I'm saying is, you're no Allan Bloom.
And thank goodness for that! pz should be proud that he is not a pompous, no-nothing hack and a poseur pretending to be an 'intellectual' (who was, incidentally aghast at the social movements of the 60s that made the country more livable).
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 1:32 PM
Koran envy sounds good. It represents the intention of those posts pretty good as well.
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 1:33 PM
You should fill a box of Jeez-Its up with blood-pack squibs and shoot at it with blanks. The hyperventilating Catholics would probably pass out when you assassinated Jesus and splattered blood all over the wall.
Posted by: ThePetey | July 10, 2008 1:34 PM
@#69
PZ,
You're convieniently omitting the fact that while your blog may be on separate servers, both your blogs servers and the university's servers do reside in the same series of tubes. Busted! One for the Catholic League.
You do realize computers don't use "TUBES" for memory storage and I'm fairly sure "TUBES" stopped being used in electronics decades ago.
Posted by: SteveM | July 10, 2008 1:35 PM
Careful there Dahan, if he really is a Catholic priest (since he signs himself "Fr.") then he is most definitely not married and not a parent. But given the despicable nature of his insuation, I doubt the veracity of his sig.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 1:35 PM
Guys! Please! It's against my religion to dunk Chocolate Chip cookies in milk!
Please refrain from drowning my Hot Savior's balls like that! (For the dough is his face and the chips his many testicles. Amen.)
Respect my beliefs!
Posted by: Felstatsu | July 10, 2008 1:35 PM
Ya know, until I saw this, I really didn't care about it much. I thought it was wrong to have that student receive threats and all, but really didn't care past that. Now I'm actually interested in getting some of the body of Christ. Not sure where I can go locally to get some, but I'm sure that there is somewhere around here I could go. Being basically completely unknown around here among the religious groups has some advantages.
Come to think of it, I've received the priesthood from one church and could probably bless the crackers myself so long as part of the ritual doesn't require faith that it'll do something.
Posted by: DavidR | July 10, 2008 1:35 PM
"you admit that you know that at least to some people, there's more to the cracker than just a cracker. And surely you know that desecrating it is an act of disrespect to those who regard it as sacred"
Sam, do we ban the eating of fermented dairy products because a gang of Moon-worshipers declare cheese to be the actual body of their god?
The only difference here is the prestige granted to the RC Church due to its age, wealth, and the fact that it has many more deluded followers that the hypothetical moon/cheese sect.
Eat that cracker with cheese PZ! Save me one if they send you a couple.
Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 1:35 PM
It must be another of those magic but unevidenced transubstantiation events then - making the "e" which those of us who are sane can clearly see in the word into some other letter as far as appropriately believing religionists are concerned. But do they all agree on precisely which other letter (or symbol or absence of anything) it is instead of an "e"? What are the E-mperor's new clothes?As well as the issue of whether and how the Catholics can tell the difference between correctly consecrated magic crackers and unmagicked (or differently magicked) wafers, there's the issue of what they believe the magic effect to be. This goes beyond the known disagreements over when the magic takes effect and on to which part of the body each individual wafer/cracker has become (like the dark meat joke) and what the flavour, blood group, genetic profile etc of zombie Jesus might be.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 10, 2008 1:36 PM
Just out of curiosity, don't the things that PZ has been saying violate Seed's Terms of Service? I know most web sites prohibit slander or hate speech. It's a judgment call, but vowing to desecrate a religion's holy things could be considered hate speech.
Posted by: kryptonic | July 10, 2008 1:36 PM
ddr #285 well said.
ddr #293 Well worth repeating, too!
Posted by: Dean | July 10, 2008 1:37 PM
To #139 and the 'Father' who also posted;
I find it amusing that you both mention you Church's approach to priests who had abused and, in many cases, raped children. You fail to mention that those practices were essentially allowed for decades, with the previous Pope (and likely some of his predecessors) content to turn a blind eye to the problem, and the current Pope, in a previous job, devising ways to protect the priests and intimidate victims and families.
It is clear that the so-called 'crack down' came only when public outrage grew large enough to threaten the flow of money into the coffers of the Church. If that is not an outrage in the mind of either of you, I suggest that you are incapable of feeling anything resembling outrage.
Do not claim that the people responsible for these actions have been punished, when there are many still in their positions (or whisked away to Rome and given cushy jobs so that they can avoid prosecution here). Perhaps the idiocy of the people involved is best demonstrated by a quote from our bishop, one he gave after he "promised" that none of the priests in the diocese had been involved in the scandal, only to have it splashed all over the paper that one had raped two boys in upstate New York: the quote is "It wasn't rape. They were simply consensual relationships that were misunderstood by families."
Perhaps, if you, or Donahue, could convince anyone that you were truly upset at your leaders feeling they have a right to abuse the helpless, you might have a little leverage on the current issue. Clearly you aren't bothered by those acts - they seem to be of minor importance, from your words - and you do not, at least with me, have the moral standing to be upset about the issue that prompted Dr. Meyers' post.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 10, 2008 1:37 PM
Wonder how BD would enjoy this? This guy is literally issuing a challenge to desecrate en ... ah ... masse : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnBnIUTviOk
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 1:37 PM
You should fill a box of Jeez-Its up with blood-pack squibs and shoot at it with blanks.
Ah, you can use wine to stand in for the blood.
Posted by: Maragon | July 10, 2008 1:37 PM
What SFG seems to be missing here is that many Atheists DON'T believe that religion and all of it's dangerous trappings SHOULD be allowed to 'live and let live'.
It's this wishy washy stance on religious tolerance that has allowed the states to disintegrate into its current fundy-tastic state.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 1:37 PM
And... since it's vaguely apropos, here's another art project I did last year:
http://www.ranum.com/linkedimages/piss-christ-kit.jpg
My next project was going to be a blending of the koran, bible, book of mormon, dianetics, and playboy, bound in a single volume with the parts assembled so that they make as much sense as the originals (including the centerfold, of course!) with a cover made of bacon. I've gotten sidetracked on another project that's more fun so all the ingredients (except the bacon) are sitting in a box in my studio. :(
Posted by: Cheezits | July 10, 2008 1:37 PM
As a Catholic, I believe that the Eucharist is the body of Christ.
Then you have a stupid belief. There is no theological justification for the whole transubstantiation business. I can excuse someone for believing in a god or creator or whatever, but there is no excuse for promoting a belief that stealing a wafer is holding it hostage, or that someone who does it deserves death threats. The church could have let the whole incident go for the minor breach of etiquette that it was, but they didn't.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 10, 2008 1:38 PM
OMSFG!!! This at 186 had me crying!
"The IQ quotient here is below 0."
Ah yes, the Intelligence Quotient quotient...
Nice to see that PZ has hit the big time. When Bill O'Reilly sends a producer to your front door, remember to throw falafel balls at the camera while screaming "Mackris" at the top of your lungs.
Posted by: sam green | July 10, 2008 1:38 PM
"It's not about the cracker, ..."
That was my point. When PZ abuses crackers, it's not about the crackers; "others" *are* disrespected.
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 10, 2008 1:38 PM
Wow,
I still can't believe people are defending the Catholics on this, much less sending you death threats, PZ.
If I was a Jesus-lover, I think I would quietly disassociate myself from these people, and maybe make a public statement about how they're not "True Christians", then lay low and hope not to get made fun of too much by rational human beings.
These people need their very own parade:
IDIOT PRIDE
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 1:39 PM
The debates about magic and cannibalism took place in the first few centuries after Christianity was founded and
Christians are bored by them because they don't hold musterthey went on until we managed to kill everyone who disrespected us.Posted by: Hairhead | July 10, 2008 1:39 PM
The question has been asked: what is PZ trying to accomplish by desecrating religious symbols?
The answer is this: By publicly desecrating religious symbols PZ Myers will force the University of Minnesota, and, by extension, other universities, to come down firmly and clearly on the side of secularism and free speech, and against religious bigotry and the bullying of their students, faculty, and administrations, as has happened in the "Host-kidnapping" incident which precipitated this whole mess.
For Christ's sake (sardonicism intended), the student was threatened with *DEATH*, is now being investigated by his school, and, who knows, may be expelled or have to withdraw. All because of the superstitions of few persons whom he caused no harm. (Merely offending people doesn't count as harm.)
PZ Myers has a lot of guts and ought to be commended by all here, including the religious commenters, for by standing up for his right to disbelieve and disrespect your traditions, he is standing up for your right (you religios) to disbelieve and disrespect the traditions of others.
This is an important point; religious intimidation has no place in the university -- or anywhere, really.
Posted by: Lucretious | July 10, 2008 1:39 PM
Tardensity levels are increasing. I need some goddamn Saltines to provide the enery to keep up with the stupidity. MMMMMMMMMMM...tasty!
Posted by: JimC | July 10, 2008 1:39 PM
#139
Bullshit, there was an organizational coverup all the way up.
Bullshit again. They have reacted so irrationally to a young mans actions that they have embarrassed themselves beyondany rational measure. If the entiregroup of people believe something that silly why on Earthshould it be respected? Do you respect the belief Xenu inhabits your body?
Right so a bunch of goofs got together and decided a cracker becomes Jesus when another goof says some magic words. Please explain how this 'debate' was resolved outside of insanity. Also explain how eating another human even a Godly one is ritualistic cannabalism?
Seems the RCC can't handle the fact the truth hurts.
What has become clear to me is aside from some sects problems with evolution Protestantism is far superior in terms of rationality to the RCC.
Posted by: Fr. J | July 10, 2008 1:41 PM
I find it fascinating that people are upset at a typo of "PZ's" name, but see no problem with desecrating a sacred object. Demanding respect while giving none is also juvenile. I would remind people that the University system in Europe and much in the US was founded by religious bodies. The Catholic Church values education. 259 I am not a creationist btw. 260, who invented nuclear weapons? Scientists not priests. Science does not have an unblemished record. Those who live in glass houses...267 I was unaware that you cannot purchase condoms at any drug store. I didn't realize the Swiss Guards were at your door making you obey our moral teachings. I have suffered great disrespect from homosexuals and in Canada they use "human rights" to restrict the human rights of Christians, so I am unimpressed with your diatribe. We do try to treat people with respect. Btw, in seminary I worked at a hospice for AID's patients that was run by the Catholic Church. Pretty hateful eh? 287 has it right when he questions Mr. MYERS professionalism. 327 I believe that I was illustrating to PZ that his bigotry could be turned against him. Save your anger for his actual bigotry. Also he could indeed be prosecuted. I will grant it would be up to the DA, but if he made a big production of it he could find himself in court. The same laws used to protect abortion clinics apply to churches. 330, simply an amazing amount of information and bigotry in just one post, congrats. 348, in fact there is a higher rate of abuse among teachers, sorry. The issue here is that this alleged professor is acting in a very unprofessional and juvenile manner. He does not have the right to walk into a church and pull a stunt like this. Actions are actionable. He can believe and speak as he wishes. I stand by what I said, either he was never taught respect and manners or he has ignored the lessons his poor parents tried to impart. Thanks to all who responded to my comment. God bless.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 1:42 PM
Just out of curiosity, don't the things that PZ has been saying violate Seed's Terms of Service? I know most web sites prohibit slander or hate speech. It's a judgment call, but vowing to desecrate a religion's holy things could be considered hate speech.
I'm pretty sure it's not, but you're welcome to contact SEED management and pursue your complaint.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 1:43 PM
Because it is just a cracker, but others are insisting that he treat it as something sacred. Really. Read.
"Admit" nothing. He's flat out saying it. That's entirely the point.
The assertion is that because some hold it sacred they are entitled to insist that everyone should. They aren't. And that's the point.
Your point is what?
The hypocrisy is entirely the point. They want others to respect and follow their beliefs while not having to extend the same courtesy to others.
Desecrating a religious symbol to expose the bigotry and hypocrisy of those who hold it sacred is fighting back against those who think that they should be allowed to force their beliefs on others.
Oh, good. Another "shut the fuck up and be polite" atheist. You probably would have told Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus and not make a scene.
Some people deserve to be offended. Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous. The idea that others have the right to insist that everyone hold the same beliefs they do is ridiculous.
And every one of you people who refuse to see the purpose behind this and call it "just being a jackass" are not just dismissing the argument without understanding it, you're refusing to acknowledge there's even one being made. It's about their intolerance. Until you acknowledge that, you have no point to make.
Posted by: Staash | July 10, 2008 1:44 PM
Why don't you draw a Mohammad cartoon while you're at it?
Oh, right.
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 1:44 PM
Oh no! We're disrespecting the people who called this a "hate crime", and "worse than a hate crime", and who wanted to have a student expelled over a cracker! What an awful lot of despicable and insensitive jerks are we!I think I must have overblown this. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go write a nice respectful and sensitive entry for the Catholic encyclopedia about the time they killed those Jews after accusing them of torturing the host.
Dickhead.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 10, 2008 1:45 PM
I think just leaving a few of them in a box somewhere (perhaps a safe deposit box) would produce the best effect: How long would outrage hold out? Would the Catholic Church sue for their return? How many people would try to steal it? What other ramifications would occur from this long term? If outrage went away, would it prevent anything like this from happening again?
Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 1:46 PM
That seems to be an admission that priests don't educate anyone in anything - at least not anything genuine and worthwhile. Priests apparently reserve the right to miseducate people (with misinformation and disinformation) though, since priests aren't being contrasted with miseducators (and hence they could be those).Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 1:47 PM
Brownian writes:
Just don't bother burning any Buddhist relics. The early Zen masters already did lots of that to demonstrate the folly of worshiping idols.
Wouldn't be a good idea to have done that in Tibet, until fairly recently. It's a good thing the Chinese came along and kicked out its theocratic despot (AKA: "the dalai lama") because it used to be that the lamas kept their people in ignorance and servitude and held the power of life and death over the populace.
Buddhism, as it has come to the US, is very watered-down. "Real buddhism" brought you such things like the kamikaze and the slaughter of the Tibetan "blue hat" lamas by the "yellow hat" lamas.
The ch'an (Zen) buddhists are a very small minority of buddhists. Taking buddhism as peaceful because of that small cult is like assuming christians are kind and loving because you met a few nice quakers.
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2008 1:48 PM
To all who want their beliefs respected, I say:
Get some respectable beliefs.
Posted by: sam green | July 10, 2008 1:48 PM
"The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is constitutionally protected speech. You are aware of that, are you not?"
Of course. It's still disrespectful. Not everything that is disrespectful and stupid is illegal.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 1:48 PM
I'd participate in that contest, but it calls for me going to the church to kidnap Jesus's little toe's pancaked in a cracker.
...I dunt wanna. Church sounds so boring. And it's on a sunday morning! I have things to do! Like sleep!
Posted by: Robin | July 10, 2008 1:48 PM
How sad that people can't have respect for others but I guess as long as your are a University teacher that make it fine. Okay every one grow up if you do not believe you have that right, don't go to the Catholic Church. You wnat respect please give it!
Posted by: Beowulff | July 10, 2008 1:48 PM
At Fr. j, #243:
Three things you're overlooking: First, all kids have parents, and all kids have teachers, but only Catholic kids have priests, so of course there are more kids suffering from parents and teachers than from priests. You'll have to look at the percentage of abusers in each group.I don't know the numbers, so I'm willing to accept for the sake of the argument that the percentage of abusers is lower among priests than among parents and teachers. So if other groups have a higher ratio of abusers, how does that make the abuse within the Catholic church any better?
And third, you're overlooking another major point: unlike parents and teachers, priests claim that they can give divine guidance on moral issues.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 1:49 PM
Fr J,
Can you tell us the following:
Do you support the right of a woman to have an abortion ?
Do you support allowing gays the right to marry ?
Do you support the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV ?
Unless you answer yes to all those questions I consider you to be a bigot who clearly has no respect for his fellow humans.
Unless you can answer yes to all of those then you deserve no respect. You complain about being abused by homosexuals in Canada ? Can I ask, have you ever called homosexuality a sin ? Have you ever stated you do not think gays should have the right to marry ? If so then you deserved that abuse. Rather than learn from it, and realise you are activly discriminating against them you decide they are to blame.
it is people like you who make a laughing stock of the Catholic church, and ensure that Catholic is seen as a synonym for mysogonistic, homophobic racist. If you object to that then stop being those things, and fight against what your church has to say on the matter.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2008 1:49 PM
False analogy.
Not getting a person's name right N times in a row indicates carelessness or indifference. The accusation of "desecrating a sacred object" not only presumes the conclusion — i.e., that there is anything sacred in or about a cracker — but also misses the point.
Sigh.
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 10, 2008 1:49 PM
For fuck's sake! What is wrong with these people?
I saw behavior better than this when I bumped a table and broke one of the cups my five-year-old niece was using for her tea party.
She didn't scold me for wasting tea.
So, fuck you, Bill Donohue. Grow the fuck up you worthless, gibbering, half-witted, rapist-loving man-child.
And, if you can't grow up, Bill, do humanity a favor and put a gun in your mouth, pull the trigger and do what you can to make up for the abuse humanity's suffered at the hands of your ridiculous, delusional, malicious cult.
It's a FUCKING CRACKER!.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | July 10, 2008 1:50 PM
PZ you don't get it. It doesn't matter that its just a cracker. Your behavior is both disrespectful and adolesent and not becomming of someone with a person in your position. Frankly, I am suprised you haven't been fired already.
If you are going to go around calling people fuckwits you should expect some backlash. You're not being persecuted be cause you are an atheist, you're be persecuted because you've been acting like a jerk. Having a pack of ditto-heads to reinforce your stupid behavior isn't helping you any either.
Posted by: Phil Doubet | July 10, 2008 1:51 PM
Jesus Christ, this is fun.
I propose PZ, that you turn a Krispy Kreme donut into the body of George Bush by simply saying some mumbo-jumbo over it, and then dunking it into a cup of coffee before consuming it. Maybe the Republican Police will arrest you.
Alternatively, according to the Catholic Church, you are allowed to have communion twice a day (if you attend two masses). You could make yourself a nice sandwich of some sort...maybe a Catholic Club Sandwich (with bacon, just to piss off the Jews too).
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 1:52 PM
As a Catholic, I believe that the Eucharist is the body of Christ.
Then you're an idiot.
Next?
Posted by: Zeno | July 10, 2008 1:52 PM
Do you know who Deal Hudson is? This fellow traveler of the Catholic League is a great moral leader ... when he's not having sex with one of his 18-year-old students. At least she wasn't a minor! (Or an altar boy.) More here, if you scroll down to the second part of my post.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 1:53 PM
I look down and there's a hundred more posts.
Must. Read. Faster.
"Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in."
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 1:54 PM
Beowulff,
One could take Fr J's defence of Catholic priests as condoning child abuse. It is ok to abuse children as long as you do not belong to a group that are the worst offenders.
He also chose to ignore the fact that parents or teachers found to have been abusing children will go to prison, and in the case of teachers will never get to teach again. Maybe he thinks all groups go in for the cover up the Catholic church does. That he is still a priest after it has become known the Church covered up child abuse really tells us a lot about his value system. Anyone with integrity would have quit in disgust.
Posted by: Maragon | July 10, 2008 1:54 PM
All of this 'respect our cracker beliefs' rhetoric strikes me as hilarious.
I don't have to respect your faith based beliefs that have no basis in reality - I have to TOLERATE them. And when you try to use said unsubstantiated beliefs to get a man fired - well then don't expect us to not examine your fallacious claims critically.
Posted by: Endor | July 10, 2008 1:54 PM
Funny how it's always misogyny that these boys resort too. Can't even pretend not to be derranged bigots for a few minutes.
it's a frigging cracker. Time to give up the imaginary friends; you're adults ffs.
Time to give up the misogyny too - it's old, moldy and stinks real bad.
Posted by: IAMB | July 10, 2008 1:54 PM
@ #277
yob tvoyu mat,
Also, I banged your mom.
Ummm... isn't that a little redundant?
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 1:55 PM
So what? Where did you ever get the idea that being disrespectful is Not To Be Done(TM) regardless of the reason?
Intolerance does not deserve respect.
Posted by: --PatF in Madison | July 10, 2008 1:55 PM
THIS IS THE THREAD THAT WILL NOT END!!
I read the first 200 replies and refreshed the window to find there were now over three hundred! After reading the next hundred I found there were 425!
WE CAN'T ESCAPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Larry | July 10, 2008 1:55 PM
I'm surprised they didn't issue the "My taxes pay Myers' salary" canard which, as we all know, allows them 100% total approval on anything he says or does 24/7.
Posted by: Damian | July 10, 2008 1:55 PM
The most insidious aspect of all of this is the sheer hypocrisy of saying that we should all "live and let live", and "respect others beliefs", while at the same time asking people not to do as they wish (within the law, obviously).
Here's the thing: Freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, etc, means that we all have the right to do as we wish, as long as it's within the law. It's about time that people got their priorities in order. There is much horror in this world, and most of the reactions to what is going on elsewhere are pretty pathetic, if you ask me. That is what we should all be offended by, not some stupid religious ritual.
And I'm sorry, it doesn't matter how often you tell me that your particular ritual is important to you, it won't change my opinion that it is ridiculous. You have every right to believe as you wish, but I am under no obligation to respect it.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 1:55 PM
It's [flag burning] still disrespectful.
Disrespect can be earned. Flag burners are operating off a sincere belief in the immoral acts connected to the symbol they are burning. Eucharist heisters are doing the same. You may disagree with both of them, but you can't abridge their rights to do such acts.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 1:56 PM
sam green #370: "Desecrating a religious symbol for entertainment is an act of profound disrespect."
Yeah, so what? I'm in favor of desecrating all religious symbols. Anything that insults bible thumpers should and must be done. I'm quite sick of daily suicide bombings, the two religious wars I have to help pay for, brainwashing of gullible children, and never ending attacks on science education. All religions are a curse on the human race, and all religions must be eradicated. The only possible way to do this is ridicule. Nothing else works. To be religious should be as disgraceful as being a racist. All religious people, no matter how moderate they are, should be attacked relentlessly.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 1:56 PM
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer writes:
If you are going to go around calling people fuckwits you should expect some backlash.
I hope I'm the first:
You're a fuckwit.
Posted by: matthew pickard | July 10, 2008 1:56 PM
I wrote a letter in support of PZ.
_______________________________
President Robert Bruininks,
I urge you not to give into the Bill Donohue and the Catholic League's pressure, if they offer any at all.
I fully stand behind PZ and his comments regarding this non-issue of a communion wafer.
It's fortunate that we live in a country that does not have blaspheme laws.
PZ is a wonderful educator and I learn more from his blog than any one else.
Thank you for time.
Best regards,
Matthew C Pickard
Hartland, Wisconsin
_______________________________
Next, Donohoue will receive a respectful piece of my mind.
//m
Posted by: Melm | July 10, 2008 1:57 PM
Let the battle of the cracker begin!
Posted by: Tsugradstudent | July 10, 2008 1:57 PM
Just out of curiosity, don't the things that PZ has been saying violate Seed's Terms of Service?
--Actually, it doesn't.
http://scienceblogs.com/channel/about.php
We believe in providing our bloggers with the freedom to exercise their own editorial and creative instincts. We do not edit their work and we do not tell them what to write about.
We have selected our 60+ bloggers based on their originality, insight, talent, and dedication and how we think they would contribute to the discussion at ScienceBlogs. Our role, as we see it, is to create and continue to improve this forum for discussion, and to ensure that the rich dialogue that takes place at ScienceBlogs resonates outside the blogosphere
Posted by: AWMTI | July 10, 2008 1:59 PM
BobC #312
"I believe in the Resurrection of the Body," as the Nicene Creed puts it. Briefly, while I find the Gospel accounts to be convincing, they deserve serious consideration. Alternatively, one must concoct a strictly naturalist explantion for the continued existence, through two thousand years, of the Catholic Church.
Next to the Resurrection, transubstantiating Oneself into a "cracker" is a simple matter for God.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 1:59 PM
Of course PZ is being disrepectful. I am as well. A good number of the other posters here are being disrepectful also. There is a reason for this.
Belief that a bit of wafer can become the body of Christ is not deserving of respect. It is such a foolish belief, based on no evidence at all, it is surprising that there a people willing to admit to holding that belief.
And what about respect for science and reason ? I hold those things to be important, as does PZ. Believing that a wafer turns into the body of Christs is not exactly respecting the belief that reason and science are important is it ? Why the disrespect shown by PZ, myself et al wrong, and yet the disprect shown by Catholics OK ?
Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 1:59 PM
He can't quit, he's religious and it goes with the territory (unless he joins the ranks of recovering former delusion-addicts and ceases being religious). If he has the requisite magic powers though, he might do you a side order of transubstantiated accusations ...Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 1:59 PM
Flag burners are operating off a sincere belief in the immoral acts connected to the symbol they are burning. Eucharist heisters are doing the same.
Revising my remarks ...
The host heisters might just be making fun of the supposed divinity of the cracker instead of protesting any kind of immorality.
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 1:59 PM
We certainly do. And you're not in a stone-age tribe living in the jungle without access to libraries or the internet. You have no excuse for believing something so stupid as that a wafer is Jesus Christ after it becomes consecrated.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 1:59 PM
Just want to correct something I've read at least twice above. Condoms do not prevent the spread of the HIV virus... we were taught that back in high school. Surely that's common knowledge? Please tell me that's common knowledge...?
Posted by: Staash | July 10, 2008 1:59 PM
Freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom to act like a rebellious, adolescent twit.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 2:00 PM
If they are going to insist that everyone treat their religious symbols with the same respect they do, they should expect to be called fuckwits. PZ is acting in response to their intolerance. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.
He's being persecuted for not believing a cracker is the body of Christ. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.
Posted by: Mena | July 10, 2008 2:00 PM
Having a pack of ditto-heads to reinforce your stupid behavior isn't helping you any either.
Um, does that make it something besides a cracker?
As for Donahue, why do these people always try to get people fired? It's not like they themselves hold down a regular job, they are just being offended loud mouths for fun and profit. Another grating whore babbling on...
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 2:00 PM
More koran envy detected @ #409. Thanks for playing Staash, now go into the archive and realize what an idiot you are.
Posted by: SteveM | July 10, 2008 2:00 PM
"The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is constitutionally protected speech. You are aware of that, are you not?"
Of course. It's still disrespectful.
That's the point. If I don't respect you, I should be allowed to express that disrespect. There is a difference between respecting your right to believe something stupid, and respecting that belief itself. The whole point of flag burning is to express one's disrepect for the actions of that flag's government, just a s desecrating a eucharist is to express disrepect for the actions of those who sanctify it.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 10, 2008 2:02 PM
Re ThePetey@385
You do realize computers don't use "TUBES" for memory storage and I'm fairly sure "TUBES" stopped being used in electronics decades ago.
Obviously, you are not aware of all internet traditions. Perhaps this will be informative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8
Shorter Stephens: I'm in ur internet fillin ur t00bz.
Posted by: MartinM | July 10, 2008 2:02 PM
Stop altogether? No. But they're highly effective at preventing transmission; if you were taught otherwise in high school, you were lied to.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 2:03 PM
Robin writes:
You wnat respect please give it!
I don't want respect that comes so cheaply that it's given in return for mere lip-service. I want hard-won respect. The kind that's worth having. The kind that's earned - not simply because of the fact that I have opinions, or a metabolism.
How do you earn respect? There are lots of ways. First off, you could be big enough and tough enough to stomp a hole through me. Or you might be smarter than me. Or, simply, you might be right about something, and be able to convince me of it with evidence, argument, wit, humor, or reason. You might be more creative than me, or your actions might strike awe in my heart.
But respect is not something I trade one-for-one. I don't want that kind of cheap shit respect; the kind you're trading.
And you haven't earned mine.
Posted by: The Other Dan from Milwaukee | July 10, 2008 2:04 PM
Wait ... I think I can see it now ...
"A college professor is castigated by a shadow conspiracy for bucking the establishment with his "anti-cracker" theories. All he wants to do is open a discussion on other possible interpretation of the cracker, but he is met only with rejection and ridicule."
... it's Ben Stein's NEXT movie!!! (Working title: BAKED!)
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 10, 2008 2:04 PM
This whole 'respect my beliefs'... or else suffer legal consequences thing... it creates some real practical difficulties, I find.
I mean, let's say (and this is entirely hypothetical, honest) I were to read the pompous pontification of a putative priest in a certain blog's comment section, and physically just couldn't quite stifle the laughter. In that case, would I still be subject to legal action if someone saw me? I mean, let's say the coppers were to catch me red-faced, the knuckle of my own thumb in my mouth, biting down hard enough to cause pain, and still, snickers were escaping around it. I'm trying not to laugh, really (sure, only out of fear of criminal prosecution, but I'm trying). So am I still liable?
And if I do face trial, can I at least make a case that at a certain level of absurdity, the behaviour of the aggrieved mockee clearly qualifies as entrapment? Is there an out for that? Can my lawyer simply intone: 'Your honour, I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid, but dammit, you'd have laughed, too...'?
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 2:04 PM
*facepalm* Was your high school of the Catholic variety, by any chance?Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:05 PM
"Just want to correct something I've read at least twice above. Condoms do not prevent the spread of the HIV virus... we were taught that back in high school. Surely that's common knowledge? Please tell me that's common knowledge...?"
Sad to say it is true. Condom use (unless you stick it over your head) does reduce the HIV infection rate. Unless you are a Catholic priest that is, in which case you have the right to tell your flock they in fact help the spread. You can just see all that Christian love at work there. It must take a lot effort to think encouraging behaviour that increases people's chances of getting HIV and dying of AIDS is doing god's work. All I can say if that really is their god, then fuck him.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 10, 2008 2:07 PM
Neural T. #391
You might want to take a look at the terms;
http://scienceblogs.com/main/terms/
So I think that's clear, the notion of hatespeech you are refering to might exist and might be unlawful in some countries, but not in the USA.
Again, I'll refer you to my post #242 for a closer examination of the legal precedents of such an issue in the USA.
Even if PZ did desecrate some Eucharists, this would still be considered as "closely akin to 'pure speech.'" and perfectly lawful. As far as expressing his opinion on this blog, he is well within his rights even within religious harrassment laws, whether or not they are "disparaging ", are made "for the purpose of exposing [an other religion] to contempt and ridicule ", or fail to "exhibit adequate sensitivity to [another's] feelings."
So, your concerned curiosity is noted, but not required.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 10, 2008 2:07 PM
Gasp! The University must set up a firewall and block student access to all sites Bill Donohue finds objectionable; it's the only decent thing to do. Won't someone think of the children?Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 2:07 PM
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer:
pfffft. Why would anyone respect your opinion? You have an extremely high opinion of yourself, yet I can't figure out for the life of me why. I'll give you props for designing software, but really, you are clearly not an intellectual (although you pretend to be one), you're ugly ( your wife's no great painting either) and you offer no new thoughts or ideas.
Sorry, the wife thing was uncalled for, but everything else is true.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 2:08 PM
Ah, well that's good to hear. I remember them telling us that you can still transmit it even with condoms, but hey, if it's reducing the spread, good! It just seemed like the comments above were implying it totally prevented the spread...
Posted by: TheNaturalist | July 10, 2008 2:10 PM
"I do, however, expect you to give me the respect to eat what I believe to be the Body of Christ in peace.
When you fail to show basic respect, and, worse, when you applaud those who so fail, you come across as inconsiderate jerks."
Let me break it down for you: nobody is OWED respect. Ideas EARN respect based on merit. If you go around saying the sky is green and REALLY, REALLY believe it and would cry if i make fun your your irrational belief, am I OBLIGED to humbly bow my head and not contradict you?
The idea of transubstantiation is ludicrious on the face of it and does not deserve any kind of respect. Truth cannot be subordinated to peoples feelings. Reality doesn't work that way.
Silly, pointless (maybe even dangerous) ideas deserve mockery. It does serve a purpose. Mockery is a rhetorical tool that highlights the absurdities of bad ideas. Just ask Johnathan Swift. Maybe somebody will wake up and smell the coffee because of it.
Posted by: matthew pickard | July 10, 2008 2:10 PM
One thing I know for certain, the magic wafer is not Jesus foreskin. Hey, which brings to mind...what part of Jesus are you eating anyway?
Posted by: Jacob | July 10, 2008 2:11 PM
I find it humorous that a college professor employed by a respected state institution would publicly use such insulting and juvenile language towards Catholics. While the Catholic League, as angry as it may be, shows restrain in its speech, the intelligent, educated atheist PZ Myers responds with name-calling: "extortionists", "witch hunters", "purblind ideological bigot". Surely, this is a technique
To desecrate the Eucharist is to desecrate the body of Christ. This is what I believe as a Catholic. You may not believe as I do - which I understand. However, to take something we see as so holy and wantonly desecrate it, with the sole end of insulting us, is nothing short of bigotry. And to call Donahue a "bigot", as Myers does, because of Donahue's opposition to his own anti-Catholic bigotry, is the height of hypocrisy - something Catholicism has been accused on numerous times in the comments on this blog entry. The anti-Catholics posting here should examine their own hearts rather than accusing the church of traits they themselves possess in abundance.
Posted by: Dean | July 10, 2008 2:11 PM
From 455:
" it's Ben Stein's NEXT movie!!! (Working title: BAKED!)"
Perhaps a better title would be "Half Baked"?
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 2:12 PM
SteveM @ 386,
Thanks, I see your point. I should have probably just mentioned his father as being a parent and left it at that. Assuming it wasn't ANOTHER virgin birth.
Posted by: aratina | July 10, 2008 2:12 PM
Damn, this whole cracker story is just gut-busting funny! "A student walked out of Mass with the Host, holding it hostage for several days." Even more funny that they are actually so afraid of what you will do with the cracker should you get one. How the hell have the Catholics been hiding this one from the public for so long? It puts the Scientologists and Mormon fundamentalists to shame. Now these self-purported cannibals want to resort to Inquisition-like tactics, a witch hunt is what it is, to coddle their credulous minds? Someone needs to start consecrating wafers of Xanax for these monsters, up the doses of jeebuzz blood during their holy communion, or trade out their incense for hashish to calm them the F down.
Posted by: sam green | July 10, 2008 2:12 PM
"That's the point. If I don't respect you, I should be allowed to express that disrespect. There is a difference between respecting your right to believe something stupid, and respecting that belief itself. The whole point of flag burning is to express one's disrepect for the actions of that flag's government, just a s desecrating a eucharist is to express disrepect for the actions of those who sanctify it."
I know, I know. There is no law against disrespect, and there is certainly a place for it in legal protest.
My whole point was about PZ's university's requirement that he treat others with respect, and his denial that he was being disrespectful of others. Most of the people disagreeing with me have nevertheless agreed that PZ's proposed cracker abuse would be disrespectful of "others", contrary to his own denial.
Prediction: PZ will not go through with the threat. Someone will talk some sense into him.
Posted by: Danio | July 10, 2008 2:13 PM
Just a wild guess: that wouldn't happen to have been a Catholic high school you attended, would it, Snitzels?
Condoms are indisputably the best protection against contracting HIV through sexual transmission. Asked and answered.
Posted by: Beowulff | July 10, 2008 2:13 PM
At Matt Penfold, #427:
Yeah, that was what I was trying to say in my second point. I also considered adding the difference in cover-up strategies, but didn't feel like I could find a good way of saying it, so thanks for adding that. Note that schools have also been caught at trying to cover up abuse scandals, but that generally has lead to the replacement of the school boards responsible. I've yet to hear of a bishop or cardinal getting in trouble over trying to cover up an abuse scandal.
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 2:13 PM
"All I can say if that really is their god, then fuck him."
Atta boy, Matt! Glad to have you back.
(Really - what was that anecdote up the thread about?)
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 2:13 PM
mox #378 wrote:
I like this. I think that if PZ does go through with a Public Desecration, it should be something clever and thought-provoking.
As I mentioned on the other thread, I'm not all that keen on PZ Myer disemboweling a holy cracker or whatever in the first place, mostly because I think it's a waste of PZ. It's Angy Teenage AthIEst stuff, and too easy for people to miss the more subtle, thoughtful, intelligent arguments which lie behind the act.
Hehehe. Yeah, but they're there. PZ can write. He's clever. Shrewd. Insightful.
So now he's going to have to figure out how to do this thing he's going to do, and make it clever, shrewd, insightful, and funny, and not juvenile or trashy or trite. He's going to have to make it somehow clear that the real issue isn't just transubstatiation being silly (though it is) -- it's the over-reaction to a rather dull act of "sacrilege." There are a lot of points to get in, and if he pisses on Jesus they're going to get lost in the whole "look, he pissed on Jesus" thing. His incisive prose, philosophical perception, and solid scientific approach to religion will get lost behind an image of something any schoolkid could do, while snickering.
I'm not being a concern troll here telling him not to do it (ok suggesting it a bit, maybe, but certainly not telling.) But I am getting a bit excited now wondering how the heck he's going to pull it all off.
Posted by: j | July 10, 2008 2:13 PM
If you have to commit sacrilege, why the cracker and not the wine?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:14 PM
"Ah, well that's good to hear. I remember them telling us that you can still transmit it even with condoms, but hey, if it's reducing the spread, good! It just seemed like the comments above were implying it totally prevented the spread..."
No, not totally but the reduction is substantial. In my opinion active opposition to their use for transmission prevention is a crime against humanity. At the very least anyone taking such a position has lost any respect for any views or opinions they may have.
Posted by: stevogvsu | July 10, 2008 2:15 PM
j,
It's true. tea bagging the wine is a definite possibility.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 2:15 PM
Bill:
Send me $1 million in unmarked bills if you ever want to see your cracker again.
If I haven't received the money within 24 hours I'll start sending your cracker back to you piece by piece, crumb by crumb.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 2:16 PM
@470 no, not catholic HS, but perhaps the health teacher was trying to scare us...
Posted by: Fr. J | July 10, 2008 2:16 PM
403, actually what he would accomplish is enshrining the right to disrupt worship services and persecute Christians. He is throwing a temper tantrum. Persecution is traditionally what atheists have done. 100 million dead in the last century due to atheism. You have nothing to be proud of. The inquisition was enlightened comparatively. Having reviewed many of the posts here I invite you to re-read them. The hatred and bigotry expressed by PZ and his friends is simply astonishing.
Here is from the California penal code and I am sure Minnesota has something similar:
California Penal Code § 302 (2007)
(a) Every person who intentionally disturbs or disquiets any assemblage of people met for religious worship at a tax-exempt place of worship, by profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or by any unnecessary noise, either within the place where the meeting is held, or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of the meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
The US Code says:
§ 247. Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs
(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b) of this section--
(1) intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or
(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).
(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).
(f) As used in this section, the term "religious real property" means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship.
Any good lawyer could make a case given these laws. The Eucharist is a "religious object." Other people have been arrested for such behavior in churches. The courts have ruled that the right of people to worship in their church is greater then the free speech rights of those who would disrupt such worship (Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Lady Cage-Barile.) I am a canon lawyer btw. If he actually does this I would hope they would prosecute him and protect our right to religious liberty.
Posted by: Aric | July 10, 2008 2:18 PM
B.'s last word before signing off was that the law would allow the Catholic Church to exclude people from its property or sacraments, but that the Church doesn't. That's not right. The Church does exclude people from its sacraments. It might have extremely weak, even ludicrous, means of enforcing that limitation, but the limitation exists. Not sure exactly what flows from that distinction, but I thought it was worth making.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 2:18 PM
@Adam Janke
You are making it to easy, there's plenty in the archive that muslims wouldn't apreciate and you are number three at least who goes for the selfcentered argument that we wouldn't say something bad about muslims, the only reason you and your sectarian friends make that stupid argument is because you would never bother to look here if it wasn't your own silly magic being offended. What a childish thing to say anyway.
Catholics are leading in the contest among christian sects for the most comments with koran envy. I'm hoping we can piss off other sects soon, otherwise you'll be on top for a while.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 2:18 PM
I fully agree. I never understood the religious position of preventing protection...
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 10, 2008 2:19 PM
Oh great, now Jesus is a Scientologist! Wasn't the plot complicated enough for ya, Dustin?
Now who's gonna play Him in the movies? John Travolta's already the Archangel Michael and Tom Cruise is already a Nazi (surprise twist - he becomes Pope!), so it'll have to be Wil Smith. Kirstie Allie can play love interest Mary Magdalene - we'll let her eat him and afterwards she can hawk a cracker-only diet plan.
Tentacular horrors, gotta work tentacular horrors into it somehow. And volcanoes, everybody loves exploding volcanoes... Can we throw Katie Holmes in it? Better check with Legal, once they're done with the cracker kidnap case.
Posted by: John F. | July 10, 2008 2:20 PM
I would think that a professor would show tolerance and respect for other people's views. Why is it so necessary to show such vileness towards the Catholic religion? Are you afraid they may be right? Does all your science answer all your questions? I pity those who have no faith beyond their own intellect.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 2:20 PM
This seems to have some of the elements of the Andres Serrano controversy of the 80s. The big difference being, of course, that the blog is something that PZ does on his own time, and Serranos' work was partially paid for by an NEA grant. And 'Piss Christ' was actually a work of religious devotion.
OK, the cases are not alike at all. Ha ha.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | July 10, 2008 2:20 PM
Late to the party here, but Donohue's use of "Paul Zachary Myers" just reminded me of A. A. Milne, and James James Morrison Morrison...
Paul Paul
Zachary Zachary
Myers ("PZ" for short)
Blogs his opinions freely;
Never asks what god hath wrought.
Paul Paul said to the godbot
"Godbot," said Paul, said PZ:
"You must never adore
Just a cracker (no more!)
While your god's an illusion, you see!"
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 2:21 PM
Here we go....
Posted by: Josh West | July 10, 2008 2:22 PM
#465
"The anti-Catholics posting here should examine their own hearts rather than accusing the church of traits they themselves possess in abundance."
My heart is made of cardiac muscle and several valves. What's that got to do with child-molesting priests and death threats to cracker-stealers?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 2:22 PM
I hate you for that. I wish you could un-think something.
Posted by: Randomfactor | July 10, 2008 2:22 PM
You guys know you can buy communion wafers on eBay, right?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Unleaven-Communion-Wafer-100-Cups-Church-Jesus-God_W0QQitemZ160245389046QQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 2:22 PM
AWMTI #441: ""I believe in the Resurrection of the Body," as the Nicene Creed puts it. Briefly, while I find the Gospel accounts to be convincing, they deserve serious consideration. Alternatively, one must concoct a strictly naturalist explantion for the continued existence, through two thousand years, of the Catholic Church. Next to the Resurrection, transubstantiating Oneself into a "cracker" is a simple matter for God."
The continued existence of the Catholic Church and all other religions can be easily explained. These idiotic medieval beliefs survive today thanks to the abusive brainwashing of young children.
Anything is simple matter for your Magic Man. Your sky fairy can do anything. That's why only the most insane gullible people believe in it. When people are brainwashed to believe in the invisible man, all reality becomes meaningless. They live in a fantasy world where miracles occur every day. These retards would not be a problem if they kept their disease to themselves, but instead they pass on their disease to their children, and they try to infect other people's children. They deserve nothing but ridicule and contempt.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 2:22 PM
One thing I've noticed in this thread are the many (well, several at least) people castigating PZ Myers for his threats of committing blasphemy yet ignoring the fact that his blogs have been a reaction of Webster Cook being harassed and even getting death threats. Death threats! I mean, you could at least start your posts with, "I don't approve of the zealots over-reaction against Webster Cook, but...."
You really don't see why some "militant atheists" find you fascist apologists as a thread to civilized society?
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 2:23 PM
Fr. J @406,
"who invented nuclear weapons? Scientists not priests."
What a stupid argument.
Which has killed more people? Which has caused more human misery? Religion or nuclear weapons? We all know the answer to that.
Personally, I wish neither existed. You, however are just fine with one of them. The one that has and continues to deal the most death and pain.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:23 PM
"Really - what was that anecdote up the thread about?"
The one about my mum ?
I just find it rather amusing. And it does show that not all Catholics are horrible bigots. It is just a pity that such people still feel the need to label themselves as Catholics. If the liberal Catholics spoke out, and told the Pope to shape up or piss off the world might be a better place.
My maternal grandfather was Catholic, although not a very devout one I think. He got threatened with excommunication twice. Once for telling a Catholic friend to stop being an idiot and to go to his son's wedding even if it was taking place in an Anglican church. The second for saying that if you really wanted to talk to god you could do so anywhere, and there was nothing special about being a Church to do so.
I have an odd, and totally unearned, sense of pride that my grandfather nearly got excommunicated. Twice.
Posted by: Dyslexic Atheist | July 10, 2008 2:24 PM
They're praparing a stake for you?
Hey, PZ got invited to a Catholic League BBQ!
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 2:25 PM
"Father" J quoted the California penal code thusly:
Aha, notice the stipulation about the religious object *being* in the place of religious worship. If we PZ fans send PZ the consecrated host wafers we've spirited away from Masses in our own various parts of the country, then they are effectively removed from "places of religious worship". He can desecrate away. Problem solved!
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 2:25 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It was only a matter of time.
Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2008 2:25 PM
Catholics get their rocks off on desecrating their divine boy wonder every time they venerate crucifixes. Jebus' desecration is why they are so happy, it saved them!
Some catholic apologist earlier in the thread bleated about the need to respect the beliefs of the billion Catholics in the world (I suppose because it a billion, that is, a lot, if there was just one Catholic, then respect is not required).
There are many more racists and sexists in the world, and I don't respect their beliefs either. These pathetic, brain-dead, addicted-to-myth religious aholes propose an exchange of respect? I got news for you, I don't want or need your respect, and you certainly don't have my respect for your useless and dangerous beliefs.
The religites just don't get it, do they? No more tacit respect for your deranged beliefs. None. Not a bit. Or an iota. What frickin' part of this do they not understand?
The monk and the priest that posted earlier? What creepy creeps, peddling their crapola as if it is not the shit that it is.
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 10, 2008 2:26 PM
Fr. J. "100 million dead in the last century due to atheism. "
Ok, we can stop listening to you now. You clearly have to get dressed for your IDIOT PRIDE parade.
It's one thing to foist old lies on the credulous. It's an entirely different thing to try to foist the same long-dismissed lies on people who know better.
Why don't you just tell us Hitler was an Atheist to the sound of the last scrap of your credibility being flushed down the toilet?
Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 2:26 PM
Jacob:
To desecrate the Eucharist is to desecrate the body of Christ. This is what I believe as a Catholic.
And nobody here is saying you don't have a right to believe that. Just as we have the right to call you an absolute, unmitigated wackadoodle moron for it.
You may not believe as I do - which I understand.
How gracious of you.
However, to take something we see as so holy and wantonly desecrate it, with the sole end of insulting us, is nothing short of bigotry.
Look the word up, idiot. Ridicule is not intolerance.
And to call Donahue a "bigot", as Myers does, because of Donahue's opposition to his own anti-Catholic bigotry,
Donahue expressed intolerance. Which makes him a bigot.
Please remember who is telling who what to do here. You can have your magic cookie and eat it, too.
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 2:26 PM
"It's true. tea bagging the wine is a definite possibility"
No, if the food or wine is tainted (god, I love that pun) in any way and someone else consumes it, then you have committed a crime punishable by prison and/or hefty fines. You don't want to get caught fucking with anyone elses' food, eucharist or not. What you do to it for your own sole(soul?) consumption is no one elses' business though.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 2:27 PM
Fr. J ...
Criticizing someone's ethnicity is bigotry. Criticizing someone's gender is bigotry.
Criticizing an idea someone has can be wrong, it can be right, it can be a matter of opinion, it can be rude, it can be lots of things, but it can NEVER be bigotry.
Your religious beliefs are idiotic. They are insane. They are dangerous. Criticizing your beliefs is NOT bigotry, can never be bigotry. Your belief that it is is stupid and needs to be criticized.
But more importantly, your insane beliefs need to be criticized because delusional people like yourself have power over people's lives.
You have a choice, FR. Wake up and lose your delusional beliefs, or learn to be able to live with and cherish your insanity while hearing it properly criticized.
We're not going away.
Posted by: cat_attendant | July 10, 2008 2:27 PM
Aric @ 324:
...the Professor is solely seeking to persuade to the truth of the proposition that "Catholic faith in the Eucharist is incorrect."
Every journey begins with a single step.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 2:28 PM
The death threats. Right. Christian thugs are constantly threatening people. Their favorite target is biology teachers. I never noticed any atheist here threatening to murder or physically harm Christian morons, but Christians do this all the time. The Dover Judge and his family received many death threats from Christians. Imagine threatening a person who refused to eat a tiny piece of bread. Only a Christian asshole could do this.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 2:28 PM
Fr. J, #479: 100 million dead in the last century due to atheism.
Yeah, let's count all the dead bodies by each side, and which ever one has a smaller pile is the good guy.
Is this really how your moral calculus works?
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 2:29 PM
"I have suffered great disrespect from homosexuals and in Canada they use "human rights" to restrict the human rights of Christians, so I am unimpressed with your diatribe."
In living memory, Fr. J, Canadian Catholics participated in genocidal acts against Indians... but I'm sure you're up in arms because they'd interrupt Mass on account of it.
Right now, people are dying of Aids because missionaries from your Church told people not to use condoms and spread lies indicating condoms caused Aids.
Right now, an ex-Nazi who wrote official documents giving instructions on how to conceal pedophile priests sits as Pope.
That some gays gave you 'sass' is none of our concern. You're the one who wears dresses, after all.
And as for starting Universities...
You burned Alexandria. You burned the books in the New World. Don't pretend you're "pro-knowledge."
Those Arabs you seem to hate so much are the ones who saved the Ancient Greek texts... and they saved them from you. Funny how you squat atop the Roman Empire, but only in post-Arabic Madrid do we find preserved knowledge.
Posted by: AWMTI | July 10, 2008 2:29 PM
The idea of transubstantiation is ludicrious on the face of it and does not deserve any kind of respect.
It's only ludicrous if you're assuming a strictly materialistic universe. You have no grounds upon which to condemn transubstantiation apart from that assumption.
Ridicule if you'd like; the end result is that indifferent onlookers are going to wonder why PZ and company get their jollies from acting like prodigious pricks.
Posted by: Wade Nichols | July 10, 2008 2:29 PM
Wow! PZ Myers, this is cutting edge stuff you're doing!
Engaging a bunch of......Catholics!!!!.....in an intellectual debate!!!!!
That's mighty brave of you!
That's almost as bold as shooting fish in a barrel!
What do you have in store for round II?
You gonna take on.......Mormons!?!?!?!?
Brilliant satire!!! You're obviously the Galileo of our age!!!! A noble freedom fighter!!!! Why, you're bolder than Galileo and Darwin combined!!!!!! Keep up the noble fight!!!!!
Posted by: Ted | July 10, 2008 2:31 PM
Comments comparing desecration of the host to eating beef or using a light on the Sabbath are ridiculous -- Catholics don't object to the desecration of crackers, only of the body of Christ. If you enter a Catholic Church and accept the host under false pretenses, that's completely different from expressing opinions in an open forum or going about your life oblivious of others' beliefs.
I doubt any of you atheists are inclined to attack the central religious symbols of Native Americans, Buddhists, Muslims, etc., because you don't have the same weirdo hang-ups about them, and you know it's wrong to express hatred for at least these politically correct groups.
Posted by: Akheloios | July 10, 2008 2:31 PM
Just signing this thread to say I'm supporting PZ Myers' actions in this.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:31 PM
"I would think that a professor would show tolerance and respect for other people's views. Why is it so necessary to show such vileness towards the Catholic religion? Are you afraid they may be right? Does all your science answer all your questions? I pity those who have no faith beyond their own intellect."
Why would you think that ? Can you offer your justification for thinking that ? Merely stating that is what you think just tells us you don't.
Can science answer all my questions ? No. It cannot tell me what to have for dinner. It has answered a whole load of questions I find fascinating, such as how did humans come be here. It is trying to answer even more fascinating questions, such as how did life begin. We have some pretty good ideas but also much still to learn. I find that to be something that gives me a great deal of intellectual and emoitional satisfaction. Looking up at the night sky and knowing about the stars, planets and galaxies is heady stuff.
What answers has religion given us ? None. At least none that stand up to scrutiny. The answers given by religion all lead back to one thing. God. And god is not the answer. God is something that were he to exist would need explaining.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 2:31 PM
"I simply ask Prof. Myers to respect my beliefs and refrain from his proposed action."
Why should he respect your beliefs? They're idiotic.
People get very confused over this issue. We're supposed to respect your RIGHT to your beliefs, and we do, he does. You have every right to believe whatever you want.
But the beliefs themselves? If they're delusional idiocy, they don't deserve respect. You have ever right to belief wackadoodle bullshit, and we respect your right to believe your wackadoodle bullshit.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 2:33 PM
@AWMTI
Ridicule if you'd like; the end result is that indifferent onlookers are going to wonder why PZ and company get their jollies from acting like prodigious pricks.
I'm sorry, did you happen to miss the death threats over a cracker by catholic nutjobs?
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 2:33 PM
Fr. J,
Forgot to ask you another question or two. Which has actually healed more people, extended their lifetimes, made them healthier and happier during their years here on Earth? Religion or scientists?
How many people did your religion protect against Polio? The Plague? Which would you rather have your child have, an MMR shot to keep him healthy, or that magic cracker of yours? You know the truth in your heart. You just are to weak to acknowledge it.
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 2:33 PM
Fr. J #479 wrote:
The laws you cited had to do with trespassing into a church, committing vandalism towards property, or disrupting a service. As far as I can tell, PZ intends none of this.
What is it then you think he is going to do?
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 2:33 PM
@507: The gentlemen in the room thank you for that complement.
As for the strictly materialist universe, it does happen to be the one that we live in, and can test, and it seems to run quite well, even if all of the participants in it don't get along well. BTW, which version of the non-materialist universe are you saying is correct? The one with Zues, Ygrdrassil, Yahweh, Dreamtime,.....?
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | July 10, 2008 2:34 PM
'However, to take something we see as so holy and wantonly desecrate it, with the sole end of insulting us, is nothing short of bigotry.'
Think of it as proving you wrong, rather than bigotry. If you're - for example, hypothetically, for sake of argument - being taught something that's blithering rubbish, surely you'd want to know that? It may be painful to confront the truth, but in the stories about Them, God and Jesus are both big on truth.
If the consecrated wafer 'is' the body of Christ in any of the many ways 'is' can be defined, it should be easy enough for PZ to (a) prove it and (b) unify the Templeton and Nobel Prizes this year. Squid and crackers all round at the celebration luncheon.
If it 'is' in some obscure mystery cult pretend way that only Catholics believe and even they can't understand let alone explain, then why worry what some non-Catholic tells you?
Respect the stupid believer, hate the stupid beliefs, I say.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 2:34 PM
Obviously, the best thing to do here is not to simply do something funny with the eucharist. That'd be funny but - why not learn something??
Personally, I'd enjoy getting one of the un-magicked wafers and doing some weight/composition analysis on it, then comparing it with the post-magicked version to see if there are signs of jesus present. You, know, a myth-busters style assessment of the jesusness of the eucharist. It might be interesting to see if a catholic priest could reliably determine a post-magicked "piece of jesus" from one of its un-magicked counterparts.
I'm guessing it wouldn't be hard to get a catholic priest to participate in such an experiement - since some of the catholics here appear to be highly confident in the expected results. Right?
Besides, if it were true, we'd then have the DNA of jesus, and that'd be some pretty cool stuff to have. Or, it might just turn out that the whole thing is bullshit. See? Science and religion can co-exist!!!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:34 PM
"Comments comparing desecration of the host to eating beef or using a light on the Sabbath are ridiculous -- Catholics don't object to the desecration of crackers, only of the body of Christ. If you enter a Catholic Church and accept the host under false pretenses, that's completely different from expressing opinions in an open forum or going about your life oblivious of others' beliefs."
There is NO body of Christ to desocrate. If you want to claim otherwise you need to provide evidence that the wafer really does turn into the body of Christ. If you can do that, it would be Nobel winning stuff. It would turn science on its head overnight. A wafer being turned into human flesh merely by having a few words of ritual recited ? That would revolutise science.
So go for it. Get that evidence.
Posted by: vespera | July 10, 2008 2:35 PM
Even as a long-time and reasonably vehement atheist I have to object to this. While the idea is kind of funny ... in this case the situation is Catholics doing their crazy Catholic thing inside a church, not doing anything that impacts nonbelievers. We should let them eat their crackers in peace.
Posted by: Fr. J | July 10, 2008 2:36 PM
496, but YOU could be prosecuted if caught. Thus it will be your problem. PZ can visit you in jail.
499, he was an atheist as was Stalin and Mao. I have had this argument before and won. He hated the Church as much as you do. Atheists swim in an ever growing ocean of blood.
503, I disagree. You can disagree with our beliefs and that is not bigotry. But if you misrepresent those beliefs, lie about them, vilify those who hold them then that IS bigotry. This thread is replete with examples.
I think I have made my point and annoyed many with my posts. The central fact remains: PZ is a bigot and has acted unprofessionally. If he did this about any other group he would be sent for re-education. He needs to grow up and learn to debate beliefs intelligently. Thank you and God bless.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 2:36 PM
I know I'm late to this but, you mentioning "Bill Donohue" and "respecting other's beliefs" in the same comment automatically gives you a big fat fail.
Posted by: Ednor | July 10, 2008 2:37 PM
" You have no grounds upon which to condemn transubstantiation apart from that assumption."
You mean, aside from the fact that it's unmittigated bullshit?
"Ridicule if you'd like; the end result is that indifferent onlookers are going to wonder why PZ and company get their jollies from acting like prodigious pricks."
Actually, the end result is that the religious make bigger fools of themselves, making the total absurdity and uselessness of their fairy tales more evident.
So . . . thanks!
Posted by: Shadow | July 10, 2008 2:37 PM
So crackers do matter!
Man. If my ex had been willing to throw around the word 'cunt' like these people do, maybe we'd still be together. He was about as willing to engage in anything kinky and derogatory towards me as...
Actually, I think the Catholics have him beat.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 2:38 PM
That's the goddamn Catholic League's lies coming off your lips. The records say that FOUR PERCENT of your Clergy were Child Molesters who engaged in sex crimes against children (The John Jay Report commissioned by the US Catholic Conference of Bishops). Yet, because of the way your Church hid it, only 2/10ths of a percent were actually tried for their sex crimes.
You don't get those high of numbers in the general public, never mind public (and private) educational institutions that do their best to make sure that crap is an aberration instead of a protected way of life.
And you sure don't get the NEA making up phony stats to protect the perpetrators. Unlike the Catholic League, whose lies your forwarding.
Just because you're a Franciscan doesn't mean you're honest, you gas-bag piece-of-shit. We don't have to respect your medieval mindset as it has NO INHERENT RIGHT OF RESPECT.
Especially when you fuck-wit apologists STILL LIE about the sex scandal issue. Just this week I briefly read a recent scandal were one of Church's Bishops (or a Cardinal perhaps) of Cockamamie was telling one (or a bunch of) boy(s) that they were the only person molested by this one particular priest. So, while the Church had "empathy" it was, basically, sod-off for any Church-level punative sanctions.
It was practically a form letter.
And while my details may not be perfect. It's just one of thousands of examples of the depravity of the Catholic Church compared to some people making fun of the faux outrage of a FUCKING CRACKER THAT ISN'T GOD WHO DOESN'T EXIST you wanker.
So save your piteious outrage for sheep in church. You'll get no play here, prick.
Posted by: SteveM | July 10, 2008 2:38 PM
What the !$!@#$ are you going on about? Nowhere does PZ say that his act of sacrilege would involve disrupting anyone's worship service.
And try exercising a little reading comprehension and put his statement in the context of the whole article. The point is the completely overblown reaction to some student walking out of church with a eucharist without consuming it. He did not jump up on the altar shouting "Here's what I think of your stupid rituals" or some such, and yet he is being sent death threats and his university being solicited to expell him. So PZ is saying that if you want to see something really sacrilegious he will show you. The point being that what Woods did was hardly sacrilege and did not warrant the outrage shown by the Church.
As for hypocricy, I suppose you were equally suppotive of the outrage shown over the naming a teddy bear Mohammed where the teacher barely escaped the country with her life.
Posted by: Ashley | July 10, 2008 2:39 PM
Ugh. This is so stupid. It really IS just a freakin' cracker.
When I was in the 3rd grade, we went to mass (I went to a catholic school) and the priest gave me two of the crackers once. I handed one back to him, thinking he gave me two by accident. He told me, 'No, I want you to have two!' So I reached back in the bowl of crackers and grabbed one out. He couldn't believe it, and I got yelled at mercilessly for it. I never understood what the big deal was. (Besides the germs that were probably on my hands that had more than likely been transferred to the bowl...that was the least of their concerns though.)
Oh well, I'm an atheist now, so all their yelling didn't make me respect the 'body of christ' like they wanted it to.
How can people be so wacky??
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 2:39 PM
Ted @ 509
BBBBZZZTTT...Wrong on so many levels.
We don't think that any groups' religious systems are sacred. Just a lot of us here happen to be in the US, which leaves us with Christianity providing us the most constant daily fodder. If we were in Saudi Arabia, or India, we would still be pointing out the logical fallacies of those religions as well. And, PZ had done so here in the past.
So long, thanks for playing, have a cracker on the way out as a consolation prize.
Posted by: Interrobang | July 10, 2008 2:39 PM
Be sure to notice that our charming little friend SFG hates women, too, or at least hates a distinctly female part of their anatomy, since he apparently thinks it's some sort of dire insult to call someone a "cunt" and a "twat." Prior observation of the type would also suggest some severe homophobia issues, since apparently they all assume every author function is male, and the worst thing a male can be is a female body part.
By the way PZ, I still don't think you beat David Neiwert for crazy trolls (I'm still chuckling over one who said that Neiwert had a "fat, ethnically-Israeli forehead," which is an odd thing to say about a scrawny white kid from the PacNW, but okay), but you're getting there... I also have to congratulate you for making Donohue's shit list. You're in good company.
Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 2:39 PM
This is one you can all try:
Get a packet of wafers (they seem easy to come by).
Take them to your nearest Catholic church. Tell the bishop (or whatever they're called) that one of them has been consecrated. The other ones have been transformed by people from other religions/cults into their own deities.
What he will want to do will be to take the Jesus cracker and stash it in the tabernacle. However, which one is it? If he picks the wrong one, he may end up giving a home to Vishnu or Cthulhu. If he doesn't choose, he leaves the Jesus cracker with the heathen crackers, and because these have all been transubstantiated, he will be leaving Jesus with the other gods, which is surely a blasphemy (as would destroying them all, as he would be destroying Jesus). He can't eat them all as he would be accepting Thor, Saturn, and Baal into his body (and presumably, into his 'spirit').
Hopefully, the metaphysical conundrum will make him see how silly all this really is.
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 2:40 PM
No, in this case the situation is Catholics harrassing and making death threats against someone who put a communion wafer in a ziplock back. Now, do any of you concern trolls or Catholics want to tell me a little about this?Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 2:40 PM
Ted @509 I doubt any of you atheists are inclined to attack the central religious symbols of Native Americans, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.
Number 4 with koran envy. Keep 'm coming, why don't you guys just convert and get it over with already. I'm sensing major shifts from Catholicism to Islam in the US.
Please check the archive before making yourself look stupid Ted, better luck next time.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | July 10, 2008 2:40 PM
RIGHT ON PZ!
Post some more funny stuff that will make their panties bunch up!
Thanks again for an awesome blog.
If they do somehow fire you, open a paypal account and I will send you money.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 2:40 PM
We should let them eat their crackers in peace.
This all started with the a [catholic] student who took his cracker home and was threatened with death until he returned the cracker. Obviously, they are not satisfied to just 'eat their crackers in peace'.
Posted by: Endor | July 10, 2008 2:41 PM
" I have had this argument before and won."
That hardly counts when your opponent was the bathroom mirror.
"Atheists swim in an ever growing ocean of blood. "
because so many people strap bombs to themselves and blow up civilians in the name of atheism, right?
even if what you say is true (anyone with more than three brainc cells knows its not), our ocean is dwarfed by the mountain of people killed in the name of your god.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 2:41 PM
Fr. J, #521: I think I have made my point and annoyed many with my posts.
Your point being that PZ Myers' "performance art" is worse than sending death threats and harassing some kid for a prank that harmed no one? You sure did! It seems a strange thing to brag about, though.
Posted by: Tozé | July 10, 2008 2:41 PM
Well, if they do get you fired for this maybe you can get every church going christian in MN arrested for cannibalism. :D
Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 2:41 PM
This is one you can all try:
Get a packet of wafers (they seem easy to come by).
Take them to your nearest Catholic church. Tell the bishop (or whatever they're called) that one of them has been consecrated. The other ones have been transformed by people from other religions/cults into their own deities.
What he will want to do will be to take the Jesus cracker and stash it in the tabernacle. However, which one is it? If he picks the wrong one, he may end up giving a home to Vishnu or Cthulhu. If he doesn't choose, he leaves the Jesus cracker with the heathen crackers, and because these have all been transubstantiated, he will be leaving Jesus with the other gods, which is surely a blasphemy (as would destroying them all, as he would be destroying Jesus). He can't eat them all as he would be accepting Thor, Saturn, and Baal into his body (and presumably, into his 'spirit').
Hopefully, the metaphysical conundrum will make him see how silly all this really is.
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 2:42 PM
"100 million dead in the last century due to atheism."
Fr. J.
I'll wager more people (heretics) have been killed in the name of God than believers killed by those who recognise god/gods/elves/fairies as purely human constructs. The Protestants and Catholics have the blood from centuries of the wholesale slaughter of unbelievers on their hands. Don't rewrite history to sugarcoat your view, Padre. Better check your facts next time, oh pious one.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | July 10, 2008 2:42 PM
"I think I have made my point and annoyed many with my posts."
---I guess if you define "annoyed" as meaning "made them laugh uproariously at your primitive and ignorant superstitious beliefs" then you have annoyed me until my sides hurt.
Posted by: Josh West | July 10, 2008 2:42 PM
#520: Hello, McFly! Anybody home? Death Threats! Did you miss that part?
#520: Hitlers real beliefs are known only to Hitler, but the record states that he was raised Catholic and the Nazi uniforms had God plastered all over the place.
Posted by: Paul W. | July 10, 2008 2:44 PM
Fr. J@479,
Does U.S. Code 247 apply if you don't cross state lines to disrupt, deface, desecrate or whatever?
I'm not sure about the significance of (b)
By the way, I don't think people here think it's a good idea to intentionally disrupt church services. That is NOT what this is about.
Also, if a priest puts the Host in your mouth, is it still Church property, or is it your own property, or nobody's, or what? Legally, I mean.
I'm curious whether you could make a good case, much less a winnable case, that taking communion and not swallowing the Host is theft or desecration or anything like that.
Also, 247 talks about damaging any religious real property, without explicitly saying that it's the property of someone else. I would guess that doesn't mean you can't damage your own property just because it's "religious" property. (Just curious; I own a fair number of religious artifacts, which I have no intention of damaging, but I'm wondering if it just might actually be illegal.)
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 2:44 PM
"100 million dead in the last century due to atheism."
Read the bible again and count God's murders.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:44 PM
It has been repeated time and time again by those critising PZ that Catholics really do believe the wafer becomes the body of Christ.
Well that is an empirial claim. Human flesh has quite different characteristics from a communion wafer. It is easy to tell the two apart. So why not put the claim to the test ? If you are so sure that it really does become flesh then show us how confident you are in your belief. We would even get Jesus's DNA from a sample, if it really has become flesh.
The Catholic Church has criticised Dawkins for "The God Delusion". Well here is the chance to prove him wrong. Dawkins said god is a testable hypothesis that fails. If wafer really did become a bit of flesh then you have shown the hypothesis does not fail.
Of course what you will do is mutter something about assumptions of a materialistic universe. In otherwords you will simply retreat from your material claim and pretend you mean something different.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 2:45 PM
FR. J.
Gott Mitt Uns.
A. Hitler Mein KampfPosted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2008 2:45 PM
Fr J.
Oh... THAT stupid "argument" - again. Who made the race to invent the atom bomb necessary? Why, it was that German Catholic fellow who was trying to take over Europe and kill all the Jews. And us Slavs. And...
Face it, it's a pathetic argument.
Even more pathetic is your incessant tu quoque "argument" in "defense" of the Catholic sex-abuse scandal. You just can't admit how reprehensible the whole thing was - and is - and how contemptible the apologists are.
Of course, you are one of those apologists, so why, I ask myself, why would you be anxious to admit it? What's your problem, Father? Got something to hide, hmmm? Is the best you can do is sputter that "teachers" and "parents" are worse? Well, how many of them are Christians, and how many of those Christians are Catholics? Do you even know? Of course not. Of course, in North America and Europe, a reasonably good guess in both cases would be "a substantial percentage" - don't you agree?
It not, then why not?
Do you, or do you not agree that the history of decades, indeed centuries, of child molestation is more vile than a college student taking a consecrated cracker out of a church? Is it more vile than the threat of desecrating a consecrated cracker? Is it more vile than the threat of desecrating one thousand consecrated crackers? Is it more vile than the threat of desecrating one hundred million consecrated crackers?
Think carefully before answering.
John F:
Gee, another one I've never heard before. O_o
Posted by: Endor | July 10, 2008 2:45 PM
Thank you, Interrobang. I'm glad I'm not the only one in the room who called out the misogyny.
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 2:45 PM
@465,
"The anti-Catholics posting here..."
We're not anti-Catholic, we're anti-religion you self-centric ass. Not everything about religion is about Catholicism. I know you have a hard time understanding that there are other religions out there, but it's true! Furthermore, all of you have the same thing in common; no evidence that what you believe in is true. Which is why we don't like it when you tell us what we can and can't do because of what your magic book says.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 2:46 PM
I'll let the others take down Father Asshead's comments, but it should be a sin to attempt to teach anybody anything (even if it is a bunch of mytho-hooey ripped off from earlier cultures) when you're so fucking ignorant of history.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 2:47 PM
@ Fr. J.
Talking about casualties. How many thriving cultures did the popes wipe out in Europe again?
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 2:47 PM
Bullshit. Not observing one set of religious tenets is exactly the same as not observing a different set of religious tenets. Not eating a cracker given to you by a guy in a robe is exactly the same as eating a hamburger or working a light switch. It's only different if you believe in one and not the others. Insisting that your beliefs deserve respect and not the others makes you a hypocrite.
You'd be wrong. And the fact that you think so shows precisely how little you know about atheism.
Posted by: Snappyback | July 10, 2008 2:47 PM
#324: I don't know, Aric, with this post and ensuing comment thread, I think he's taught me a lot about the true nature of some Catholics.
Posted by: Zonotrichia | July 10, 2008 2:47 PM
So, now the Catholic League (are there any actual members of this organization?) is taking a page from the whacko Muslim playbook. The poor babies have suffered "hurt" and "offense," and the natural consequence is... off with your head!
Would someone please pass the crackers?
Posted by: Damian | July 10, 2008 2:47 PM
Stalin's Russia was probably the most religious state that has ever existed on earth. As Hitchens has pointed out many times before, Stalin would have been mad not to have taken advantage of several hundred years of credulous worship of the Tsar (where he was seen as more than human), just waiting to be tapped in to.
Lysenko's miracles, heresy hunts, anyone?
You may not call that secular, or skeptical, and I'd love to see someone defend the proposition that you can derive Stalin's beliefs from simply not being a theist. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 10, 2008 2:48 PM
No other topic is more important and explains better the demise of our society than the saga of ScienceBlogs. With this letter, I hope to strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: ScienceBlogs always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to it; nothing else matters -- except maybe to hasten the destruction of our civilization. I tell you this because if ScienceBlogs's codices get any more smarmy, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep.
To pick an obvious but often overlooked example, we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that we should all bear the brunt of ScienceBlogs's actions. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that if anything will free us from the shackles of ScienceBlogs's inane, mindless lamentations, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that it would have us believe that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But ScienceBlogs is surrounded by unambitious windbags who parrot the same nonsense, which is why I want to instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who suppress all news that portrays it in a bad light. But first, let me pose an abstract question. What will be the outcome of its quest for world hegemony? To turn that question around, has anyone ever seen it working instead of plundering, stealing, and living off the sweat of others? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: How can it attack the fabric of this nation and then turn around and shed tears for those who got hurt as a result? I hardly know. But I will stake the immortality of my soul that it's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's ScienceBlogs. Not only is ScienceBlogs more sneaky and more hateful than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but it has been brought to my attention that most conscienceless jabberers think, "credo, quia absurdum" when they hear ScienceBlogs say that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like it. While this is decidedly true, it uses big words like "microcrystallography" to make itself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although ScienceBlogs's outbursts may reek like a skunk, ScienceBlogs's detestable machinations cater to the lowest common denominator. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the lazy manner in which it has been trying to require religious services around the world to begin with "ScienceBlogs is great; ScienceBlogs is good; we thank ScienceBlogs for our daily food". The issue of what to do about the most ill-bred converts to cameralism you'll ever see is a hopelessly tangled and complicated issue, impossible to discuss due to the intensity with which each side holds its beliefs. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.
I REFUSE TO HAVE OUR GREAT NATION CONDEMNED BY GOD ON THE BASIS OF A HOODLUM AND HIS ACOLYTES WHO HAVE FOUND ROOM TO SPREAD MESSAGE OF THIS DESECRATION AND VIOLATION. As such, I call on everyone to renounce this action. Innocent as it may seem, I am not prepared to bear the wrath of God's Anger. We have seen the floods, we have seen the fires, what next shall we see if we allow this?
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 2:48 PM
Mr. Penfold @543 (and others like him): The teaching is that the "nature" of the transubstantiated host becomes that of Christ himself, but that the accidents (all testable *physical* characteristics: appearance, smell, taste, etc.) remain those of bread. This is based on the primitive Aristotelian idea of a dichotomy between what something is (its nature) and its characteristics.
So sorry, your Mythbusters-like tests/examination of the consecrated wafer would not convince a true believin' Catholic that the wafer really *ISN'T* the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
Posted by: jynnan_tonnyx | July 10, 2008 2:48 PM
Fr.J @ #479:
"The courts have ruled that the right of people to worship in their church is greater then the free speech rights of those who would disrupt such worship (Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Lady Cage-Barile.)"
While PZ has declared his intention to acquire and desecrate a communion wafer, I have not yet read anything written by him declaring any intention to do so in a place of worship or in a way that disrupts a religious ceremony. If I have missed something, I encourage you to point it out to me; otherwise, I suggest you review his posts and re-evaluate your impression of his plans.
The US code you quote says anybody who "intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so" may be prosecuted, but defines "religious real property" as "any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects CONTAINED WITHIN A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP [emphasis mine]." It seems to me that once the wafer is removed from the church (which I understand is step one of any plans PZ may have) it is not specifically protected by this law. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so if you wish to correct my understanding of the law, please do.
Posted by: Jon | July 10, 2008 2:49 PM
Personally, I think we should go to Catholic churches in our area and 'desecrate' more Christ crackers as a show of solidarity with Mr. Cook and P.Z. Perhaps this Sunday mass? Bring a friend and take pictures!
Donahue has a problem with one sacrilege? I wonder how he'd like this.
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 2:49 PM
Jacob @ 465:
Actually, it is you who should examine your own heart.
I was a Catholic once.
I reflected on what sort of a creature God is...
Look at all the evil the Church does in His name, and ask yourself... if such a being existed, would He even deserve to be worshiped?
Posted by: --PatF in Madison | July 10, 2008 2:49 PM
Fr. J @ 521
"I think I have made my point and annoyed many with my posts. The central fact remains: PZ is a bigot and has acted unprofessionally."
Actually I think this guy really is a priest. He exhibits the olympian patronization that lots of priests have.
"I AM THE SMARTEST GUY IN THE ROOM AND AM TELLING YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG!! Now, worship me as I majestically sail away."
No reason. Doesn't understand the difference between death threats and cracker abuse. No sense of proportion. Just him and Jesus sailing through the world making it right.
Either that or Poe has just smacked me upside the head.
Posted by: mox | July 10, 2008 2:49 PM
Point of order: I'm no magic cracker apologist (see my earlier comment) but I don't believe any Priest would profess to being able to identify pre- and post-magic crackers.As I commented previously, I too would rather see a set of comprehensive and controlled experiments carried out on magic and non-magic crackers, so that in the face of real, hard evidence, Christians will at least be forced to admit that either the transmogrification is symbolic, or that it is miraculous in every way except in the real physical world.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:49 PM
Fr J,
Stalin and Mao did not kill becuase they were atheists. They killed becuase of their political beliefs. Beliefs that actually had a lot in common with religions. Clearly they did not cover the concept of political religion at your seminary. It is a pity, because it would have stopped you saying stuff that makes you look like an idiot.
I thought it was a sin for you to lie ? Well lie you did, as I credit you with enough intelligence to have found out about political religion on your own. When a priest has to lie, it is game over for respect for his beliefs. Your beliefs are not worthy of respect, and since you see nothing wrong with lying, nor are you.
Posted by: Todd | July 10, 2008 2:50 PM
AWMTI says:
"The idea of transubstantiation is ludicrious on the face of it and does not deserve any kind of respect."
It's only ludicrous if you're assuming a strictly materialistic universe. You have no grounds upon which to condemn transubstantiation apart from that assumption.
We assume nothing. We can prove we live in a strictly materialistic universe. It is you who assume that we do not. If you think the universe is not strictly materialistic then prove it.
Ridicule if you'd like; the end result is that indifferent onlookers are going to wonder why PZ and company get their jollies from acting like prodigious pricks.
That's because we are prodigious pricks. But don't tell your priests, they'll only want to molest us.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 2:50 PM
I think I have made my point
Sorry, no you haven't. Thanks for playing.
and annoyed many with my posts.
Well, stupidity IS annoying, but to be honest, most people on this board have seen the same arguments over and over again expressed by creationists and other religious nuts. It's mostly boring.
Posted by: True Bob | July 10, 2008 2:50 PM
FrJ, not being a lawyer, can you explain how "religious real property" covers a cracker that's been given away? It was never real property in the first place, and I think you know that and are intentionally distorting the intent of the law. It surely wasn't about protecting crackers from something, it was to prevent actual damage to actual property, like damage to pews, confessionals, crosses, talmuds, stained glass windows, organs, etc. It certainly wasn't intended to include portable free props.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 2:50 PM
@554:
Good for you! I refuse to be condemned too! And just in case refusing alone doesn't work, the fact that your god-in-a-cracker doesn't exist will also keep us from getting condemned.
Posted by: SC | July 10, 2008 2:50 PM
Snitzels,
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm
Posted by: Lucretious | July 10, 2008 2:51 PM
Hey, I hear Denyse O'Leary bakes a mean cracker!
Posted by: Endor | July 10, 2008 2:51 PM
"Innocent as it may seem, I am not prepared to bear the wrath of God's Anger"
So, because you believe in an imaginary god, PZ can't mess with some crackers?
Do you understand how absolutely derranged that is?
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 2:51 PM
Really? Because the Catholic woodcuts of Jews torturing the host tells a different story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecrationPosted by: Chris P | July 10, 2008 2:51 PM
Fr J
Why should we debate beliefs "intelligently"? They are insane and unprovable. They have no right to exert control over the rest of us. You cannot dictate to atheists that jokes about crackers are bad.
You have a number of beliefs that a percentage of the planet wants to use as a cudgel to the rest of us.
Sorry - NO.
You have guys have overpopulated the planet partly due to your stupid doctrines already. You don't deserve any respect whatsoever. You say god created everything and all you have done is to screw it up.
We now have a planet that is on a path to self destruction and all you are worried about name calling crackers.
What a joke.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 10, 2008 2:51 PM
@521
Hitler was a christian. Even he admitted that was the basis for his anti-semitism.
Look it up.
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice".--Hitler
This doesn't mean he was a horrible person because he was a christian (plenty of other reasons, but he was indeed christian), but he certainly was no atheist.
Posted by: John | July 10, 2008 2:52 PM
Im in ur churzes, lickin' ur Krist.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:52 PM
"Point of order: I'm no magic cracker apologist (see my earlier comment) but I don't believe any Priest would profess to being able to identify pre- and post-magic crackers. "
Sorry, but they have made just claims. There are catholics here who have said the cracker turns into the body of christ. How thick does a priest have to be not to be able to tell the difference between a cracker and a lump of human flesh ?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2008 2:52 PM
Oh, gee, the old "Hitler was an atheist" lie. Congratuations, "Father" J, your list of lies, misrepresentations, and fallacies is growing.
Tell me, how do you sleep?
You know, if you compare Hitler's work with Stalin's, in terms of unnecessary deaths per year in power, old Adolf made Joe look like a Sunday School teacher.
Perhaps that's a poor choice of analogy...
Posted by: Bluto | July 10, 2008 2:53 PM
I used to be catholic but now I'm an American. Absolutley ridiculous and embarrassing. Donohue needs to shut his cake hole. As altar boys, we used to steal those things all the time and take them home. I guess I'm going to hell. Now wait I'm going to hell for eating a salami sandwich on Friday during lent. The punishment for stealing wafers is a vestibule diddling, you know, Exodus 21:23-21:27 eye for an eye and all that.
Keep up the good work Professor.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 10, 2008 2:53 PM
554 has gotta be a poe!
I think PZ will have a nice cheese and wine party and he'll serve the wafers with a nice age goat cheese or perhaps some pate. Anything to kill the taste.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | July 10, 2008 2:53 PM
Too bad I don't know of any churches that do this on Fridays or Thursdays. If only we were meeting at Manuel's on Sunday... I'd totally bring you a cracker then. We could even have drinks with our hostage Jesus-cracker! Ah, the fun that will not be.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 2:54 PM
This is such a dumb argument. 100 million dead because of Communism and Fascism is more correct.
You should really bone up on your history my confused friend. While atheism was a part of communism it paled in its significance to the idea of class struggle and most importantly, totalitarianism. The main reason that Stalin was responsible for so many deaths was not because of his atheism but because of his deep seated paranoia brought on by a horrible childhood and his thirst for absolute power.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 2:54 PM
@Pete Rooke: E... Excuse me, I can't reply to you. The laughter hurts me too much.
PS: prove me your God exists and that he caused flood and fires? Please. I'd like to see you try.
Posted by: Hairhead | July 10, 2008 2:55 PM
Fr. J - Sigh. Now I have to deal with lies and/or ignorance as well persistent disingenuousness.
I will deal with only the last.
Look posters here have pointed out to you multiple times that PZ has no intention of entering a church or disrupting a service. So all of your quotes of criminal law are moot, mean nothing.
As to your charges of bigotry, again, they fall short. Bigotry is somehow stopping the victims from enjoying their lives violent means -- such as refusing to hire you, let you live in certain places, deny you legal rights which others have, etc. PZ hasn't advocated punching Catholics in the face, or burning their schools, or putting them in jail.
What he has advocated is calling them to task for their bullying, death threats, and interference in a secular organization (the school); and he is challenging Catholic organizations to give the lie to the separation of Church and State and the supremacy of the First Amendment (and the rule of law) by desecrating some religious symbols.
And if you're not cognizant of meaning, "disingenous" means claiming one thing loudly while knowing the opposite is true. (cf. PZ intending to disrupt a church service).
You reveal yourself more every time you post, and it has become clear that, more than being a simple believer, you are ignorant, a liar, and a hypocrite. Scarcely recommendations for the efficacy and morality of religious teaching.
Posted by: ndt | July 10, 2008 2:55 PM
No one has disrupted a Catholic worship service nor advocated that anyone do so. Walking off with a wafer that a priest gave to you is not disruption.
Posted by: AWMTI | July 10, 2008 2:55 PM
I'm sorry, did you happen to miss the death threats over a cracker by catholic nutjobs?
I merely suggest that PZ's actions are liable to exacerbate the conflict.
Further, you and I both know that PZ's life is under no real threat. If it were, he would have been more careful about his actions. This is a convenient way for him to stand up to the "nutjobs" to prove to his minions that he's a tough, er, cracker.
Posted by: Ted | July 10, 2008 2:55 PM
#519, Matt Penfold: "There is NO body of Christ to desocrate [sic]. If you want to claim otherwise you need to provide evidence that the wafer really does turn into the body of Christ."
I have no need to convince you that my belief is true -- it's only reasonable for you to accept that my beliefs are mine to have. You might compare this situation to desecrating a picture of my (hypothetical) dead son. I don't need to "prove" to you that the picture is more than an ordinary object to me for your desecrating of it to be hateful and vile.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 10, 2008 2:56 PM
Mao, Stalin and Hitler were all leading societies where the enlightenment reigned supreme through reason and evidence and there were no dogmas or unsupported facts taken as true at all, anywhere. Didn't any of you guys learn that.
More stupid Mao/Stalin/Hitler comments please!
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 2:57 PM
@Dustin #569:
And the opening line of that wiki article is "Host desecration is great fun and highly recommended."? :P Someone added tee-hee stuff in the Wiki I believes!
Posted by: MH | July 10, 2008 2:57 PM
Sorry for the double-post above.
I love the idea of making a sculpture of Jesus from consecrated communion wafers, that would actually be Jesus, but would all the wafers have to be consecrated? If you got one, and mixed it up with thousands more (with a little bit of water or wine), and then formed it into a sculpture, would it still be made of Jesus? There would be no way of determining where the bits of original cracker had gone, and if you processed it enough, there would likely be a bit of Jesus in each cubic centimeter. A Catholic would have to concede that the whole thing was Jesus.
What's more, you could give it any pose you like (classic porn-star pose?). The Catholics couldn't steal it from you, but they would want to get it back, so all they could do would be to offer to buy it; you could name what-ever price you like. What price Jesus? Even when they do get it back, they can't destroy it, even if the sculpture is deemed blasphemous; because it IS Jesus.
Posted by: Todd | July 10, 2008 2:57 PM
So crackers do matter!
LOL Shadow #523 - I was wondering how long it would take before a Scaper brought that up!
Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
#479:
Like it used to say on your Pope's belt-buckle, back when he was a Nazi... "God is with us"
Those Nazis? Christians.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
"I have no need to convince you that my belief is true -- it's only reasonable for you to accept that my beliefs are mine to have. You might compare this situation to desecrating a picture of my (hypothetical) dead son. I don't need to "prove" to you that the picture is more than an ordinary object to me for your desecrating of it to be hateful and vile."
You do if you want me to treat your beliefs as anything other stupid delusions. If you want to claim a wafer really does become the body of christ, and to be taken seriously, then sorry, you do need to prove it.
Posted by: F. Jardim | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
If fooling around with a communion host is a grave offense, then India will nuke us all rather soon, given what we do to cows every single day.
Amazing that followers of the religion of peace and grace need pointers on tolerance from a society with a caste system.
Posted by: BobC | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
Fr. J,
You believe people are special magical creations of a sky fairy. You believe people have a soul that flies up to heaven if they're stupid assholes like yourself. You believe Jesus was a god, got himself executed, decomposed into a pile of stinking shit, then became a zombie and flew up to the clouds. You're batshit crazy and a disgrace to the human race.
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
I call Poe on Pete Rooke in #454. It looks like he's taken a diatribe against something from some other source and inserted the word "Scienceblogs."
What would have been the original text? From 19th century, I'm guessing?
(If he actually wrote that post as a sincere, honest, real warning against Scienceblogs, then I really hope the Seed Overlords have sufficient space on their office bulletin board, and a thumbtack)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
I'd think that would be right up your alley. Hastening the second coming and all. You should be CHEERING for us heathens.
Posted by: foldedpath | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
Dang! Are we Godwined already?
This is a natural for a South Park episode. Can't you just see Cartman accidentally walking out of a service with the cracker, causing a commotion, then figuring out he can maybe make a buck by holding it hostage? Maybe enlisting Kyle and the rest to sneak out more hostages, then having BD and the Inquisition roll into town for the big showdown. It's a natural.
It's a shame Chef is no longer a regular character. He could have started an alternative religion, based on ritual consumption of his Chocolate Salty Balls.
Posted by: Timcol | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
I hear they're coming out with a diet version of crackers. It's called "I can't believe it's not Jesus..."
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
Dustin @569: Yes, really. Those things about the Host bleeding when stabbed, etc., or turning into a piece of bleeding flesh are considered miracles. Special events, not readily reproducible. The Catholic Church certainly does not teach that all hosts bleed when desecrated.
Posted by: Steve Jeffers | July 10, 2008 2:59 PM
'Hitler hated the Church as much as you do'
I'd prefer not to play this game. But if Catholics want to play a game of 'who's more Nazi, the Catholics or the atheists' ...
http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/19hitlerwithmuller.jpg
Yeah, there's some real hate going on there.
They must have hated him, though -
http://alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/nazigallery/25priestsalutehitler.jpg
Hmmmm.
And, of course, any Catholic playing the Nazi card now has ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article382076.ece
... that little problem.
Whatever Hitler was or wasn't - and he started out Catholic, had a lot of Catholic friends and allies, was supported by millions of Catholics, including the then and the current Pope - the Nazis weren't atheist. Nazism in its pure form involved a weird synthesis of Christian and pagan symbolism and belief, along with odd bits of folklore.
Posted by: Elf Eye | July 10, 2008 2:59 PM
I can never see the logic of the argument that one must respect others' beliefs. I don't respect racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-semitism, scientology, creationism (any religion), 9/11 conspiracy theories, holocaust denialism....In short, there is a long list of attitudes and beliefs that I don't respect because they are nonsensical. As for Christianity, I don't respect it because it makes silly claims unsupported by anything other than documents of questionable veracity.
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 2:59 PM
Mark B @485,
"Serranos' work was partially paid for by an NEA grant."
Only in the most loose definition possible. Serrano recieved money from an institution at one point that recieved money from the NEA. The Far Right anti-arts and humanities crowd tidied that up a bit (lied) and stated he got a grant from the NEA. People are still believing it today.
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 3:00 PM
Dude! Check out these Nazi belt buckles I found! They all say "God is just pretend".
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 3:00 PM
@554 Peter Rooke
I see Poe,
But Larry and Curly don't come around much any more.
(With apologies to Guadalcanal Diary)
Posted by: impervious | July 10, 2008 3:01 PM
~OT: DaveScot predicts PZ's assasination:
"Myers is playing Russian roulette. He just keeps pushing the envelope in seeing how many people he can possibly offend in the worst way. It's just a matter of time before someone with a terminal disease, a month left to live, decides he hasn't got anything to lose by taking out Myers along with him."
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/louisiana-whats-the-big-deal/#comments
Posted by: me | July 10, 2008 3:01 PM
Such a multitide of inflamatory statements and hatred!
See how religion fucks people up?
On the bright side, much mirth provided for my viewing pleasure, carry on. :)
Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 3:02 PM
Pete Rooke: that was the biggest sack of incoherent windbag fail I have ever had the displeasure of laying my eyes on.
You are incapable of stringing two coherent sentences together, yet think you are in a position to judge anyone?
Get a grip, and get help.
Posted by: CJO | July 10, 2008 3:02 PM
So sorry, your Mythbusters-like tests/examination of the consecrated wafer would not convince a true believin' Catholic that the wafer really *ISN'T* the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
Of course not. The entire point of such claims is for them to be systematically invulnerable to proof or disproof. They know it's not true, in other words, but they will never have to admit that it isn't nor that they know full well it isn't. What a racket. About as respectable as ripping off little old ladies... oh, wait.
Posted by: mox | July 10, 2008 3:03 PM
If there were a way to tell the difference (i.e., if it really worked) then every Priest on the planet would not only profess to be able to tell the difference, but they would actually be required to tell the difference in Seminary school. But because it doesn't actually work, only the most fringe Priests are going to claim to be able to tell the difference. The rest either know better (I'd LOVE to know how many clergy are actually unbelievers) or have been brainwashed into believing that there's some kind of duality between the dough and the spiritual nature, blahdy-blah-blah. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if entire books haven't been written on why the host continues to look and act like a piece of bread even though it's really filet-o-Christ.
Posted by: me | July 10, 2008 3:03 PM
Also, I don't think SFG has had access to a lovely cunt in a while. Poor SFG.
Posted by: llewelly | July 10, 2008 3:04 PM
The goal is not convince the 'true believers'. It is to ratchet up the required sophistry another notch, weakening the faith of any doubting Catholics, causing them to wonder why they are going through all these motions. Recall all the people who claimed 'but Dawkins' book won't convince the true believers'? Well, what did Dawkins write in the introduction: "If you have ever felt trapped by religion, this book is for you."Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2008 3:04 PM
Cunt power! Yeah!
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 3:04 PM
HumanisticJones@577: Roman Catholic Churches distribute communion every day, every Mass, every day of the year except for Good Friday. So yes, you could get one on a Thursday or Friday.
Mr. Penfold@573: Read my last couple of comments. Nobody in the Catholic Church claims that the host takes on the characteristics of human flesh when transubstantiated. Just that the "nature" of the trans. wafer is now that of Jesus, while the "accidents" of the wafer (how it looks, smells, etc) remain those of bread. Yes, there are some claims of Eucharistic miracles involving bleeding wafers and wafers actually appearing to be flesh, but the party line is that it normally stays bread in every way that can be perceived by human senses (and tests).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | July 10, 2008 3:04 PM
Good point. I would hope the good Reverend and Mr. Donohue refrain from eating beef so as not to offend our Hindu brothers and sisters.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 3:04 PM
Someone's already done a tally, Michelle. According to the Bible, the God of Love is responsible for at least 33,041,220 deaths, lots of those being children.
This total does not include, of course, the numbers killed during the witch hunts, crusades, and inquisitions of God's self-appointed thought police, the Catholics and Protestants.
Sea of blood indeed.
Posted by: Mena | July 10, 2008 3:05 PM
ndt @ 581:
Walking off with a wafer that a priest gave to you is not disruption.
Not for people who aren't drama queens or for people who don't make a career out of being offended, no...
Posted by: W. | July 10, 2008 3:05 PM
@406:
"I have suffered great disrespect from homosexuals"
AND YOU ARE SURPRISED BY THIS?!? Call me horrid names and I will disrespect you until you slink away.
William
a FAG in NYC!
Posted by: Observer | July 10, 2008 3:05 PM
Wow! Prior to these threads I wasn't disrespectful of Catholics. Actually, I always admired the ability of those Catholics I have known to conveniently ignore their doctrines. Turns out a lot of them don't. Damn shame, really.
To the riled-up visitors, this is about something very simple. Some poor kid in Florida walked off with a communion wafer and the wrath of god was brought down on him. He was assaulted, accused of hate crimes, of kidnapping Jesus, and threatened with death. All this for a trivial action that is apparently common among Catholics. The response was so out of proportion to the "crime" that the only way to describe it is psychotic.
It's clear from the kids remarks that he hadn't intended to disrespect anything.
Given the response this kid had to deal with, no, your beliefs deserve no respect whatsoever. I fully support your right to believe whatever you want, but respect it? You're kidding, right?
As for PZ's desecration of a host, I wouldn't support him going into a church and disrupting a service. People do have a right to practice their religion. But assuming that he can get it through other means (and it's pretty clear he can) no amount of desecration would be sufficient to communicate the level of disdain this absurd practice deserves.
Posted by: mr_p | July 10, 2008 3:06 PM
Having taken catholic communion once when I was younger, a terrible thought just crossed my mind. When you eat the cracker(I think they called it a host), which part of jeebus are you eating? I hope it wasn't any of the naughty bits!
Posted by: The Chemist | July 10, 2008 3:06 PM
Way down here on comment #608+. I would just like to point out that no one is going to read this far down. It appears everyone's feeling cathartic today!
Posted by: moon_grrl | July 10, 2008 3:06 PM
I was raised Catholic and am incredibly embarrassed that all the drool covering this thread is what these Catholics use their "faith" to defend.
What's important? Peace? Compassion? Good works?
Nah, symbols are *IT*, baby! Let's all lynch PZ over A FUCKING PIECE OF MAGIC BREAD! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANYONE LAUGHING AT OUR MAGIC BREAD!
If I ever get talked into stepping back into a Catholic church, may reason strike me dead.
Posted by: Kelly | July 10, 2008 3:07 PM
I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with religious teachings...I don't happen to believe that there are millions of gods like the Hindu faith believes. I might find that belief silly, but I'm not going to go out and spit on one of their statues either, or condone someone else doing it...
It seems that there is a lot of hate being spewed on this blog, all because someone was defending their faith. Would you expect any less? I would like to see Mr Zachary ridicule the Jewish faith or perhaps Muslim...or would that be politically incorrect? The Catholic Church is an easy target for people like you...its so common in American culture to ridicule what you don't understand.
For the record, the numbers of sexual misconduct, rape, and molestation are similar if not higher in the Protestant faiths over the last 30 years or so, but that's never mentioned because each denomination reports those separately...this also holds true for the Public Schools system in our country...but again, its more a more sensational story when it has to do with a religion.
If Mr. Zachary wants to desecrate a cracker...why doesn't he just look in his pantry and get one? I guess that wouldn't make a very good story and give him his 15 minutes of fame.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 3:07 PM
AWMTI, #582: I merely suggest that PZ's actions are liable to exacerbate the conflict.
Huh? I realize that this is hard for nutjobs to understand, but the situation was exacerbated before PZ Myers got involved -- when Webster Cook was being harassed and sent death threats. Are you on the Catholic websites asking them to quit acting like a bunch of fascist thugs? Of course you can rephrase that a little more politely, seeing how you dislike exacerbating situations and all.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 10, 2008 3:07 PM
Over 600 comments and counting in the first five hours since this post was published. It's amazing how much resources we waste on myths.
Posted by: mlf | July 10, 2008 3:07 PM
I just can't stop laughing about all of this. Free speech rules.
Posted by: me | July 10, 2008 3:08 PM
Which PART of jesus does the cracker become?
Are the catholics all fellating jesus?
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Certainly not me...
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Disrespect? DISRESPECT?!
Call us when one tortures you, ties you to a fence, and leaves you to die, you fucking murdering-by-proxy little whiner.
Posted by: Dustin | July 10, 2008 3:10 PM
Everyone keeps insisting that it can't be his foreskin but, man, that foreskin had to go somewhere.Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 10, 2008 3:10 PM
Dear Adam Janke (@139),
If, as you claim, "What is at question is whether or not we should respect others beliefs", I would humbly ask that my beliefs be honored by your organization. Specifically, I believe that truth is a moral value, and that it is OK for me to call "transubstantiation" language-immanent nonsense when it is language-immanent nonsense, according to any criteria that have dependably produced tenable conclusions from empirical investigations in the past. (For SFG's benefit: language-immanent = made-up)
Further, I ask that you keep your language-immanent nonsense within the confines of your organization and do not interfere in the lives of those who do not share in your delusionary doctrines. For example, your organization's delusion that a blastocyst is a person, does untold damage by hindering the development of cellular treatments for spinal cord damage, heart failure, insulin-dependent diabetes, and potentially a 'host' of other conditions that cause suffering.
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 3:10 PM
I gathered that from reading the Wikipedia page. Amazing that I never knew it before.
Posted by: Vic | July 10, 2008 3:11 PM
Adam Janke, you are full of shit.
And there's the proof. You're a liar if you think it's just about the molester priests and not the other priests and cardinals and bishops (including YOUR OWN POPE) who COVERED for them and are to this day STILL hindering the rooting out and elimination of them.
Also, you're a disingenuous shithead for trying to blame society for this: " And in a secular society that is completely obsessed with sex " - Most secularists are NOT 'obsessed' with sex. We just don't have the madonna-whore complex drilled into our brains like you theist fucktards do.
"It's a fair cop, but society's to blame."
"Right, we'll go arrest the lot of them, then..."
You just don't want us to hit you with the molester thing because it's the final nail in your theistic-shithead-apologist coffin. Billy-bob said he couldn't think of anything more vile than 'desecrating' a cracker - while we just hit him with the knockout punch.
Evidently he, and you, just don't think raping little children is that bad. You people are fucking sick.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 3:11 PM
I worked at SECCA as a volunteer during that indecent. Letes just say there was a LOT of things the right wingers distorted during that whole fiasco.
Posted by: Sastra | July 10, 2008 3:12 PM
I glanced over the Scienceblogs homepage (which you can get to by clicking their logo on the top right side of the Pharyngula page), and they don't seem to have any official motto.
Yet.
Posted by: Michael Pack | July 10, 2008 3:12 PM
LOL this whole post/thread is GOLD! I've been reading PZ for a few months now but this is the first time I've laughed so hysterically that I felt it necessary to chime in.
I was literally in tears yesterday, reading the initial commentary about the Jesus cracker hostage.. but this is like.. the whipped cream on the chocolate dipped, almond centered, fudge brownie Eucharist waiting to be eaten off the soft, supple breast of a sexy Brazilian bombshell :O
Mmmmm.. blasphemy *drools*
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 3:12 PM
Kelly @619
PZ has picked on many faiths before. You win the "Vacuous First Comment" prize. The general problem with "faith" is that there is no proof of whatever the "faith" is in forthcoming.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 3:13 PM
Sheesh I need to preview.
indecent, was how the right wingers acted, but I meant to say incident.
Letes = lets
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 10, 2008 3:16 PM
SFG called us "nerds". Seriously?
What's next there Fonzie, you gonna kick our ass in a rumble outside of Arnold's?
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 3:18 PM
@Kelly: "I would like to see Mr Zachary ridicule the Jewish faith or perhaps Muslim...or would that be politically incorrect?"
Mr Zachary? That's his middle name, no? Why not Mr. Myers, hon. :P
No I think he already did it, dear. Pointed out that he ates every religion there is.
But you know, christians are the ones that attack us the most... Cuz this is an US blog, and they're the major religion.
"The Catholic Church is an easy target for people like you...its so common in American culture to ridicule what you don't understand."
A lot of atheists know the catholic faith more than most catholics. They can name all the commandments, read the bible more than them, and follow lots of religious news. The fact that it is an easy target isn't deniable... Cuz... well, you make it just so easy.
The reason why he wants to desecrate a church cracker is because of the principle of the thing. A guy was threatened to DEATH over one. TO DEATH! Over a cracker! That's not very christiany, at least from common knowledge (cuz your God just digs violence.)
Posted by: Logicel | July 10, 2008 3:19 PM
BGT wrote: Kelly @619
PZ has picked on many faiths before. You win the "Vacuous First Comment" prize.
______
Not everybody can be a cunt, and poor Kelly can dream and pray all she wants, but I can tell that cuntdom will always elude her. So very sad.
Cunt power! Yeah!!!
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 10, 2008 3:20 PM
I can picture it now, the little white wafer tied to a chair while PZ dances around it to the tune of "Stuck in the Middle with You".
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 10, 2008 3:20 PM
@ Kelly #619:
For the record, the numbers of sexual misconduct, rape, and molestation are similar if not higher in the Protestant faiths over the last 30 years or so
Well, that makes me feel better.
Posted by: Hap | July 10, 2008 3:21 PM
Fr.J-
You seem to have a muisunderstanding. Bigotry is when one assumes evil of a set of people based on a cultural, racial, or other common identity. Most of the criticism here is directed either at people who made death threats for an act of disprespect or against the church who threatened said disrespecter (while condoning a variety of unloving acts, including many against its own members, and of course, choosing an ex-Nazi to be its earthly representative). You don't get a free pass for being Catholic - if you act like a hateful hypocrite, you should expect to be criticized for it (particularly when what you claim to believe and claim moral credit for opposes the acts you and your church have performed).
Put another way: I can criticize my country for having done evil without being a bigot - that only comes when I assume that being a resident of my country is cause for hate. Why can't the Catholic Church be criticized for its actions separate from any aspersions on its members? Or is that your point - in that case, wouldn't you be effectively using your members as human shields to pretect your status and policies from criticism? That seems awfully loving of you.
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 3:22 PM
Wrong. There is a lot of outrage on this blog all because some members of a particular faith issued death threats for someone not believing a cracker is sacred the way they do.
More Koran envy. He has. So have I. And you would know that if you actually looked instead of making assumptions, but that would require a desire to know rather than just believing what you want to.
Why do you assume that we only ridicule it because we don't understand it? I have news for you, I've heard it before. I do understand it. It's still ridiculous. It is sheer arrogance to assume the only reason we don't believe what you do is because we don't understand it. I don't believe what you do because it is unbelievable.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 10, 2008 3:22 PM
I bet I've served more masses than you, fuckhead.
Posted by: JRQ | July 10, 2008 3:22 PM
Recall these words from the original article:
"We just expect the University to take this seriously," she added "To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated."
Sacrilege will not be tolerated? The appropriate response to anyone who says this is, "Fuck off, asshole". In any rational society, sacrilege MUST be tolerated. Catholics, you're the ones not getting the message here.
Yes, you own your beliefs, but the jurisdiction of your beliefs extends exactly as far as there is evidence to support them. They do NOT magically extend to what a student does with a wafer you gave him, so long as other's rights to worship were not violated. And you don't have a monopoly on sacrilege. Your entire theology is sacrilege to a great many people, yet you still expect them to tolerate your right to believe it.
Wake up and realize how bloody stupid your double standards sound.
Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 3:22 PM
Kelly:
Let's see --
It seems that there is a lot of hate being spewed on this blog, all because someone was defending their faith.
Hate? Umm no, ridicule. The hate is coming from good Christians (as always).
So... complete misunderstanding of the situation, and projection to boot?
Check.
Would you expect any less?
Anything less than assault and death threats for making off with a magic cookie?
Oh yes, how unreasonable to expect less than that.
So... complete disconnect from reality?
Check.
I would like to see Mr Zachary ridicule the Jewish faith or perhaps Muslim...or would that be politically incorrect?
So... not just misspelling the bloggers name, but actually calling him by his middle name? Epic.
And yes, check.
So... Muslim envy?
Check. That makes what, 7 on this thread alone?
So... Christian persecution complex and nicely framed disparaging of political correctness?
Check.
The Catholic Church is an easy target for people like you... its so common in American culture to ridicule what you don't understand.
We understand that death threats are being made over a cookie. Sorry, that is fucking ridiculous.
And yes, the Catholic Church is an easy target for ridicule. Why do you think that is?
I don't even know what to call this type of argument, but...
Check.
For the record, the numbers of sexual misconduct, rape, and molestation are similar if not higher in the Protestant faiths
Which makes it okay?
Tu quoque fallacy OVER RAPE for crying out loud?!
Check.
but again, its more a more sensational story when it has to do with a religion.
Yep, because religions pretend to be "moral". And it becomes even more sensational if such a religion covers it up.
Anyway, escalating persecution complex?
Check.
Ah, screw it. Failboat, Kelly is thy name.
Posted by: Salt | July 10, 2008 3:23 PM
RE # 496
Aha, notice the stipulation about the religious object *being* in the place of religious worship. If we PZ fans send PZ the consecrated host wafers we've spirited away from Masses in our own various parts of the country, then they are effectively removed from "places of religious worship". He can desecrate away. Problem solved!
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 2:25 PM
Not necessarily so, for very much the same reason that absconding with food from an all you can eat for $9.99 buffet, destined for your refrigerator and later eating, violates the very purpose of the buffet to which one, arguably, can be contractually obliged; absconding with the host, or the food per my example, could be viewed as theft.
As the Catholic Church holds the host to be much much more than just the cost of the cracker, this could potentially, though I personally find it doubtful, pan out quite differently than a buffet merely saying don't come back.
Posted by: craig | July 10, 2008 3:23 PM
Why are Catholics such martyrs?
Posted by: Mike K | July 10, 2008 3:25 PM
Sir, you will gain (and deserve) my respect when you take a similar tone to the Muslims of Minneapolis who refuse to take passengers in their taxicabs accompanied by seeing eye dogs and who refuse to serve customers purchasing pork products. The Catholic Church is an easy target because you know that any retribution will be legal and fair, no matter what you may say about "threats" to your job. Take on Muhammed and jihad and a few examples like the Danish cartoon controversy. Show some courage, if you have any. You know that the Catholic Church is no danger to you. Let's see what you'll do with the jihadis.
Nothing, of course. That might hurt.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 10, 2008 3:25 PM
Man, I can't believe I'm still reading this. I have work to do.
Everyone stop being funny! Now! Go home! Stop this! I mean *you*!
...
Anyway. My take home messages from this discussion:
1) Messin' with someone's sacred cracker is rilly, rilly baad. Rilly. 'Gainst the law. Rilly.
2) Well, okay, that's actually probably only if you throw down the altar, set fire to the church, and beat up the priest to get it. But still. It's bad. Illegal. Don't do it! Don't even go sneaking out of the church surreptitiously with the thing under yer tongue or some damned thing! Why, that's just as bad as knocking over the altar and burning down the church! Or almost! Really! Don't you dare!
3) Well, anyway, it's way worse than threatening the life of and trying to get expelled a kid who *did* mess with one, clearly. That stuff, we're cool with. Who was talking about *that*, anyway? Erm.... Hey! Look! Over there! Someone's desecrating a flag! Get 'em!
Valuable corollaries:
4) You really don't want a canon law guy for your lawyer.
and,
5) Catholics are funny when they're mad.
(...okay, a little scary, and a little sad, yes, too. But mostly just funny.)
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 3:26 PM
Put on proof. Because, on more than one occasion, the Christianistas have claimed persecution (and send us some money) because it's NOT.
Who made the death threats over a cracker? Oh, wait, it's coming to me... The Muslims.... Nope, that's not it... The Jews! Noo... I know, it was the Catholics!Imagine that. An atheist points out the religious wackery of the exact faith engaging in public religious wackery!
Funny, but he's not the one hiding behind a pseudonym, now is he? Why should he? I'm sure he'd find it ludicrous to do so. Just as he's expressed his opinion that it's ludicrous for Muslims to issue death threats for comics in a newspaper. Despite the lies of the DI (1) ID is religion and (2) people don't go around making death threats to the DI or the proponents of ID (well, except some possible sock-puppetry). Projection for this ludicrousness? I suspect the students don't bring it up and I doubt PZ does either. It's just not important or germane to leaning the basic and advanced concepts in the biological sciences.Asinine? You mean pointing out the bad behavior of the Catholic Church and some of its members? Nothing asinine about pointing out the truth.
Some kid took a cracker from a service. Some over-heated nut-bags tried to make it a federal case. Others made DEATH THREATS.
Over a fucking cracker!!!!
Have you NO perspective at all?
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 3:29 PM
Some Christard wrote:
Well, given from the death threats he's already started receiving, it appears the Catholic Church is indeed a threat to him, isn't it?
Posted by: SteveM | July 10, 2008 3:30 PM
As the Catholic Church holds the host to be much much more than just the cost of the cracker, this could potentially, though I personally find it doubtful, pan out quite differently than a buffet merely saying don't come back.
LOL
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 3:31 PM
"Sir, you will gain (and deserve) my respect when you take a similar tone to the Muslims of Minneapolis who refuse to take passengers in their taxicabs accompanied by seeing eye dogs and who refuse to serve customers purchasing pork products. The Catholic Church is an easy target because you know that any retribution will be legal and fair, no matter what you may say about "threats" to your job."
That's more complicated. These taxi guys you have to take to court. Which is more costly. As for the pork dudes, it's simpler since you can bitch at the manager. But odds are you might have to take this to court as well. This has to be against some law. The taxi part is, at least. The other one is just a slacker not doing his fucking job (wait, aren't I at work here? O_O)
But I gotta say... This is absolutely retarded moves by muslims and I despise them a lot for it.
Posted by: grim | July 10, 2008 3:32 PM
We should certainly respect the beliefs of others, but only as much as we respect their belief that their spouse is beautiful, and their children intelligent...
I won't disclose how I finagled a small batch of consecrated (trans-substantiated, transmogrified, corpsised?) wafers, but I've had great fun with them. They make a great garnish for a wonderfully louched glass of absinthe. (though less dramatically so, now that it's legally purchasable here)
It adds a nice brimstone-y balance to Uigeadail...
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 3:32 PM
"Sacrilicious"
Posted by: Boosterz | July 10, 2008 3:32 PM
Troll: "I'm no "intellectual""
Someone owes me a new keyboard now.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 3:33 PM
one must concoct a strictly naturalist explantion for the continued existence, through two thousand years, of the Catholic Church. AWMTI
Theft, lies and terror. Hm, that was easy.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 3:33 PM
You're not even a good pretend Internet lawyer. Besides, if your theory was correct in its applicability, then virtually all Christian denominations practice hate speech to a greater or lesser extent and should be banned.
Posted by: cuervo | July 10, 2008 3:33 PM
"That is why the Englishman's belief that his home is his castle and that the king cannot enter it, like the American's conviction that he must be able to look any man in the eye and tell him to go to hell, are the very essence of the free man's way of life."
Walter Lippmann 1889-
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 3:35 PM
Mike K, #647 Take on Muhammed and jihad and a few examples like the Danish cartoon controversy.
Speaking of which, can you provide some copies of where you castigated those Danish papers for their blasphemy? You know, just so that no one can accuse you of hypocrisy.
Posted by: SteveM | July 10, 2008 3:35 PM
Re: Mike K @ 647:
You are an ignorant twit aren't you?
[who was keeping the "Koran envy" count? here's another one]
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 10, 2008 3:35 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp (although you are clearly no kind or Reverend of the Lord - perhaps Satan?), Sastra, StuV, Michelle, BGT, Steve_C and others you have all misunderstood me. I did not literally mean to attribute those aims or goals to ScienceBlogs itself [#554]. Rather the underlying ideology of the community as a whole. You mock the most spiritual of experiences, the communion, and feel free to do it with impunity. Have you ever opened your heart the experience rather than mock and jibe with hate filled bodies (I hesitate to impugn your souls). Of course I agree with the commentator that said the second coming is to be desired - its has been a long time waiting. That will come about in the Middle East and though we can aid - and we are aiding the process - we must protect our own nation and for now we must content ourselves in building the ranks of the Heaven-bound souls that I wish you most of you were a part of.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 3:37 PM
If anybody tells my wife that I've wasted the better part of a day on a blog about a cracker, I'm gonna be in the doghouse for sure!.
Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 3:37 PM
One more. Come on, one more "the Catholic Church is an easy target" / "you wouldn't do this to Muslims".
site:scienceblogs.com pharyngula muslim
Posted by: Vic | July 10, 2008 3:37 PM
Hey, to the sane people here - do comments like MikeK (647) smack of racism or bigotry to you? I mean, some people here have responded to those 'you wouldn't insult islam like that because you're afraid they'd kill you' comments as 'Koran envy', and while that's true (I really think they wish they could commit violence on that scale for their god), doesn't it smack of racism in that they automatically think that most/all/enough muslims WOULD actually seek PZ out to behead him if he insulted islam like that?
The subtext pricks like that have seems to me to be "them thar ragheads would kill him over that, but *I* wouldn't because I'm a CHRISTIAN(TM)! (and still I wish I could do it anyway....)"
Posted by: Mark B | July 10, 2008 3:38 PM
I know that PZ said he closed this thread, but I'm hoping to get it up to 666 comments. It's only appropriate.
Posted by: phaed2 | July 10, 2008 3:39 PM
***************************
LET'S TRY TO GET THIS ON DIGG!
I submitted this to Digg. So go ahead and Digg it.
http://digg.com/comedy/Pissing_off_Catholic_League_president_Bill_Donohue
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 3:41 PM
I'm sorry were you saying something?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 3:42 PM
The anti-Catholics posting here should examine their own hearts - Jacob
If I want my heart examined, I consult a cardiologist. If you really believe a man in a dress mumbling a few words turns a cracker into flesh and blood - you should consult a psychiatrist.
Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 3:43 PM
Yep, Pete Rook sure smelled like an end-times loon...
Which reminds me. Why is it legal for people to actively seek to end the world because of their fantasies? Isn't that at least 6,000,000,000 counts of conspiracy to commit murder?
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | July 10, 2008 3:45 PM
RIGHT ON PZ!
Post some more funny stuff that will make their panties bunch up!
Thanks again for an awesome blog.
If they do somehow cause you to get fired, open a paypal account and I will send you some money.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 3:45 PM
Ooh, newsflash: Vox Day has posted on this, calling PZ "sociopathic" for wanting to desecrate sacred crackers. And he pulled the "he's a publicly employee, our tax dollahs shouldn't pay for this outrage!" bit too. Yay!
Posted by: tsg | July 10, 2008 3:45 PM
I tried once, but I couldn't get my brain out of my head, so it didn't take.
Seriously, did you never once think about how ridiculous some of the claims your religion makes are? Let me put it this way, have you ever looked at another religion's beliefs and said, "well, that's just silly"? That's how I feel when I look at yours. The fact is there is no way to discern the "right" religion from the huge number of "wrong" ones without just blindly choosing one, or having one chosen for you. They are all equally unfounded.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
Posted by: J (not J) | July 10, 2008 3:47 PM
This is entire incident so Catholic-centrist in tone. (duh)
In the Southern Baptist Church there is so much misinformation and yes, disinformation about catholicism.
Mention the Church of Christ and Baptists will chuckle and shake their heads (and tell a joke or two illustrating how wrong these Brethren are); mention the Holy Rollers and they'll roll their eyes heavenward with a look of pity on their faces. Mention Catholics and you'll get an earful that a more progressive mind would dismiss as overwrought bias from Evangelicals. In a Baptist seminary, Catholicism is rarely addressed formally; informally, though, Bill D. would lose his ever lovin' mind over all the Cath'lic bashing. I couldn't seperate fact from fiction, so I withheld judgement over Papist issues. I had other fish to fry.
When your entire knowledge of catholicism is from films starring Bing Crosby or Sydney Portier, or even The Exorcist, you don't have much to go on. Father Damien in The Exorcist was the one hold out to rational thinking, so perhaps the old very superstitious ways were becoming more rational, focusing on the symbolic rather than literal use belief in the supernatural, I thought. Pope JPII even accepted evolution (to a point), something most Baptists would never do.
However, the only Jesuit I ever knew was a quasi-closeted gay priest who was head of the Bridwell Library over twenty years ago. His take on religion didn't seem outlandish by my myopic standards, in fact, he was somewhat liberal on many viewpoints. He hated for anyone who purported visions of Mary or Jesus on Toast etc, or displayed stigmata, to be taken seriously as a miracle of the Church.
I know many wonderful people who are catholic but we never discuss religion - just sex and politics.
So now to know that there is a huge majority of Catholic clergy and administrators that view transubstantiation as actual and literal and are willing to commit violence over any percieved "desecration", well that's just fucked up.
No matter what anyone says, the rational person understands that the wafer is purely symbolic; an act of imagination. I can understand, to a point, that they may get angry because someone didn't play by their rules and marred a service, but for it to merit death threats and assault? It gives credence to what the evangelicals were saying. And that's just pitiful.
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 10, 2008 3:48 PM
No, that would be *your* lot that likes to stamp out dissent. Jews, gays, homosexuals, Gallileo, et al. Um, it's *y'all* who are screaming bloody murder about someone doing something bad to a FUCKING CRACKER, because it's THE BODY OF CHRIST. If you dislike the cannibalism thing, maybe you shouldn't defend it so...religiously. When you make it sound like cannibalism, you lose the moral high ground to call other people asinine for making fun of it. Also, it's funny how it's the Catholics trying to get PZ censured. Makes your spouting off about "differing points of view" ring a tad hollow. No, not hollow, hypocritical. For an organization that has, for millennia, worked hard to stamp out dissent, with everything from political influence to genocide and war, to suddenly bitch that someone else said something mean is the new definition of hypocrisy.Only after losing multiple lawsuits and court cases. Had they not been forced to, they'd have admitted nothing. Sorry, that's not "doing the right thing" because it was the right thing. That's more like Rhett Butler's line to Scarlett: You're like the thief who is not sorry they stole, but is terribly, terribly sorry they got caught. The Church got caught, and *had* to fess up.REALLY. Of course, you have valid studies and data to prove this.Funny how you find it is in societies where sex and the human body are feared, that you get the spikes in child molestation and abuse. Look at the numbers of children killed because "God told me to". The Church encourages repression and blind obedience via the infallibility of the Pope doctrine, and yet they were all surprised at all the abuse going on.
No, in this case, it has everything to do with the debate, in fact, it is the central point. Were it "just a cracker" then no one would care. It is the mythology surrounding transubstantiation that makes it so unbearably vile.Well, maybe Bill and his group should try that themselves. They have no problems crapping on any viewpoint that isn't a perfect parroting of their own. Yet you lecture others about the mote in their eyes and ignore the beam in thine own. Funny that.BAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Oh my god, that is the most ridiculously full of shit statement I've ever read. Christians are only SLIGHTLY less sensitive to slights, imagined and real, than fundamentalist muslims, and based on some of the threats in this article from people who "don't care", I'd say the difference is small indeed. Apathy: U R Doin It Rong. you want to put money on that? I have a copy I'll send PZ just to see what happens. Again, you're confused. The reflexive impulse to destroy other religions is a Catholic characteristic, as your rich history shows. Atheists just point and laugh.Because you whine like bad brakes anytime someone points out how stupid you are. And again, a CATHOLIC bitching about DISRESPECT OF RELIGION...I thought you were afraid of hell. The Catholic Church has such a historical record of violent intolerance, that I must acknowledge your expertise in the area.Isn't not judging, lest ye be judged a mantra of Christians?
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 10, 2008 3:49 PM
Wow, guess I also made it to the big time. Had someone come on my blog and tell me I will be able to see my wife again when I go to hell as well. I deleted the comment, thanks for caring. (rolls eyes)
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 3:49 PM
Dear Pete @661,
Actually Pete, I was Catholic, but the gentlemen of Fratres Scholarum Christianarum did something wonderful for me in high school and college. They helped me to learn to reason on my own. (Un)fortunately, a side effect of that is that I find all religions to be based on wishful thinking rather than any "truth". And while I don't mind people believing whatever they may wish to, they don't have the right to attempt to impose those beliefs on others (like the Religious Right), nor do they have the right act like idiots over a cracker (in this case the Catholics upset about the host). This whole reaction over a piece of cooked flour is pretty childish, especially for a religion that should have learned to grow up a bit over 2000 years.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 10, 2008 3:51 PM
QED
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 3:52 PM
Oh I get it... You're a doomcryer!
Pete, if you allow me I'd like to return on this line.
"Innocent as it may seem, I am not prepared to bear the wrath of God's Anger. We have seen the floods, we have seen the fires, what next shall we see if we allow this?"
Why are you worried? I thought God would save the pious. Why aren't you not prepared? You fear you will be left behind? You are obviously not pious enough. Go pray.
Also, like someone else said here... You think your belief is the best, and the true one, but you have no proof that it is better than someone else's. You are lacking respect towards the hindus by eating a hamburger, the flesh of the sacred Cow.
The priest gives the host cracker thingie. Gives. Once it's in my hand or mouth (depending what church you go to), it's mine. I do whatever I want with it. Since I'm an atheist, I can keep it and put it on a birthday cake by adding sparkles and a nice little message on it. Or I can put cheese on it. Or put it on display cuz I think it's a fine piece of stuff. I can leave it there and never eat it, then ditch it in the garbage. It's a sacrilege to you, but it's not to me. I don't care. Just like I won't care when I will eat that gorgeous piece of steak I have waiting at home.
Posted by: linda | July 10, 2008 3:52 PM
May God forgive you all - I will pray for you.
God Bless,
linda
Posted by: CodeRed | July 10, 2008 3:52 PM
Hmm. The delicious body of christ! I'm hungry now! Pass me the cheese,plz.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 3:53 PM
Persecution is traditionally what atheists have done. 100 million dead in the last century due to atheism. - Fr. J
Even if that wasn't a lie, we'd still have a long way to go to catch up with the Catholic Church. As soon as the Church gained state power, it started murdering anyone who questioned its dogmas or its power, and continued doing so as long as it was able. What a record: heresy-hunting from the Arians to the Albigensians, two millennia of anti-semitism, the Crusades, witch-burnings, the religious wars following the Reformation, the slaughter and enslavement of millions of Native Americans, support for slavery, destruction of thousands of cultures with the resulting despair and deaths, support for Franco, Mussolini, Hitler and other fascist dictators, and now the lies about condoms spreading AIDS!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | July 10, 2008 3:54 PM
Immediate argument failure.
Mentioning "Bill Donohue" and "respecting other beliefs" in the same comment is auto-fail.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 3:54 PM
Linda... Don't say that. It's just another line for "I can't win this argument so I'll try to look pious and speak to myself."
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 10, 2008 3:55 PM
Actually, the numbers of children abused by people claiming to be part of some sect of Christianity is higher than both. Aren't you a christian? Hmm...
Unless you're a prepubescent boy, or dare to speak against the Church in public. Then your ass is in some serious danger.
Well, for PZ to defend ID would be just a tad hypocritical. I know that Catholics are used to hypocrisy as a way of life, but some of us actually try to avoid it.Not as much as an athiest at a Baptist convention.
"Cast out the beam in thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine"
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 3:56 PM
Oh, and I forgot the millions of women dead from backstreet abortions and from too many pregnancies, and the children dying of malnutrition because their parents were told it was wicked to use contraception. Don't you bloody well dare get on your moral high horse, "Father".
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 3:56 PM
Wow, you guys should do a blog search on google and see some of the blog reactions this is getting. So much outrage over the threatened purloining of a cracker!
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 10, 2008 3:57 PM
linda, #679: May God forgive you all - I will pray for you.
And the fascist thugs threatening poor Webster Cook, don't forget to ask God to forgive them, too. I think they probably need it more than we wankers commenting on a blog.
Posted by: d'George | July 10, 2008 3:58 PM
Amazing how that Father J fellow @243 twisted a comment on the stupidity of people behaving so preciously about a prank involving a bit of synthetic cracker into an anti catholic hate crime. He was surely aware that this is a blog with a strong concern for the protection of rational thought in an age of obfuscation, not the ranting of a religious bigot. Because that's the funny thing really, genuine anti catholic bigotry almost always comes from co-religionists. Not many atheists killing prods and tims in NI in the recent troubles.
Interesting comment about nukes. Designed by scientists at a time when it was believed essential, most of those scientists worked in the belief that the most evil power in the World, bent on global military conquest, might get there first. Since then these weapons have been in the hands of the military which is heavily infiltrated by extremist fundamentalist christians. As recently discussed on another thread.
Humanity must grow up. We have got to advance socially and morally as far and as rapidly as we have technologically. This means moving beyond the religious mentality globally. Ignorant priests and their hangers on have way too much power and influence, a power that is dependant upon ignorance. That o'donohue should be dependant on welfare. That way he would be doing no harm. Unless he can find something useful to do of course. So there can be no respect for religious beliefs or any opinions that are not reasoned out.
Authority that is based on superstitious notions about the authorship of old writings has to be undermined and superseded by something better. So if there are any christians or other supernaturally inclined people reading this, please for the sake of humanity, your children, everyone, for the whole World, for the continuation of 'intelligent' cognisant self reflective life, wise up and get real. Educate yourself about this wonderful universe we live in. Ponder its size and its richness and variety, consider its age and reflect upon how we are learning as a species, with difficulty, about our place in it.
Maybe there is a god behind it all, maybe not. But if there is then it is not likely to bear much resemblance to the pictures painted by rabbis mullahs pastors or priests.
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 10, 2008 3:59 PM
Oh how I love the "you only attack us because it's safe. Try taking on a muslim!" argument. Why do people instantly assume that muslims want to blow people up?
Do people really think that muslims just go around calling jihad on everyone and anyone that doesn't think the way they do or desecrates a bit of holy ground?
Surely not. We have words for these types (no matter the faith or motivation): zealot and extremist come to mind.
To my experience:
The muslims I know (which, admitandtly, is few) seem to agree that people whom strap on bombs and blow up cafes are complete loonies.
The christians I'm related to think the whole creationism in science classes "debate" is a load of rubbish. They seem to agree that everyone should just stop arguing and be nice.
The catholics in my family, whom I've spoken to about the cracker incident, don't get why the cracker thief was even in the church. They do all agree that death threats aren't in line with what they've been told is right and wrong.
As I see it the problem isn't religion or a lack of religion. It's those extreme views of a select few that give entire groups a bad reputation. Blowing up a cafe is extreme. Sending someone a death threat because they nicked a cracker is extreme.
I'm an atheist. I'm friends with christians, muslims, buddhists, catholics, jewish folks, lutherans, a few "new age" types, other athiests and even one scientologist. We all get along just fine and no one wants to kill/main/explode or even disparage one another because they think differently.
Someone thinks differently then you? So what? They might even be vocal about it...so what? We all have the right to think differently, it comes with the territory. Saying "I think your faith is total rubbish" doesn't infringe on your right to think that way, it's just one persons opinion.
Stop whining and just deal with it. Life would be a lot less interesting if we were all robots to one mindset.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 4:00 PM
Oh yeah, lots of Koran envy in the indignant blog posts too. PZ, you've been dared to get a Koran and wrap it in bacon, just to see if doing that gets you fired.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 4:02 PM
"Nobody in the Catholic Church claims that the host takes on the characteristics of human flesh when transubstantiated. Just that the "nature" of the trans. wafer is now that of Jesus, while the "accidents" of the wafer (how it looks, smells, etc) remain those of bread. Yes, there are some claims of Eucharistic miracles involving bleeding wafers and wafers actually appearing to be flesh, but the party line is that it normally stays bread in every way that can be perceived by human senses (and tests)."
Adrienne, Read some of the comments here. The ones from Catholics demanding we respect their view the wafer does become the body of Christ.
And as for "nature", you clearly do not understand what words mean. If something takes on the "nature" of human flesh then it is identifiable as human flesh. Putting the word in quotes is just a foolish attempt to avoid having to deal with what is actually claimed. Why do you need to lie ? You must know you well get caught out.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 10, 2008 4:02 PM
You're a barefaced, brazen, outright liar, "Father" J. Hitler was not an atheist, as a brief perusal of Mein Kampf shows: he states that in opposing the Jews, he is "doing the Lord's work". Throughout his life he referred to "God" and "Providence" inspiring his work. Moreover, your loathsome Pope "Pius" signed a concordat with him, as with Mussolini, and never spoke out against his genocide. So stuff that up your cassock, "Father".
Posted by: Vic | July 10, 2008 4:03 PM
Hey Linda - thanks for nothing.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 10, 2008 4:04 PM
Michelle: Ah, but what you fail to realize is that God granted us dominion of all the animals.
BGT: "piece of cooked flour" - You appear fail to grasp the concept of transubstantiation. We surely agree (as above) that you may eat of the animals but, as I'm sure you will agree, the flesh of Christ does not fall into that category, and we clearly do not have dominion over His body.
Posted by: God | July 10, 2008 4:04 PM
Wow! Aren't they idolaters? It's just a piece of some cheap edible (yet insipid) thing that they pretend it's "bread". You could buy a lot of those for a few pences. What are they angry at?
And personal applause for the mischievous angel... I mean student. Some people should learn to take things less seriously, really. You can't go to heaven (or to any other party) if you don't have sense of humor. Please, relax: it's just an icon.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 4:04 PM
Wrap a Koran in bacon? Why does that seem terribly mild to me?
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 10, 2008 4:07 PM
Libel. In print, even on the internet, it's libel. Libel, Liber. You'd think you'd know that.
The Catholic League claims to speak for Catholics. Its purpose is to "defend" you from bad people. Since it chose to take a representational position for the entire religion, and is publicly complimented by Church representatives for this, well, as ye reap, etc. yadda.
Such ego..."if he understood what this is, then of COURSE he couldn't criticize it". How wonderful it all is. Crapola. That's what it is. Crapola. It couldn't possibly occur to you that someone could know what your little mumbo-jumbo is about, call it crap, and not back down from that. Isn't Pride a sin?
I'll make you a deal. you get the Church to stop fighting, *tooth and nail* to bury lawsuits regarding child abuse by its appointed representatives, stop with baldfaced lies, (oh look, another commandment broken by the Church. Is there any of those you clowns haven't shat upon?) about how you don't have the money to pay, (the Catholic Church...poor...BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA), and maybe we'll take your pontificating about "professionalism" et al seriously.
So can we talk about the Church openly encouraging exorcisms? Because I'm missing the "Reason" in that.
Maybe you should stop assuming we're all to stupid to know what your little rituals are all about.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 4:08 PM
"Why are Catholics such martyrs?"
I guess it started with a bloke that got nailed to a couple of planks of wood. If the lead character in your group played the martyr card then it might become second nature to start screaming about being persecuted because people will no longer take your bullshit.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 10, 2008 4:08 PM
sam green @ #370:
Yes, it is an act of disrespect to those who regard it as sacred, and a rather childish one at that. But you seem to have missed the fact that "those who regard it as sacred" MADE DEATH THREATS OVER A FUCKING CRACKER! When they did that, they destroyed any reason to respect them.
The request for crackers seemed like a stupid throwaway joke to me the first time I read it, but now that the insane are up in arms about it I'm starting to wonder if it might be a good idea. You've got people willing to commit MURDER over a fucking piece of bread! These people are insane. It's probably only a matter of time before they start deciding that their imaginary friend wants them to go on killing sprees.
Why is it so difficult for these nuts to realize that respect has to be EARNED? You aren't entitled to have everyone on the planet bow down to you simply because you demand it. You don't get to act like a moron and then whine when people call you a moron. You don't get to have people fired, arrested or murdered for questioning your beliefs, at least not in a sane country. Though whether or not this qualifies as a sane country is sadly becoming debatable.
Fr. J @ #406:
Well then why are YOU doing it, asshat?
Really, who here is demanding that their precious magic biscuit be completely immune from criticism, while making death threats against actual human beings who dare disagree with them? That would be YOUR fellow cultists.
But then, it's already clear you'll excuse anything your cult does, including rape and murder.
Randy Stimpson @ #422:
Oh, so in your alternate universe, "acting like a jerk" is a capital crime worthy of death threats.
In that case, I declare that you are "acting like a jerk" and therefore you must shoot yourself in the head. :P
Snitzels @ #446:
No, this is not common knowledge. This is a lie. Your teachers were lying to you, probably at the behest of religious fanatics (who may or may not have been catholic).
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 4:10 PM
@694
/Dan Ackroyd voice/
Pete, you ignorant slut!
/close Dan Ackroyd voice/
Actually, I was confirmed in the Catholic Church, so yes, I am a tiny bit familiar with the concept of transubstantiation. I grasp the concept, at one point believed it, then I got better.
Don't you know who the FSC are?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 10, 2008 4:10 PM
Pete Rooke @ #494 says-
"I am not prepared to bear the wrath of God's Anger. We have seen the floods, we have seen the fires, what next shall we see if we allow this?"
Um, Ken Ham clones dropping from the sky, or locusts. I forget which.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 10, 2008 4:11 PM
"You appear fail to grasp the concept of transubstantiation. We surely agree (as above) that you may eat of the animals but, as I'm sure you will agree, the flesh of Christ does not fall into that category, and we clearly do not have dominion over His body."
No, it is cannabilism. Well what other term is there a human eating human flesh ? Since you really do seem to believe it is the flesh of Christ can you offer any reason why you are not a cannibal ?
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 4:11 PM
Mr. Penfold @691 wrote:
Yes, Mr. Penfold, I have written several times that this is the Catholic belief: the trans. host becomes the actual body of Christ (in its nature) but not in its accidents/physical characteristics. Duh.
No, you arrogant prick (or is that "prodigious prick"), the problem is that YOU don't understand Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy on this point. Note I'm not defending the belief itself. In fact, I think it's a pile of horseshit.
Posted by: Jason Dick | July 10, 2008 4:12 PM
Looks like I'm a little bit late to the SFG bashing party, but I thought I might chime in:
I don't think anybody disputes that people are free to believe whatever they wish. That doesn't mean that we can't make fun of them for believing really stupid shit.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 4:13 PM
@Pete Rooke: Oh I know the dominion story. But your religion does not have priority over another, or my lack of religion. All religions hold the ultimate truth, or so they believe. None of them have the big proof that THEY are the right one. Therefore. If you decide that other people should not eat your blessed crackers, then you should not eat their blessed cows. It's how it works.
By the way, the bible forbids you to eat pork. It's not just the jews and the muslims. I hope you follow that.
Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
I know a lot of christians that does not follow most of what is written in the Bible.
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 4:14 PM
"May God forgive you all - I will pray for you.
God Bless,
linda"
You know to a non-believer that sounds as dumb to us as it would to you if we said:
"May the Giant Flying Norbitz from the sixth moon of Krakat fogive you. We'll dance around in a circle with a funny wig and parkas on for you.
Giant Flying Norbitz Bless."
Really, it does.
Posted by: some random fella | July 10, 2008 4:14 PM
you know that crackers are not the importance right? its not that it IS a cracker its what the cracker represents to them. I think you would be just as upset if some random person came into your home and took a big dump on a picture of your parents holding your kids. they didn't take a dump on your kids and parents, but they did take a dump on something that represents them, at least to you.
so when you are going all out making fun of their cracker, just remember, if they are wrong about God and religion then it doesn't matter... but if you are wrong about God and religion everything matters.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 10, 2008 4:16 PM
#707:
And the thread prize for most insipidly vacuous presentation of "Pascal's Wager" goes to.....some random fella!
Posted by: Damian | July 10, 2008 4:16 PM
This is how the Catholic Church dealt with child sex abuse accusations:
You will find the documents from the link, as well.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 4:20 PM
@Some Random Fella: "so when you are going all out making fun of their cracker, just remember, if they are wrong about God and religion then it doesn't matter... but if you are wrong about God and religion everything matters."
Yet another dude with Pascal's Wager. Useless cowardice that is easily rebuted.
Posted by: J (not J) | July 10, 2008 4:20 PM
Hmm, how many Jebus crackers are eaten on any given Sunday within a 8 hour time zone? So how many Jebuses, assuming a direct proportion of cracker to flesh, would it take to become all those transubstantiated wafers each and every Sunday? And there's the wine/blood thing, too. OMG, there must be an army of Jebus skeletons in heaven!!!
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 10, 2008 4:22 PM
Michelle: "By the way, the bible forbids you to eat pork. It's not just the jews and the muslims. I hope you follow that."
I didn't know that but you appear to be right. Thank you and I will mention it at mass.
I didn't know you were a Hindi and I will try not to eat meat in front of any of them.
BGT: "then I got better". I would prefer to say worse and will allow for the fact that you could get better again.
Matt Penfold: "Well what other term is there a human eating human flesh ?" I don't consider Christ human but I am not a theologian and I will consult one on the matter for you.
Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 4:22 PM
"Won't somebody please think of the
childrencrackers?"Posted by: Hessenroots | July 10, 2008 4:24 PM
@ 707
Invoking Pascal's Gambit will get you nowhere.
Your obviously new here, that's fine, we all have to start somewhere.
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 4:25 PM
some random fella,
"I think you would be just as upset if some random person came into your home and took a big dump on a picture of your parents holding your kids."
Bad analogy. If, instead, you offered to give a pic of your wife and kids to anyone who wanted one, expecting them to look on with adoration and instead, someone took it home with them so you threatened to kill them, THEN you'd have a good analogy.
And PLEASE! FOR FUCK'S SAKE! WE ALL KNOW ABOUT PASCAL'S WAGER!!!
We've heard it hundreds of times, it still doesn't make sense, and if you don't know why then go look it up. We're all tired of having to explain it to every idiot who shows up here thinking they're the first one to come up with it.
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | July 10, 2008 4:27 PM
"What a sad, hateful man you are.
Posted by: Matilda | July 10, 2008 11:01 AM "
Matilda. Darling. The premise is bollocks. Everything that derives from it is bollocks.
Transubstatiation was agreed upon by the Council of Trent. God did not part the clouds and make this announcement to humanity. This is man's creations. As such, it's perfectly fair game.
I'm hoping I misunderstood you, and you were calling Donahue a sad, hateful man, which he is, and not Paul Zachary... he's an observer.
If what is being observed is absurd, then expect in-kind absurdity.
Posted by: Ktesibios | July 10, 2008 4:28 PM
I recall reading about a university math department who had a form letter they sent to a certain type of correspondent. It read:
"Dear ______:
WE have received your proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. The first mistake is on page _____, line ____ ..."
The filling-in of the blanks would be delegated to some fortunate grad student.
Perhaps UM should work up a form letter for the assorted dingbats who demand PZ's head for being such a smartass atheist meanie.
"Dear demented fuckwit:
We have received and decontaminated your spittle-flecked screed. Your first mistake is in thinking that we bear any responsibility for or even give a shit about what Professor Myers has to say on his personal, non-UM blog. Your second mistake is in thinking that you have some sort of inalienable right to prevent others from saying things which you choose to be offended by. You have no such right.
Now piss the fucking Hell off.."
Simple, time-saving, and there's no need to torture some poor grad student with finding the stupid mistakes.
BTW, I suggest reading "Fr. J"'s second screed with a view to discerning the grade level of the writing. The ineptness it displays appears utterly incompatible with a seminary education. Either the RCC's educational institutions have deteriorated very badly or "Fr. J"'s claim to be a priest is a lie.
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | July 10, 2008 4:32 PM
To ammend my #716 post:
it's all fair game.
Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2008 4:34 PM
@689:
How are those views "extreme"? In what sense? I'll tell you: religious extremists are extreme in faith. Religious moderates have made concessions to modernity and secularism; god is not a moderate.
All of this also ignores the blatently obvious point that what religious moderates (yes, your granny who goes to church every Sunday is included, too) are really do is normalizing faith; making belief without evidence one of the core virtues of western society. The fires of fundamentalism are stoked by the religious moderate. By requiring that we "respect" their beliefs, they are providing epistemolgical cover for the suicide-bombers and abortion doctor murderers who, truth be told, are merely better at doing what their chosen holy book tells them to do.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 4:35 PM
"I didn't know that but you appear to be right. Thank you and I will mention it at mass."
...wait a sec. Mention it at the mass? Uh, are you a father? A minister? Or just a faithful attending?
Cuz if you're a big shot...Aren't you supposed to know the big book from a cover to the next? After all, you ARE preaching it.
Of course you know, if you ate just a tiny bit of pork you're unclean. And I do hope that you like your stuff well cooked...
Leviticus 7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
PS: I'm not hindi. I said I'm atheist. And I think I mentioned twice that I love my steak very much. And very bloody. And just because you eat the cow in secret doesn't make it right. I can smuggle the host out of the church, or spit it out and never tell a soul, and by your standards I'm still committing a terrible sin.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | July 10, 2008 4:36 PM
Fr. J:
Here is from the California penal code and I am sure Minnesota has something similar
But somehow you, a canon "lawyer," fail to cite the relevant section of the MN code. Making vague, empty threats is what your sort does best. I call bullshit.
I also note with contempt that you didn't cite any case law indicating that the CA or US laws had indeed been upheld. Shallow legal scholarship.
Also, you were challenged earlier in the thread to provide hard numbers on child abuse by RC priests versus teachers. You have not done this.
Adding my voice to those who have called you a lying sack of shit.
For the benefit of other Pharyngulites a "canon lawyer" is a person who acts as a lawyer in the private "legal" procedings of the church. Some of these are real lawyers with JD degrees from accredited law schools and members of the bar who happen to also practice church "law." Others, not so much. Rather like the difference between a naturopath and a real MD.
IANAL (BIPOTV)
Posted by: Mike | July 10, 2008 4:37 PM
@707
Wow! Pascal's Wager! THAT must be the sophisticated theology we always hear about!
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 4:40 PM
He was repeating Catholic League lies. The pedophile rate in Catholic Priests, from 1950 through 2002 was FOUR-PERCENT (John Jay Report by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops).
This FOUR-PERCENT rate of misconduct simply dwarfs the rate of misconduct by teachers. No matter how much Donahue tries to conflate this issue by comparing the absolute numbers the misdeeds of a profession that includes 3,000,000 members with one approaching just 100,000.
The second problem is the Catholic League deliberately conflates two statistical measurements in it's lies. The stats that teachers are held to are "sexual misconduct" which is a very broadly interpreted to include salacious notes, off-color comments, and suggestive or lewd behavior made toward students.
In fact, the category is so broad that it includes "sexual misconduct" that the misconduct does not actually include children (31% of all cases). This, btw, includes urinating in public, getting caught with an adult prostitute in a sting, otherwise lawful (past age of consent, including legal adults still in HS) conduct between teachers and students, and many other acts that have no bearing on a teacher's sexual conduct toward his/her students.
Actual child-raping, like the Catholic Priests, is very rare. And, unlike the child-raping Catholic Priests, these teachers typically aren't hidden by administrators, including teaching positions in non-extraditable countries where they can continue to practice the pedophilia on children.
This is not to excuse these teachers. They acted wrongly and were punished, losing jobs, careers, freedom and self-respect.
But "sexual misconduct" by a teacher is not equivalent to "child raping" in the vast majority of the cases. Even though the Catholic League has done a marvelous job of muddying the waters to make it seem over-blown.
In summary, the CL does two "stat lies." One is to use an absolute number when "rate" is the actual number to be used in order to marginalize the issue. The second is to artificially inflate the conduct of one of the two comparative groups.
Four percent of Catholic Priests were child rapists. Far less than that of school teachers were child rapists.
One group was protected and sheltered in a vast, world-wide conspiracy. The other cast-out and destroyed.
Not equivalent at all.
Posted by: SEF | July 10, 2008 4:43 PM
So Room 101 for (all/most/many?) Catholics would be the desecration of a magicked cracker? Who knew?! Since the Catholics have been in charge of selectively revising the pseudohistory of their religion, you'd think they might have thought to include that item in their fictional account too. No need for more inventive alleged martyrdoms at all (apart from the Jesus one, I suppose, under the circumstances).It might explain why some were willing to die for their faith, if they had been brainwashed to believe they were worthless and the only thing which really mattered was the sacred cracker. It doesn't cover Catholic willingness and ability to torture other people, non-believers, in other ways of course. Those believers must have had some inkling of things which were genuinely worse (rather than persistently assuming everyone agreed with their ridiculous beliefs).
Perhaps it's just Bill Donohue though. Maybe the others could easily think of lots of worse things than cracker abuse after all. It could even be "cunning" disinformation - in the hope of persuading anyone who captures a Catholic (in any sort of war or hostage situation) to attempt to extract information from them by molesting a suitably prepared communion wafer at them rather than doing any of the bad things they'd do to other people.
Posted by: FastLane | July 10, 2008 4:48 PM
So all the catlick concern trolls think that we should all respect thier beliefs and not do anything to a little cracker that they eat?
So, they'll respect muslim (sorry, can't think of a funny variation on that spelling) prohibition against alcohol and not drink the sacramental wine, right?
*watches as the concern trolls spin enough to generate power and eliminate the energy crisis* I foresee a Nobel prize coming my way. =P
Cheers.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 4:48 PM
Sorry, but someone is lying to you. Even in secular schools many educators violate their oaths and job requirements to espouse their religiously motivated beliefs, including condoms don't work to prevent the spread of aids, because they lying for Jesus doesn't seem to be a "sin" when they're being all high-and-mighty in their inappropriate urges to control the "sin" of premarital sex among youth.
Posted by: bill | July 10, 2008 4:51 PM
@722 Mike wrote:
"Wow! Pascal's Wager! THAT must be the sophisticated theology we always hear about!"
Mike: Witty come back - but don't loose track of the key point - Pascal was a major scientist and believer in God. While you disagree with Pascal on the God issue, you also disagree with Einstein and Stephen Hawking - and other more scientific minds than yours and mine.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 10, 2008 4:53 PM
Michelle: "just a faithful attending?" Yes, and searching around the web it does seem there is some ambiguity surrounding the issue. As it happens I am actually an ethical vegetarian as a result of the general suffering modern farming practices inflict on animals.
Posted by: Odie | July 10, 2008 4:56 PM
Fr.J@479
I think someone may have touched on this, but for clarity's sake: the general legal definition of real property is land and the things attached to land (like fixtures). Therefore, the section of U.S. code that you quoted does NOT cover wafers.
Posted by: windy | July 10, 2008 4:58 PM
bill:
Yeah... about that:
Posted by: Bryn | July 10, 2008 4:59 PM
@ #645
Salt, your example of an all-you-can-eat buffet doesn't work. Most restaurants have a posted (either by sign or on the menu) agreement with their patrons that "all-you-can-eat" means "all-you-can-eat-in-a-single-visit-no-doggie-bags-allowed." This situation is more akin to my going to a restaurant and having the chef send out a complimentary appetizer. I don't choose to eat it at the time and wrap it up to take it home. If the chef then chased me out while screaming at me, followed by fans of the chef sending me death threats, you'd think he and his buddies were, excuse the expression, crackers. But by the standards being argued in favor of the treatment the young man is getting, it'd be perfectly proper. I mean, the chef gifted him with something of value (his artistry), it was obviously meant to be eaten at the time, I chose not to and attempted to leave the premises with it. Oops.
A trip to the church? Free. Value of one (1) host? A couple of pennies. Absconding with the transubstantiated essence of a third of a triumvirate god? Priceless.
Posted by: Michelle | July 10, 2008 4:59 PM
Pete Rooke:
Vegetarian eh? I have mildly bad news for you.
Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 5:01 PM
Pete:
Michelle: "By the way, the bible forbids you to eat pork. It's not just the jews and the muslims. I hope you follow that."
I didn't know that but you appear to be right. Thank you and I will mention it at mass.
You come in here preaching and haven't even read the Bible. How typical.
Jebus Tapdancing Cripes.
Posted by: Moses | July 10, 2008 5:02 PM
No. A good lawyer would laugh at you and send you on your way.
A cracker isn't "real property" which has a specific meaning within the law. A cracker is called "personalty" or "personal property."
Really short: A HOUSE is "real property." A CAR is "personalty."
A "threat of force" has a specific meaning, too.
Really, the law is more than copying and pasting code on the Internet. You need some type of education to actually understand what the hell it is saying. An education you clearly lack from your dimwitted assertion a case could be made by palming a cracker and the nun gets her britches in an uproar.
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 5:06 PM
bill @727:
I will ignore the fluff about Pascal being a "scientist" at the level of Einstein or Hawking, since that statement doesn't contain much more than a weak argument from authority.
I do have one question for you though regarding Pascal's wager: Which god(s)?
@ Pete Rooke: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 10, 2008 5:07 PM
Dear Matt (@ 272),
Of course, you are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, but why would you think you are not responsible for what you believe? Why should anyone respect your or anyone else's unsupported beliefs? Why should it not be considered immoral for Catholics to threaten harm to Webster Cook, based on beliefs that are made up?
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 5:08 PM
"While you disagree with Pascal on the God issue, you also disagree with Einstein and Stephen Hawking - and other more scientific minds than yours and mine."
Well, you seem confused at best.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein
Stephen Hawkin has said similar many times.
"Hawking told the attentive reporters that he did believe in God, but not in a personal God." He calls the universe "god" and claims to want to read its mind.
Got it?
Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 5:12 PM
bill:
but don't loose track of the key point
Oh, you were making one. Sorry, missed that part.
Pascal was a major scientist and believer in God.
No, he was a scientist, became a believer, and stopped being a scientist.
you also disagree with Einstein and Stephen Hawking
Einstein:
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954"
Stephen Hawking:
"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]"
and other more scientific minds than yours and mine.
Speak for yourself, you uninformed Ray Comfort drone.
Anyway, what the hell does any of it have to do with the price of tea in China? Not only do you make a point incorrectly and pathetically badly, you pick to make a totally irrelevant one.
The failboat is filling fast.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 10, 2008 5:13 PM
Michelle: I'm sure there is some room for manoeuvre otherwise it would be a bit unreasonable and unfair. I don't refuse to eat meat outright and would necessarily abstain from mussels or prawns and might, in the right circumstances, eat meat reared in the wild and killed painlessly. It has been 2000 years and we should surely allow for increased dietary awareness.
StuV: "You come in here preaching and haven't even read the Bible. How typical."
I do concede my knowledge of the old testament could be improved and I am no preacher.
In any event surely even if you allow for the fact that there isn't a God - as you seem to claim - what Dr. Myers advocates and what the student did was at the very least mean and incendiary.
Posted by: Benajmin Franklin | July 10, 2008 5:16 PM
Bill @ #727
You are dead wrong on the Pascal-Einstein issue.
Einstein, when asked if he beleived in immortality, said "NO, And one life is enough for me".
Check your facts, or if you don't want to, post only at Ray Comfort's blog"
Posted by: ick Gotts | July 10, 2008 5:27 PM
I call Poe on Pete Rooke: even in this thread the idiocy of his comments shines out like a stream of bat's piss, but he can't quite keep in character - that stuff about pork, for example.
Posted by: Geral | July 10, 2008 5:45 PM
@49,
2girls1cracker.com
Maybe??>/i>
HAHA WIN! Thread ended at 49!
When I heard PZ's desecration threat, my first thought was "man boob".. I don't know why or how it would involve a church cracker...
Posted by: Patricia | July 10, 2008 5:47 PM
#675 - Jeffery D - Cyber hug. Sorry it's all I can do. :)
Posted by: Tadhg | July 10, 2008 5:55 PM
Myers, you're a hate filled idiot, lashing out at what you fail to understand!
Posted by: Kseniya | July 10, 2008 5:55 PM
I'd like to complain about Mr. Peter Rooke.
Dear Sir/Madame,
I would like to take advantage of a rare opportunity to tell it like it is. It may help if I begin my discussion by relating an innocuous story in order to illustrate my point: A few days ago I was arguing with a particularly meddlesome tax cheat who was insisting that everything Mr. Peter Rooke says is absolutely and completely true. I tried to convince this high-handed polemic that Mr. Rooke's unsavory smear tactics condemn children to a life of drugs, gangs, drinking, rape, incest, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and a number of other horrors. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to expose every officious practice of every officious storyteller. If the people generally are relying on false information sown by deranged radicals, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Mr. Rooke's patter is smooth and quite practiced. He can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in his effort to subvert existing lines of power and information. However, his ploys fall apart upon reflection. The recent outrage at Mr. Peter Rooke's arguments may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that he rather grandiloquently refers to me and everyone else he dislikes as a deplorable knuckle-dragger.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 6:02 PM
I have no idea what to do with that. Laughing first for sure.
Posted by: StuV | July 10, 2008 6:02 PM
It has been 2000 years and we should surely allow for increased dietary awareness.
What else should we allow for? If you get to be wishy-washy about that, what else do you get to flake on?
I do concede my knowledge of the old testament could be improved and I am no preacher.
Oh, you are just going to LOVE Leviticus. It'll put quite a crimp on your lifestyle.
what Dr. Myers advocates and what the student did was at the very least mean and incendiary.
I'd call it rude at the most. So what? That justifies death threats?
Posted by: BGT | July 10, 2008 6:02 PM
@ Tadhg #744
No, we understand, we just don't believe....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 6:05 PM
AND that ladies and germs is why Kseniya has a molly.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 6:11 PM
........humm
Even if it was auto generated I and clicked the link AFTER....
grumble
Posted by: Ashley | July 10, 2008 6:34 PM
lol @ 744.
It's not hard to understand. Some people just think it's stupid. (and it is)
Posted by: Zach Miller | July 10, 2008 6:38 PM
I just think it's hilarious that so many people take their faith with such utter seriousness that death threats ensue whenever somebody (usually an athiest) points out some bit of stupidity or ignorance on the part of their community or leadership.
It's like a bunch of Microsoft fanboys flying off the handle when you mention that Halo just isn't a lot to play.
There are more important things to worry about, folks! One guy doesn't agree with your point of view. Must he be burned at the stake? What are you so afraid of?
Posted by: OneMadClown | July 10, 2008 6:38 PM
Michelle @ #696 - Wrap a Koran in bacon? Why does that seem terribly mild to me?
Seems smoky and delicious to me.
I think we've all been dancing around the real issue here, the proverbial elephant in the room...the disgusting, nigh-flavorless tragedy that is the communion wafer. Wholly unidentifable as an actual bread product, these thin, tiny rounds of what appears to be off-white polystyrene are an absolute abomination and an affront to my tastebuds. I'd have thought that the transubstantiated body of the Savior of Man would be full-bodied, rich, and flavorful.
I don't blame a guy for having one of these gastronomical horrors hit his tongue and then not be able to bring himself to swallow it, but instead flee the scene looking for a safe place to spit it out and possibly bury it, lest some other poor sod happen upon it.
At least the hole-in-the-wall fundie Baptist church I was dragged to as a kid used Ritz crackers. Buttery and delicious, like Jesus should be.
Until the Catholic Church comes to its senses and reforms to the point of allowing some melted cheese, green onion, maybe a little hard salami on those vile little poker chips they call communion wafers, then we simply have nothing to say to one another.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 10, 2008 6:51 PM
Re #743: Thanks Patricia darling. In an odd way I took it as a compliment - someone hated my words so bad that they had to go out of their way to be hateful. I mean, he or she actually scanned the whole blog to pick out specifics - I feel I am almost famous. (grin) It is funny, and I wish now I had saved the comment so I could share it. Gotta love xtain charity and love as displayed on these threads.
Pax Nabisco
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 10, 2008 6:51 PM
Brownian, OM, writes:
According to the Bible, the God of Love is responsible for at least 33,041,220 deaths, lots of those being children.
That's just the bible. Remember, the god of love is also the god of smallpox, HIV, and the bubonic plague.* He's also the god of tsunamis, earthquakes, and - well - you can see the impact craters from god's love all over Mars and The Moon. That's the god of love that created us with a sun that's going to start failing in a measly hundred million years or so. Jesus'd better come back soon before it's too late!
* Unless, of course, you're willing to grant that abiogenesis and evilution was what created those?
Posted by: Dahan | July 10, 2008 7:16 PM
"Myers, you're a hate filled idiot, lashing out at what you fail to understand!"
Far be it from me to presume to talk for PZ, but I think probably "annoyed/angry" would fit better than "hate filled". He's certainly not an idiot. Remember, just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean their idiots. They may be, but not necessarily. Finally, as has been stated here before a few times. It's really incredibly vain of you to think that PZ or the rest of us just can't grasp the amazingly simple beliefs you hold on to. It's not like Catholicism is so complicated that it's equivalent to trying to understand string theory or quantum field theory.
Posted by: onclepsycho | July 10, 2008 7:19 PM
For Godsake everybody, please... IT-WAS-JUST-A-CRACKER!!!!!
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 7:36 PM
Josh West,
It wasn't a death you dopey prick. I would like him (and all of you) to die painfully and slowly, but I certainly wouldn't waste any valuable ammo doing it. Why don't you learn to read you cunt.
Posted by: James | July 10, 2008 7:37 PM
As I have a busy life teaching I will not be commenting on what was said about my post except for two and I will comment on what was said in an earlier post:
#547, Mr. Dahan, "self-centric ass" is the example of unprofessionalism I was talking about. If those fine people who normally reads Professor Myer's blog are anti-relgious, fine. I have sworn an other to "support and defend the Constitution" to preserve such views, however, since all the attacks are geared towards Catholics, it tells me that this is an Anti-Catholic blog. "Looks, like a fish, smells, like a fish..." (to borrow some Douglas Adams). Dialogue, Mr. Dahan, dialogue not ranting will get you far in life.
#697, Mr John C. Welch of www.bynkii.com who has issues with Adobe: Same to you, maintain professionalism. My Archdioceses had no allegations of abuse, the current one I live in had a low number and they were dealt with, not moved. Do I study theology, I hold an S.T.M., which is one level higher than a Doctoral Degree in the American system, I also hold a Doctoral in Science as well. I have read Professor, er, Dr. Myer's work and I do hold respect for him. I wish others here would demonstrate that in their posts, makes this whole thing sound like YouTube. Enough said, you make fine points in your posts, keep the slander and rude words out.
As far as the Catholic League's claim that this blog is part of the University site. Ok, they made a mistake. However, I was able to get here through a link from the University. Although that does not mean this is part of the University website, their Faculty Handbook does require that their Faculty place somewhere on their webpages or blogs that the "views and opinions written on this site do not reflect the views of the Univeristy of Minnesota, Morris, or its faculty, students, and Board of Directors." This prevents the school from getting into trouble legally. Catholic League was in error, however, as it stands, the University can be libel per the legal gurus I work with.
Anyway, it has been fun. Heading out the door to the desert for awhile.
Posted by: mandydax | July 10, 2008 7:38 PM
I think Eddie put it well in his Jesus and the Dinosaurs bit. He has to explain to his dad about what he told the humans on his second trip down there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afsa5gkvmlU
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 10, 2008 7:40 PM
Eamon:
"I mean, assuming there's a God, what real harm does he suffer if a few puny mortals say insulting things about him, or do nasty things to his earthly symbols?"
It makes much more sense when you realize that rules on blasphemy and such don't really have anything to do with any god, but rather, mind control on the part of the religious authorities.
Jacob:
"I find it humorous that a college professor employed by a respected state institution would publicly use such insulting and juvenile language towards Catholics."
I do too. Keep it up, PZ!
""the intelligent, educated atheist PZ Myers responds with name-calling: "extortionists", "witch hunters", "purblind ideological bigot".""
Can you demonstrate these names to be untrue?
""The anti-Catholics posting here should examine their own hearts rather than accusing the church of traits they themselves possess in abundance.""
'Scuse me? I never fucked any children. Have you?
Schnitzel:
"I fully agree. I never understood the religious position of preventing protection... "
See above, re: mind control. Or maybe body control.
AWMTI:
"It's only ludicrous if you're assuming a strictly materialistic universe. You have no grounds upon which to condemn transubstantiation apart from that assumption."
Yes, what an absurd thing to assume that the universe is as we observe it. And that things don't happen just because some people say they do. And in a way that is completely untestable (the wafer is physically exactly the same but the Jesus is invisible!)
Kelly:
If Mr. Zachary wants to desecrate a cracker...why doesn't he just look in his pantry and get one? I guess that wouldn't make a very good story and give him his 15 minutes of fame.
File under "M" for "Missing the Point".
Adrienne:
"Ooh, newsflash: Vox Day has posted on this, calling PZ "sociopathic" for wanting to desecrate sacred crackers. And he pulled the "he's a publicly employee, our tax dollahs shouldn't pay for this outrage!" bit too. Yay!"
How depressingly predictable.
Peter Rooke:
You mock the most spiritual of experiences, the communion, and feel free to do it with impunity.
As we should, in this free country of ours.
"Have you ever opened your heart the experience rather than mock and jibe with hate filled bodies (I hesitate to impugn your souls)."
Oh thank heaven for that.
Tadhg:
"Myers, you're a hate filled idiot, lashing out at what you fail to understand!"
So explain it to him. Really this whole "you don't understand" thing is really tiresome and a total cop-out.
Posted by: Dan | July 10, 2008 7:41 PM
I think Bill Donohue (and other like-minded dogmatists) may be a lost cause:
Posted by: Goddammed Atheist | July 10, 2008 7:44 PM
Could Webster Cook's devious plan be to clone the Body of Christ and ultimately repopulate the Earth with clones of Jesus Christ? And thus destroy the catholic church?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 7:56 PM
How christian of you.
Now I think it's time for you to run off to bed. You've done a fine job proving your level of intellect and I know it's got you all tuckered out. I'm sure your mommy has some nice warm milk and a cookie.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 8:00 PM
Perhaps you need to get a copy of this because you obviously have a hard time identifying what a fish looks like.
Posted by: SFG | July 10, 2008 8:07 PM
Rev BDC,
LOL, what a fucking retard you are. Amazing. If you've read the whole thread, you would have held back saying "how Christian of you" when I have already written that I am NOT!
BTW, I fucked your Mum and she was shit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 8:10 PM
Dipshit, if you had read the whole thread and the other ones you'd know that DEATH THREATS had been made against the kid. Whether you are or aren't a christian you are acting like them. Hence my comment. Idiot.
Time for bed kid. Maybe you can get a priest to snuggle up with you.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 10, 2008 8:12 PM
Hey, Sexually Frustrated Guy is back!
"I would just like to point out that our troll here "sfg" may read too much of that comic "The Punisher". That is the only other place I have ever heard the term "shower of cunts"."
Probably you could find it in just about any comic written by the esteemed Garth Ennis. I can't pretend to know why the word "shower" is used as a collective verb in the Isles, though.
"And surely you know that desecrating it is an act of disrespect to those who regard it as sacred."
All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not so easy to disrespect. No cracker hangups here, you gotta at least insult my Mommma.
Posted by: bipolar2 | July 10, 2008 8:13 PM
** an atheist's unapologetic apology **
"Theology is the subject without an object."
Don't forget big-4 monotheistic belief is not only magical nonsense; it's really unfit for human intellectual consumption.
RCs, there is no supernatural realm. There are not two worlds - the *spiritual* one superordinate to nature - Eternity is a fiction, No god whatsoever exists.
Xianity, like its murderous near eastern brother islam, its mysoginst father judaism, and its hate-filled grandfather zoroastrianism, arose late in recorded history and it has been decaying at an increasing rate since 1600 CE.
Enough of this heresy born of Paul's perverse twist on hellenistic judaism and overlaid with rites and symbols gleaned from the back alleys of slums in the eastern roman empire. Batman is more real than "Christ" ever was . . .
Enough xian intellectual nihilism and perversion of sexuality and hatred of women and self-righteous revenge seeking. (1Cor1 1:end)
"God's only excuse is that he does not exist." -- Stendahl
What a relief!
bipolar2
© 2008
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 10, 2008 8:15 PM
One more little note: Guys who post using just an initial, please stop. We got the J that most of us know, we got the J who claims to NOT be J, and then there's someone else posting as a lower-case j and well, it's a bit confusing. Just add another letter or two, that's all I ask.
And one more little thing: When I first saw the title of this post, I thought it was going to be another "Let's all insult X" post, like the Ray Comfort one a while ago. So...who's up for pushing this thread into the 1,000s? >;)
Posted by: OrbitalMike | July 10, 2008 8:17 PM
To: Mr Bill and other Catholics
Once more into the breach ...
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
I can think of many things more vile than desecrating a wheat wafer, but let's not distract ourselves from the real issues. Most do not accept your claim of these wafers transubstantiating into your deity. I certainly don't anymore. I don't accept yours or the church's assertions on the existence of a deity. But the issue here isn't whether the "Eucharist" is God either. The issue here is freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs you want and your right to practice those beliefs. But I am under NO obligation to respect those beliefs or ideas. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, and your demand that I respect your beliefs is tantamount to asking me to hold those beliefs also. I do not and will not believe what you want me to believe. Your concept of sacred, or what constitutes your god does not extend to everyone. I do not hold sacred what you do. Nothing is sacred. Forcing me to accept what you consider sacred is tantamount to forcing me to subscribe to you religion. I have a right to NOT BELIEVE, and so does Dr. Myers.
Dr Myers is free to express his opinion on his personal blog which I understand does not reside on University computers. I'm sure you can reach many off-university websites via links on the University's web site: will you hold the University and related faculty accountable for those links also? I think not.
So why don't you deal with reality? Why do you hold onto thousand year old superstitions? I think it's time you and the church fathers stop propagating such vile nonsense and do something good for the world.
And personally, when I attend Mass this weekend and the church freely hands me a wafer, I will palm it and send it to Dr Myers so he can do what he pleases to it. Or maybe not, since I do not want to be bored to tears on a nice Sunday morning, just to grab a little wafer thin mint.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 8:22 PM
Whew. For a minute there I was worried you'd actually go waste a couple hours. I personally won't think a second about this on sunday morning. I'll get up for the sunrise on the beach, take some photos, walk the dogs, maybe roll around in the bed with the wife and generally enjoy the day. Going to church even for such a prank seems like a boring way to spend one of the few days off I have.
Posted by: James | July 10, 2008 8:40 PM
And now the immaturity comes in from Rev BigDumbChimp. However, he proved my point, despite that fact he missed the humorous reference. Speaking of fish...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 8:48 PM
No I caught it. I thought you were off to the desert?
If you base your judgment on this blog of a few posts dealing with one subject that has put Catholics in bad light (death threats over a cracker? really?), then it highlights the fact you've failed to do anything buy a cursory glance.
I could say you are a pompous windbag who likes the smell of his own farts, but that would just on the brief time I've read your comments.
Posted by: bradm | July 10, 2008 8:54 PM
"Doesn't seem to say anything about when dealing with crackers."
Speaking of crackers ... by that logic, if you were to bring a noose to a NAACP meeting, we'd have no right to call you on racism because, well, its just a piece of rope.
Posted by: karen | July 10, 2008 9:01 PM
I scrolled past a lot of comments. I hope someone didn't already say this.
PZ said I've got two messages from good Catholics who want to send me communion wafers laced with arsenic or rat poison.
PZ, you need to send Bill Donohue the email addresses of those Catholics so he can start a witch hunt on them too. Because it seems to me they would be intentionally desecrating the Body of Christ!!!11!!!
Posted by: Dustin Wants You Damn Kids to Get off The Lawn | July 10, 2008 9:05 PM
Damn, man. Back in the day, a thread 50 posts long meant CalTard was down there trolling.
Posted by: beauregard | July 10, 2008 9:09 PM
Why do people still comment when there are hundreds of comments? No one reads through all these; it's a waste of time.
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 10, 2008 9:11 PM
I'd like to see that holy wafer shoved up the arse of Chocolate Jesus.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 10, 2008 9:15 PM
Um, no.
They are nothing alike.
Posted by: Brian Macker | July 10, 2008 9:36 PM
Actually it's hard for me to think of something less vile than bringing home a cracker someone has given you. Now if you bring home an STD that someone has given you, well, that's another thing.
Posted by: Buck | July 10, 2008 9:45 PM
I used to be an altar boy (seems like one of the fortunate few who never had a priest try to molest them)and one day, out of pure curiosity, my fellow altar boy and I decided to try some of the communion wafers before mass. We ate half the bag before realizing how dry our mouths were and then promptly went to the cabinet where the wine was kept. We ended up drinking wayyyyy too much of that so we had to sneak it out of the dressing room/storage area to a water fountain (this mass was for our parochial school Friday mass so we weren't actually in a church)where we refilled it a bit to make sure nobody, especially the bishop who was giving the special mass that day!, noticed.
I think in Bill Donahues eyes I am much worse than you, PZ, so if you want I will go ahead and be burned at the stake for you.
One quick little note, the bishop who presided over the mass that day didn't seem to really be interested in the altar boys beyond punching them when their backs were turned and squeezing their hands to the point of pain when he offered to shake hands. He was one sadistic turd, as most are in the catholic hierarchy.
Posted by: efrique | July 10, 2008 10:03 PM
I don't care so much that loons like those ones think it's okay to desecrate perfectly good food with concentrated stupid, but why on earth expect anyone else to treat it as mysterious and wonderful, rather than with all the nommy respect due to snacks?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 10, 2008 10:26 PM
Bill Donohue: It is hard to think.
Cheezus H. Crackers, hundreds of comments and still such juicy low-hanging fruit waiting untouched...
Posted by: sfg best friend | July 10, 2008 10:34 PM
sfg, I know I said I wouldn't be in touch, but I'm really worried about you. After you deleted your Facebook page I was frantic. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE talk to me. I know you must be confused after the weekend. I know how angry and upset you were when you told me about everything that happened to you there, and I want you to know that Cal, Jon and I will ALWAYS be your friend. The only antidote to hate is love, I'm sorry if you feel that the love we showed to each other is something you won't respect. Please don't let the terrible things you went through poison the beautiful, shining soul I held in my arms. I understand the terrible pain you are going through. You know your secrets will go with me to the grave. If you can't face phoning me, at least let L know you're alright.
It would break my heart never to see you smile again, darling.
U NO WHO
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 10, 2008 10:46 PM
-beaureguard
Well, I did read 'em all. Funny stuff still coming in.
---
My summary of the typical concern troll:
Troll: "You're being rude calling it like it is!"
Appropriate responses: "1. So what? 2. How exactly is that worthy of comment instead of all the death threats?"
Posted by: j (not J) | July 10, 2008 10:50 PM
Rey,
How can you confuse j with J or with J(not J) {me}?... Ok, Ok.
I started out as Jsn and then some asswipe troll used Jsn too. It was very frustrating to be confused with that bastard. So I guess I'll sign off as E.V. from now on...
Posted by: clinteas | July 10, 2008 10:52 PM
Guys,Ive got to say,after reading most of the 2ooo or so posts about a cracker and seeing what collection of ugly hateful murderous christofascists propped up here in the last few days,I am more than a lil scared and worried about your country,and at the same time glad im not living in it.
If what we have experienced here in the last few days is anything to go by,there are plenty of people in your country that are not only totally unhinged from rational thought and reality,but at the same time ready to grab a gun and kill for their delusions.Truly scary.
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 10, 2008 11:51 PM
Has anyone suggested that you might do something similar to a copy of the Quran?
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 10, 2008 11:54 PM
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
What about eating it? Not to mention frinking his blood. That's freaky shit.
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 12:40 AM
At a rate of about once a post, yes. And it's still totally irrelevant.Posted by: Justin | July 11, 2008 1:00 AM
You know what PZ? I ordered a box of those crackers, and I'm going to desecrate them also. These Christian whackjobs need to be stopped.
Posted by: Martin | July 11, 2008 1:03 AM
That lousy cracker did lead me to atheism. I remember this stupid song the nuns taught us. Key phrase -
"eat his body, drink his blood and we'll sing a song of love"
That phrase was so remarkably stupid that I had to think about this religion which was supposed to be the core of my life. It did not take a lot of thought before I abandoned it.
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | July 11, 2008 1:05 AM
Be careful, PZ. These people are fucking nuts. Also, Bill Donohue can drink my ball juice.
HJ
Posted by: Rob | July 11, 2008 1:19 AM
I just composed an email to President Bruininks declaring my support of PZ. I urge others to do the same and take the time to make it meaningful and appropriate. On that note, I urge all of us to stop using inappropriate and vile language in the comments here. We need to be mindful of the image we are creating.
Posted by: bastion | July 11, 2008 1:36 AM
Way back at #265, James wrote:
I think if he (and all who reads this) sees what the Catholic Church really teaches on Faith and Reason
You must be using a different definition of "reason" than the one most of us use, the one the defines reason as ideas or beliefs that are logical, rational, sane, sound.
I know quite a bit about the teachings of the Catholic Church, and really, most (all?) of its most sacred and significant teachings and beliefs are based on Faith and Irrationality.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 11, 2008 1:50 AM
SFG the moron said in comment #221,
"That's spelled r-e-l-i-g-I-o-n. Sorry, but there's no E in that word. See what I mean about the IQ on here."
Congratulations.... in pointing out a simple typo in an attempt to make a person look foolish you made an even bigger error than they did and came across as the bigger fool.
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 1:52 AM
Oh? What does that transubstantiate into?Posted by: holierthanthou | July 11, 2008 2:07 AM
PZ@276: "3. In a few weeks, I'll commit sacrilege on items from a couple of faiths, just so they don't feel left out (this was part of the plan all along, actually)."
I see that at least a couple of commenters suggested something involving the Koran. The Eucharist and Koran, representing the two largest religions on this planet. What a challenge! I dare you. No, I triple-dog dare you! Nawww, I take it back, that would be TOO irrational, TOO stupid. Ever heard of the Darwin Awards?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 11, 2008 2:14 AM
SFG, also congratulations on being my first quote submission to Fundies Say the Darndest Things! I think that quote is up there with : "I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie"
Posted by: SEF | July 11, 2008 3:46 AM
Will Catholic churches everywhere (but mostly in the US) see a noticeable and "mysterious" upsurge in attendance this weekend? You would-be cracker palmers should know that you'll be making the management delusionally happy. ;-)
Posted by: SEF | July 11, 2008 4:10 AM
The Jesus character was supposed to be a prophet, ie have knowledge of the future. So was the whole cracker thing just a simple misunderstanding of his attempt to use modern idiom and what he really said to his followers was "Bite me!"?
Posted by: Rob | July 11, 2008 5:22 AM
This is pathetic. Rather sad too, all this over a soggy cracker that is only a SYMBOL of something that did not exist in the first place.
Posted by: Siddharth | July 11, 2008 5:35 AM
"I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with religious teachings...I don't happen to believe that there are millions of gods like the Hindu faith believes. I might find that belief silly, but I'm not going to go out and spit on one of their statues either, or condone someone else doing it..."
Each time you eat Beef, you are spitting on the beliefs of hundreds millions of Hindus. Each time you cut your hair, you're mocking the beliefs of the Sikhs. Each time you kill an insect, or eat root vegetables, you're mocking the beliefs of the Jains.
Of course, it doesn't bother you that you're insulting the faith of Hindus by eating meat, does it? Because, you think those beliefs are silly. The same way, the rest of the rational world thinks you're beliefs are insanely silly, especially when there are death threats against a person who took a cracker home.
Perspective - it's a powerful idea.
Posted by: elcheef | July 11, 2008 7:02 AM
It's obvious that there is a lot of emotion on either side, but the most prevaling characteristics of the posts here is the lack of respect given to Catholics who believe this stuff. Either the Eucharist *is* the Body of Christ, or the Eucharist *isn't* the Body of Christ. And since Catholics believe that it *is.* (read the Last Supper accounts and John 6 to know why), that explains their outrage (but not necessarily their lack of charity). Why are agnostics and atheists so quick to ridicule someone else's beliefs? Why do you even care? PZ, if you have any sense, you would pull the offending posts and apologize for offending the beliefs of these people. This guy Donahue is a pitbull, and this situation is going to get messier and more public the longer you dig in. Donahue will hang on until the end, and he will kick your butt in the national media. On the other hand, he's magnanimous in victory and quick to call off the dogs.
Posted by: Siddharth | July 11, 2008 7:55 AM
". Why are agnostics and atheists so quick to ridicule someone else's beliefs?"
Because, it is is bloody silly to believe that the "nature" of a piece of cracker turns into the flesh and blood of just because some old guy said some magic words.
This is simply not consistent with science and reality, irrespective of what John 6 says.
It's exactly like believing cows are sacred and shouldn't be eaten.
Why do you even care?
Because, the poor person who took the cracker home received *death threats* and threats of *expulsion* from school. This reprehensible and vile act (ie, the threats) deserves scorn and ridicule, and one way to do that is publicity via a popular blog.
This guy Donahue is a pitbull, and this situation is going to get messier and more public the longer you dig in. Donahue will hang on until the end, and he will kick your butt in the national media. On the other hand, he's magnanimous in victory and quick to call off the dogs.
So, you're essentially saying "Shut up, or else ...". Wow, that's so considerate of you. Any rational person realizes what a nutjob Donahue is
Posted by: kryptonic | July 11, 2008 8:59 AM
Donahue squeaks and out come the freaks.
Body of ChristTM wafer-eating, Sunday best-wearing, rosary-praying, virgin Mary of the breakfast toast-worshiping cultists are deserving of ridicule as much as black long-sleeved shirt-, black sweat pant-, and black-and-white Nike tennis shoe-wearing zombies. Religions, or as I like to call them, cults, are for pussies.
I cringe when I think back that, when receiving the cardboard-flavored jesus disc, the priest was actually putting his filthy hands in my mouth (I won't say what else he may have been thinking of putting in my mouth).
This "crackergate" scandal is all just so mind-bottling.
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 11, 2008 9:48 AM
AWMTI (Comment #441):
Power, politics and patronage, for a start. Are you really so naive that you can't see how the church would survive as an institution given the social and political niche it carved out for itself?
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 11, 2008 10:21 AM
John F. (Comment #484):
As a not-entirely-humourless response to the over-the-top (and rather more vile) behaviour of certain Catholics. Or haven't you been paying attention to the back-story?
No, of course it doesn't. However, it doesn't follow from this that religion has any answers at all.
Why? Because we don't get to have the fun of making up silly claims about magic wafers and then issuing threats against people who don't treat said wafers with the same degree of respect? I can see why you might think our lives a little empty ...
Posted by: Beowulff | July 11, 2008 10:24 AM
SGF the troll spouted in #759 (and forgot to proof-read):
So you want us to die a horrible death, but you're too much of a coward to want to get your own hands dirty? My my, aren't you an admirable specimen of the human race. Do you really think that makes you a better person than somebody sending actual death threats? How much lower can you sink?Posted by: SFG | July 11, 2008 10:33 AM
Hey Beo,
Don't be a pussy. Want my address? Want to come and prove what a tough guy you are? Cock smoking retard
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 11, 2008 10:35 AM
AWMTI (Comment #507):
Nope, it's ludicrous because it involves asserting that an object X mysteriously becomes a different kind of object Y, despite the fact that it continues to possess all the properties of an X, and shows no sign at all of any of the properties of a Y.
Nothing to do with materialism, and everything to do with the principles by which we categorise objects on the basis of their properties.
Posted by: StuV | July 11, 2008 10:53 AM
SFG:
Don't be a pussy. Want my address? Want to come and prove what a tough guy you are? Cock smoking retard
Wait, so do you want him to be a pussy, a tough guy, a cock smoker or a retard when he comes over?
You realize you're not very good at this, right?
Posted by: Kseniya | July 11, 2008 11:13 AM
Why continue to post? It's called An Ongoing Conversation. Nobody's obligated to read hundreds of posts if they don't want to, but most of the people commenting don't need to - they've been following along from the beginning.
SFG, either post your full name and your address immediately, or quit being an idiotic wanker with all this "tough guy" nonsense. What a waste of paint.
I'll come see you, if you like. You don't mind if I bring my stack of Watchtowers withe me, do you?
Posted by: doug livesey | July 11, 2008 11:24 AM
"Then its clear that PZ has to stick the cracker in his mouth and then desecrate it."
Desecrate the body of Christ in your mouth?
Yeah, baby!
Posted by: Beowulff | July 11, 2008 11:35 AM
StuV, that just cracked me up, thanks :)
And SFG, wow, that convinced me you're so not a coward. You're sooo brave to challenge someone to go through all the trouble of traveling half-way across the world (for all you know) to come have a fight with some loser troll from the internet. Right. Instead, I now think you're a lazy, dishonest, projecting, sexually insecure, bullying moron. If you want to pick a fight, at least offer to do the effort yourself.
But if you're looking for a brawl, you'll have to look elsewhere. I don't fight with children.
Posted by: FastLane | July 11, 2008 11:44 AM
"so when you are going all out making fun of their cracker, just remember, if they are wrong about God and religion then it doesn't matter... but if you are wrong about God and religion everything matters."
Can we call this Pascal's Wafer??
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 12:05 PM
"When dealing with others, I must be respectful, fair and civil. Hmmm. Doesn't seem to say anything about when dealing with crackers."
By this logic, there's no problem spray-painting swastikas on the gravestones of Jews, right?
Posted by: Salt | July 11, 2008 12:23 PM
On that note, I urge all of us to stop using inappropriate and vile language in the comments here. We need to be mindful of the image we are creating.
Posted by: Rob | July 11, 2008 1:19 AM
Have created, Rob. The Pharyngula archives would tend to support a past tense.
Posted by: Siddharth | July 11, 2008 12:38 PM
Sigh..
A cracker is not a dead person. How can something so simple be so difficult to understand?
Posted by: Paulo Pinto | July 11, 2008 12:41 PM
This religious fanatics are so funny it brings me to tears I'm laughing so much.
You people in the US "are well served" with that lot. And I thought that were only the "bible belters" of sorts that acted this way but I now I see I was wrong.
And it's almost as sad as it worrying that this religious nut jobs are taking over further and further up the positions of power among the military, government, finance and the media channels.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 12:47 PM
I'm aware a cracker isn't a dead person (but thanks SO much for reminding me). I'll return the favor and point out that a gravestone isn't, either.
If "it's only a fracking cracker" is a valid defense, then so is "it's only a fracking gravestone".
Civility obliges us to respect others and their customs, regardless as to how odd they (and them) appear to us.
Posted by: StuV | July 11, 2008 2:03 PM
Dav, one is defacing property that is not yours, the other is doing something other than intended with something given to you.
Posted by: SEF | July 11, 2008 2:18 PM
That was an idea I'd prepared this morning (UK time zone) and never got round to posting! Here's the text so far, but I wasn't really happy with it.Pascal's Wafer:
Are they still crackers?
• If the magic ritual has changed the wheat cracker and you eat the cracker, then you get to be a cannibal and cannibals go to cannibal heaven to be with their victim.
• If you don't eat the magic cracker, then you've missed out on being a cannibal and going to a cannibal heaven populated by rather nasty beings.
• If the magic ritual has done nothing and you eat the cracker, then you get to be (or act as) a delusional fool of poor morality - reinforcing the behaviour in yourself and others.
• If you don't eat the perfectly normal but not very nice cracker, then you get to assert your rationality and better morality (in this one respect) for yourself and others.
So which of those is really the best bet?
"If you grain, you grain all; if you lose crackers beliefs, you lose nothing"
Posted by: Beowulff | July 11, 2008 2:19 PM
To Dav Laurel, #823:
To be fair, the concept of gravestones is a bit irrational too, and indeed, if you think about it, they are just a slab of stone. That doesn't mean that your comment about spraying Nazi symbols on Jewish gravestones has much merit though. Let me show you why:
False analogy 1: Gravestones are expensive, and owned by the relatives of the deceased. Wafers are cheap, and owned by you once they are given to you.
False analogy 2: Gravestones are a commemoration to a person who actually existed, but can't defend themselves anymore. A wafer is a symbol for Jezus, who either didn't exist, and therefore doesn't need defense, or is an aspect of an all-powerful supernatural being, who, if he isn't above petty insults, should certainly be able to defend itself.
False analogy 3: Jews are a minority group that has historically been persecuted by Nazis, and is still facing discrimination from the white majority. Therefore, using Nazi symbols on Jewish property can be taken as a clear threat. On the other hand, there is no prior history of biology professors persecuting wafers, and Catholics are not a minority group that is under threat from a majority of atheist bloggers.
I could probably come up with more reasons, but it's quite clear already, you're argument crumbles.
And your argument about respecting customs no matter how odd, is easily taken apart too, by a simple reduction to absurdity: should we respect people who use their religion to defend slavery? Some beliefs are odd, and people are generally quite willing to leave those beliefs alone. Others are just plain wrong. Those beliefs don't deserve civility, they deserve to be fought tooth and nail.
Expulsion threats and death threats for not eating a wafer is closer to the "wrong" end of the spectrum than to the "odd" end in my book, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 2:19 PM
"[O]ne is defacing property that is not yours, the other is doing something other than intended with something given to you."
Such are the hazards of argument by analogy. Legally, it isn't against the law to abuse a communion wafer, but let there be no mistake: the gravestone vandal and PZ have in common the intent to offend a specific religious group by way of attacking an inanimate object. And to assert as PZ does that it's "just a cracker" is flat-out disingenuous. It's "just a cracker" to HIM, not to THEM.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 2:57 PM
I acknowledge, Beowulff, that the analogy isn't perfect. For instance a communion wafer isn't property in the sense a gravestone is. Evidently one isn't allowed to leave the premises once one receives one, one is expected to consume it on the spot.
Obviously civility has its limits, we don't condone honor killings. If a group wishes to fetishize a particular object it need not concern us, we may cock an eyebrow and comment on how strange some people are...but PZ went beyond that.
(I believe abolitionists employed the Bible to promote their anti-slavery views as well, and did so without attacking the Bible itself.)
Posted by: StuV | July 11, 2008 3:11 PM
Okay Dav, I'll bite. What about what you put on your OWN gravestone?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 3:22 PM
Are you asking me what I'd put on my gravestone? I'm leaning towards WHEN IS THAT FRACKING BASTARD GOING TO DIE?
Posted by: Beowulff | July 11, 2008 3:54 PM
No, Dav, I'm not going to let you get away with ignoring my last question, because it's not about Catholics "fetishizing" a wafer. Ridiculous as it may seem, it's indeed harmless enough. No, it's about Catholics trying to get a student expelled and issuing death threats to him for not eating the wafer that gets criticized. Tell me: is this behavior in the name of Catholicism just odd, or is it wrong? Answer the question, please.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 4:29 PM
I don't see that expulsion is being insisted on, only that "all options should be on the table", including that one. That would plainly be going too far, as are the death threats (particularly in view of the fact Webster returned the wafer (which was the issue, not that he didn't eat it)). There's no question this is overblown and silly...to us...but is it wrong for Catholics to feel this way about what they consider blasphemy? Is it really our place to say?
Myers' provocation and absurd "just a cracker" defense, on the other hand, was plainly wrong. And dumb.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 4:52 PM
By the way, I can't help remembering a line from the Louis Malle film Murmur of the Heart, which concerns a youth who serves as an altar boy. Seeing him surreptitiously pop a communion wafer in his mouth, another altar boy mildly observes "to blaspheme means you still believe".
Posted by: StuV | July 11, 2008 5:01 PM
Dav, the street you live on is Holy to me. It is the flattened body of my Lord and Savior. Walking on it is desecration.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 5:18 PM
Stu, Lord Cthulhu assures me I'm in no danger, as long as I wear the Sacred Sandals.
Posted by: Beowulff | July 11, 2008 6:40 PM
Dav, read what you are writing: you say the Catholics are going too far with the death threats, but it's not our place to say something about it? What the...? Do they have to actually kill someone first before anyone can speak up?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 11, 2008 8:45 PM
No, I meant it's not our place to say how Catholics ought to feel about what they consider blasphemy.
I'm home and just looked up something I read years ago in Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism by Prager and Telushkin. Page 103 describes "host desecration". In 1243, the entire Jewish population of Berlitz, near Berlin, was burned alive for allegedly "torturing a wafer". So it didn't surprise me that someone would get in trouble for removing one, or even receving death threats over it. What's remarkable is the fact that Cook was apparently unaware of how seriously his fellow Catholics (I presume he is in fact Catholic) would react to his act.
But even more remarkable is the fact that PZ, having just read about all this, has the brilliant idea of publicly soliciting for a wafer in order to desecrate it himself. I suppose he's pleased with the uproar he's generated, but all I can say is: Jeebus Crow.
Posted by: DingoDave | July 11, 2008 9:34 PM
Paul Burnett wrote in post#38:
"But they EAT the Body of Christ - after the priest drinks his blood! How is that ritual cannibalism less desecratory than sneaking a cracker out of the building?"
I'd say the young man who smuggled that cracker out of the church, should be looked upon as a hero. He was trying to SAVE that cracker from the ignominious fate of being eaten by one of the Catholic hordes.
Posted by: Dave2 | July 11, 2008 11:03 PM
Dav Laurel wrote:
Since when? I mean, do I now need a permission slip to point out that people are overreacting?
Posted by: SEF | July 12, 2008 3:19 AM
Not if it's someone else who is making the claim of blasphemy about the act. The original person committing the act might not believe it to be blasphemy at all if they don't (still) believe in the crackers religion in question.Posted by: Beowulff | July 12, 2008 8:46 AM
Dav Laurel wrote in #837
You still don't get it, do you? Nothing should be so sacred that insulting it should result in threats of physical violence or even threats to one's career. Also, I don't see you actually condemning the burning of the Jewish population of Berlitz in 1243 over a wafer. What does it take for you to condemn violent actions based on religious ideas of what is sacred?I also assume you are equally supportive of the Muslim riots and death threats after the Muhammad cartoons were published? Or of the murder of a movie maker just because he made a movie critical of the Islam? Not our place to say they're overreacting, it's holy to them, right?
Well, I'm sure the lives that were ended in both cases were pretty darn holy to the people who lived them. Doesn't that count?
You don't seem to understand that the very idea of declaring a belief so sacred and untouchable that any insult warrants threats to career and life is wrong, wrong, wrong. There's a host of problems with the concept. Who gets to decide what is sacred? Can I declare something sacred, just because I feel like it? Or simply because I want to be able to get away with just about anything when people do something to my new sacred thing that I don't like?
Another problem: if I do something bad to someone in reaction to a desecration of my sacred belief, how does the law then judge whether it was justified? Was the deed in proportion to the desecration? Then how do you measure sacredness? By the severeness of the reaction to the desecration, as you seem to suggest? But that's a circular reasoning that will allow any reaction to desecration. Then maybe there is a minimum number of worshipers sharing my belief? Or a minimum age of my holy book? Or should the judge simply respect my beliefs, in order to avoid being labeled an intolerant bigot? What a way to run a free society that would be.
So, with this in mind, please explain to me why we should put Catholic ideas of sacredness in particular, and any idea of sacredness in general, above criticism, simply because they think it's sacred?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 12, 2008 3:58 PM
Don't make assumptions, Beowulff, it's stupid and annoying.
There are laws regarding murder, riot and the issuing of death threats, and no one is immune from investigation or prosecution. My mention of honor killings should have given you a clue as to where I stand.
We need to separate what Cook did from what PZ intends to do. The offense in the former case was apparently inadvertent, while PZ's would be intentional. The reaction to the former case is certainly open to crititicism but as I have endeavored to explain, the state is in no position to determine what is and isn't "blasphemy".
There certainly is a place in society for criticism of religious beliefs and practices, as Mormons for one are well-aware. Crapping on a communion wafer, or whatever the hell Myers intends to do to one if he gets one, does not fall in that category. Do you disagree?
Posted by: Beowulff | July 12, 2008 5:44 PM
I do disagree. Don't forget, PZ hasn't done anything yet, and is already receiving threats to his career and his life. So as far as I'm concerned, any wafer that is legally his is free game to whatever he wants to do to it. It's not like it'll hurt anybody. And if he manages to do it in a way that highlights the silliness of the outrage over a wafer, then it would be a valid act of criticism - and an act of free speech. It may be rude, but it doesn't deserve death threats, and is certainly legal. I hope you'll at least agree with that.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to leave this thread, there are many more interesting threads up by now to keep an eye on.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | July 13, 2008 8:23 PM
There's no law against stepping on a communion wafer that I know of, just as there's none against pissing on a yarmule. Or dipping a crucifix in a vat of urine.
PZ may think he's a latter-day Lenny Bruce, but he's just a Michael Richards.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | July 14, 2008 12:40 AM
In post #796 Rob said - "I urge all of us to stop using inappropriate and vile language in the comments here. We need to be mindful of the image we are creating."
ROTFLMU*UO!
Don't you think it's just a tad late for that cautionary admonition Rob? Let's face it, the "image" of atheists that Professor Paul Zachary Myers is "creating" in his original blog posts here is hardly an exemplary one is it? (Well, come to think of it. . . PZ Myers is being quite *exemplary* here but in a rather negative way) It seems that PZ Myers seems to be doing his damnedest to make his Atheist Supremacist pal Professor Richard Dawkins look like a sweet little pussycat. . . Too bad PZ doesn't know the meaning of of the acronym PR.
For the record I am neither a Catholic nor a Christian but I can see anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigotry as well as anyone else can. With any luck Professor Myers will get a dressing down from the University since he has clearly broken both the letter and the Spirit of its Code of Ethics.
Posted by: DrmChsr0 | July 15, 2008 6:18 PM
While I'm all for a good scrap, blatantly trying to get yourself fired is a pretty stupid move.
Even I have to agree with a lot of the commentators.
While pointing out that there's something wrong with the Roman Catholics as a whole is already a very unpleasant job to do, actively making it worse is pretty stupid. In fact, it just validates the fundies' misconception about atheists, therefore hampering any sort of meaningful conversation.
I'm just calling a spade a spade... Don't shoot me.
Posted by: Kate | July 15, 2008 7:48 PM
The Lord loves you, just as he loved those who crucified him. "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." His love is profound and boundless in mercy. May He shower you with mercy and love.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 15, 2008 7:50 PM
The Lord loves you, just as he loved those who crucified him. "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." His love is profound and boundless in mercy. May He shower you with mercy and love.
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: Wowbagger | July 15, 2008 7:59 PM
May He shower you with mercy and love.
Is a god-shower like a golden shower? 'Cause I'm not into that sort of thing.
Posted by: sahale93 | July 16, 2008 10:24 PM
Anyone who doesn't understand why this is such a scandal to us who believe is not Catholic, not Christian and is certainly not intellectually honest. You would likely be outraged at anyone who reads the first chapter of the book of Romans on the street corner and demand that they be jailed for hate speech. You probably won't desecrate the Koran for fear that Muslims will kill you, but you will cowardly retort that it is only because you believe in toooooolerance. But to mock what we know and believe is the flesh and blood, soul and divinity of the word made flesh...somehow that is fair game. If the body of Christ really meant nothing to you, you would not be giving it any attention. You are clearly threatened by its power and rightfully so. A power you cannot understand, but despise nonetheless. Why is that?
Posted by: grtf | July 17, 2008 5:07 PM
Paul,
If you STOP for a moment and look deep within you, you will know the TRUTH and it will make you restless. When you acknowledge this restlessness, you will have a chance for PEACE. Then I would challenge you to talk to JESUS through the consecrated HOST you have ... He will answer you in LOVE.
We are praying for you.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 17, 2008 5:08 PM
We are praying for you.
And a big ol' "fuck you" right back at ya!
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 17, 2008 5:16 PM
"With any luck Professor Myers will get a dressing down from the University since he has clearly broken both the letter and the Spirit of its Code of Ethics."
Or the U will not do anything because PZ ain't on the clock. So kindly take your "PR" and...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXfiSU_wqE
Posted by: Marvelous | July 17, 2008 6:22 PM
An atheist was walking through the woods.
"What majestic trees"!
"What powerful rivers"!
"What beautiful animals"!
He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.
He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"
Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"?
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian"?
"Very Well," said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."
Posted by: God | July 17, 2008 6:37 PM
I love doing that: String people along until they're in a situation where I know that they're going to die, and then, and only then, I Speak for Myself.
It doesn't matter if they're believers or not. They plead, and they beg, and they scream, and they come up with various ways that I might help them.
And none of it matters: I let them die anyway.
Too funny!
Posted by: mal | July 18, 2008 10:51 AM
I think this is very disrespectful to Catholics. This should be obvious. You can argue the existence of god &etc but the facts on the ground are that Catholics exist even if you think god does not.
However, yes, as others have mentioned, respect and tolerance for religious expression has a limit. We can't just respect everything because then we'll have Thuggees running around ripping people's hearts out.
The last thing to say about this is that it doesn't take a seminarian to determine that the only christian response to this incident is forgiveness.
Posted by: Della S. | July 18, 2008 1:30 PM
Paul,
You're missing the point, by saying you're only mistreating a -"cracker." You're mistreating millions of people by desecrating one of their beliefs. Catholics believe that a consecrated host is the Body of Jesus Christ. They love Jesus. One way they worship Him is by participating in the Eucharistic rite. By mocking their belief, and taking what they physically believe to be Jesus Christ, and treating it disrespectfully, you're disrespecting them. It's not rocket science. And as a tenured scientist, I find it hard to believe that you don't see that. You need to call all of this off, and apologize, because whether you believe the host is Jesus or not, it is a -fact- that you have deeply offended a large group of -people- who have never done anything to you.
As a matter of fact, I'd like for you to apologize to me, personally. I'm a 36 year old pregnant first-time mom. I've made a career in the media. I have a degree in communications. My husband has a PhD in mathematics. What you're doing personally offends me and my family and friends, and the people in all the 100-plus Catholic churches in just this area.
There is a way for you to have a discussion about ideas, theology, the nature of God, without being hurtful to me, and to others who share my beliefs.
I ask that you return the Eucharist that you have to a local church, and start an intelligent discussion on the subject. You may want to explore the merits of respecting others by respecting their beliefs. Right now, your methods and your arguments on this subject have no merit.
You owe us an apology.
In Christ,
Della S.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 18, 2008 1:46 PM
Della,
PZ has done nothing to apologise for. He comically said "you call that desecration, I'll show you desecration" to point out how stupid the over-reaction to the UoF student incident was. For that, he's received death threats from your coreligionists.
You, as a human being, are due respect for the integrity of your person, but your bizarre beliefs are due no respect whatsoever. If you believe a lot of ridiculously stupid shit, you ought to have a thicker skin when people make fun of it.
PZ doesn't owe you a damn thing. Grow up and don't be such a whiny cry-baby.
Yours in the Flying Spaghetti Monster: may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage,
Emmet.
Posted by: Isaac | July 20, 2008 11:08 AM
Emmit,
I saw what you wrote to Della and you come off very disrespectful. How dare you call her beliefs "bizarre"? Then you go point out "ridiculously stupid shit". What in the hell is wrong with you?
As a Christian it is an insult for anyone to call my beliefs stupid shit. I have respected every religion and every idea for years. I'm assuming you are an atheist and I'm sure you are all about scientific proof. Look buddy, I don't think that scientific proof is bad. I like thinking about different ways to enhance my beliefs and that's by taking other things into consideration such as scientific proof.
It pains me though, for you to call our beliefs ridiculous and stupid. I would never call your beliefs such a thing nor even think it. Part of what is wrong with this human race is the inability to respect others ideas and faith. I for one will tell you that I live on faith. I've read the Bible and I know that not everything sounds legit (hence why I live on faith). I just ask you not to disrespect my faith and I won't disrespect your proofs.
To PZ, I'm sorry you feel so harshly towards this subject. Yes, I believe the Catholic church took it a bit far (as well as whoever sent dead threats, that was just uncalled for), but there should be no reason you should desire to also disrespect the church. The story left a bad taste in my mouth as well (do to the overreaction), but then you proceeded to go ahead and try to provoke the church and that also left a bad taste in my mouth.
God Bless,
Isaac
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 20, 2008 11:10 AM
I've read the Bible and I know that not everything sounds legit (hence why I live on faith). I just ask you not to disrespect my faith and I won't disrespect your proofs.
babble babble babble
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 20, 2008 12:49 PM
Well, there's your problem right there. Your brain is leaking like a sieve.
Posted by: Rob Bradley | August 3, 2008 2:20 AM
Listen guys, it might be harder than you think to sneak out a consecrated Host. I've seen people try to walk away with it and the priest chases after them, instructing them to either consume it or give it back. And if you get caught and try something then and there, you'll probably only make an ass out of yourself in front of the congregation. But don't let me dissuade you from trying. I know, some people got away with it, but maybe they were lucky. Try hiding it in your mouth (if the Host doesn't dissolve or stick to the roof of your mouth). Better yet, just try it at my church, St. Leo's, in Fairfax, VA. Or whatever parish of your choosing. Happy hunting!
Posted by: MB | July 4, 2009 10:30 PM
Let's imagine if "Catholicism" were a country, presided over by a dictator who insisted that women are inferior to men, do not have the sanctity or sense to hold higher office, and also must submit to their men in the sack, and raise as many children as they can impregnate her with...
Let's imagine that in this nation called Catholicism, all people are told that truth is only available through the teachings of the leader, transmitted through the elders (men), and that, you must suspend all belief and become a credible fool when told that this cracker is a man's body... or even worse... that this man is a God.
Let's imagine that this country has allowed the sexual abuse and financial exploitation of millions of children, women and young men, not to mention stymied free thought and led to the terrible holocausts in Europe and also South America...
Let's imagine that we all woke up and realised where and why this thinking is taking us...
Let's imagine that we see this kind of thinking for what it is... that these evil thoughts are as much weapons of mass destruction as any other anti-social innovation...
Let's bomb the Catholic Church, liberate the country and the people... and ... re-educate re-educate re-educate...
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 4, 2009 10:47 PM
Absolutely not.
You do not defeat the Dark Side by becoming it.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 4, 2009 10:56 PM
WTF??
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 4, 2009 11:03 PM
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster" - Nietzsche
Or, you are just a fraud posting to make people here look bad. Either way, shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Maureen | July 5, 2009 6:53 AM
Oh... for goodness sakes... you can quote Nietzsche but you can't even recognise IRONY when you see it...
I was being IRONIC.,,, SATIRICAL... Americans have gone in with bombs on countries who do such things... I was merely making the point that the history of the Catholic Church is analagous to that of states where such abuses were justification for war...
Oh my....
Posted by: MB | July 5, 2009 6:59 AM
Oh... for goodness sakes... you can quote Nietzsche but you can't even recognise IRONY when you see it...
I was being IRONIC.,,, SATIRICAL... Americans have gone in with bombs on countries who do such things... I was merely making the point that the history of the Catholic Church is analagous to that of states where such abuses were justification for war...
Oh my....
DO WAKE UP AND READ BETWEEN THE LINES...
Posted by: niuzai033
|
December 23, 2009 3:24 AM
Lrg prdcts whlsl sl, prvds cstmrs dmnd