Pharyngula

Posted by: Mike | July 23, 2008 3:18 PM

Oh the suspense is killing me. That is, the suspense to see the hysterical over-reaction, not so much for the details of what you did to it.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 3:19 PM

No worries. I was just watching an old Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends episode on american religions, and according to the religious experts, the world is going to end in Sept., 1994.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 3:21 PM

Does the trash really get taken out so early there? It's not winter, so it should still be light out.

Posted by: forti | July 23, 2008 3:22 PM

Wonder what the 'surprise entry was'. It must be serious business if PZ mentioned the Koran but not the 'surprise entry'.

Maybe it was the Mormon underpants. Or a dish of pasta.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 3:23 PM

Let the weeping and wailing, the mortification of flesh, the loving threats of death commence.

Posted by: Bunk | July 23, 2008 3:26 PM

Just kidding. I can't remember what I did in Sept 07, much less 1994. I probably threw a party simply because the month was SO good.

Posted by: Sandi | July 23, 2008 3:27 PM

What lessons can we learn from Prof. Meyers' circus? 1) That we should be intolerant of people who believe in God; 2) That we should be hate-filled bigots; 3) That we should intentionally insult Catholics and feign surprise when they get angry about it; 4) That we should treat other people with disrespect. These are great life lessons. I'm sure you've imparted them to your son, Myers. Wish him a happy birthday from me. P.S. I bet God will have the last laugh.

Posted by: Kim | July 23, 2008 3:28 PM

So, can we now play an appropriate song for those Catholics who lost their faith..... Maybe a nice psalm?

Posted by: N.K. | July 23, 2008 3:29 PM

"PZ you have hateful an rude i'm reporting you to the ploice youll be hearing from me soon i'll prey for you!!!!"

Posted by: Ouchimoo | July 23, 2008 3:29 PM

Happy Birthday to your son and Happy Unbirthday to you!

Your Gonna LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! IT ROCKS!

Posted by: Orlor | July 23, 2008 3:31 PM

Have some cheese Sandi.

Posted by: God | July 23, 2008 3:32 PM

P.S. I bet God will have the last laugh.

Oh, I always do.

But don't be surprised if I laugh at you, too. I'm an equal-opportunity laugher.

PS: The Joker reminds Me of Me.

Posted by: Stephen Oberski | July 23, 2008 3:33 PM

Re #14:

A spanking for you Sandi.

And perhaps something really special for your son/daughter from the local pedophile catholic priest. Wouldn't that be quite the lesson. Not sure who would have the last laugh though ...

Posted by: Brian W. | July 23, 2008 3:34 PM

So Sandi, in your mind the bad guy makes fun of people, while the good guy tortures them for eternity. Correct?

Posted by: Jimmy Groove | July 23, 2008 3:35 PM

Oh, oh, I can't wait to see what the surprise entry was. I'm putting five pharyngubucks on the one of those cute statues of Budai.

Posted by: Fiziker | July 23, 2008 3:36 PM

God laughing? Sandi, isn't suggesting that heresy or something. Jesus could probably laugh but I don't know about the whole god trinity thingamabobber. You might want to make sure some rogue medieval theologian wasn't burnt for suggesting such a think.

I'd continue but troll need to be kept on a strict diet--over feed them and you won't like the result.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 3:38 PM

I will of course make a Holy Hour of Reparation for PZ's hateful and bigoted acts.

awwwwwwww...isn;t it cute thinking some talking to himself will make a difference.

Posted by: Dustin | July 23, 2008 3:38 PM

I think this will probably backfire. The transubstantiated cracker was really a bit of the Melanoma of Christ, and PZ has just saved his life.

Nice going, jerk.

Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 3:39 PM

I will worry when the Sun goes out, and the Moon turns to blood. That is the biblical sign of the end of the world.

Until then, Huzzah PZ! :)

Posted by: Theodore | July 23, 2008 3:40 PM

Sandi

I'm a Pastafarian. Have you ever eaten pasta? Yes? I guess you:

1) Are intolerant of people who believe in a God
2) Are a hate-filled bigot
3) Intentionally insult Pastafarians and feign surprise when they get angry about it
4) Treat other people with disrespect

PS - His Noodly Appendage will have the last laugh.

Posted by: Flamethorn | July 23, 2008 3:41 PM

Hey, violate some beef! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7520149.stm

Posted by: Christie | July 23, 2008 3:42 PM

Also:

It's a bit like burning a flag in front of a Veterans day parade and saying it is just cloth.

No, it isn't. It's a bit like burning a flag in your own backyard and saying it is just cloth. Which it is. If he had gone to Mass and done something to the cracker in a Catholic church, your comparison would make sense.

Posted by: JonathanL | July 23, 2008 3:45 PM

Does anyone else hear the baying of hellhounds?! Wait... false alarm that's just the chihuahua next door.

Posted by: Matt | July 23, 2008 3:46 PM

I've been reading this blog for about a week now...I've always been a closet atheist, given the fact that I grew up in a religious household. But, I've recently realized (with reading this blog) that there's something all of you are missing:

Respect.

Not just from PZ's side or the religious right. From both sides. If you all stepped back from the situation and looked at each side from the other side's point of view, you'd see that you both are crazy.

The problem is that neither side respects the other. Cracker abuse, cyber pistols...They all are an attempt to drive a wedge between atheists and the relgious types.

Why not just realize that what you think is important to you (like love, your family, your wife/husband, your children), are the same things that the other side thinks is important. The atheists calling into question the "wackiness of the religious right" by abusing crackers and whatnot doesn't respect the right that people can think anyway they want to. Same goes for the Catholics. If PZ wants to abuse a Koran, cracker, bible, who cares what, the religious right should respect his right to do so.

If we all can't just respect each others views, what is America all about?

Posted by: Hap | July 23, 2008 3:48 PM

#44: Um, the logic and comparisons of most of the complainants haven't begun to make sense, so this wouldn't seem to be much a surprise.

If Sandi, Fr. J., or Kenny begin to make sense, seek psychological counseling immediately.

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 3:48 PM

Christie, he didn't have the guts to do it that way. But my analogy is correct. He did this publicly. I am sure it will be on youtube. He did this to hurt as many people as possible. That was his goal. Think about it though. This guy is supposedly a professor at a university and he pulls this kind of stunt. Talk about a lack of professionalism. His colleagues should be ashamed. His family should be ashamed. This is the only thing PZ will ever be remembered for, so I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes.

Posted by: Brian W. | July 23, 2008 3:49 PM

Ignorance is not something to be respected.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 3:50 PM

Christie, he didn't have the guts to do it that way

So now Fr J is turning into a punk-ass fuckwit.

Posted by: Physicalist | July 23, 2008 3:50 PM

" . . . if you aren't already flocking to join the Mormons."

The Mormons! You forgot the Mormons!

How could you forget to subject holy underpants to some sacrilegious atrocity?

Posted by: Gobear | July 23, 2008 3:51 PM

What lessons can we learn from Prof. Meyers' circus? 1) That we should be intolerant of people who believe in God; 2) That we should be hate-filled bigots; 3) That we should intentionally insult Catholics and feign surprise when they get angry about it; 4) That we should treat other people with disrespect. These are great life lessons. I'm sure you've imparted them to your son, Myers. Wish him a happy birthday from me. P.S. I bet God will have the last laugh.

Yet, again, we have a wackadoo Catholic who doesn't understand the difference between people and beliefs. P Zed did nothing to any actual people. He did not torture anyone (as Catholics have; he did not burn anyone at the stake for their beliefs (as Catholics have); and he did not molest any little kids (as Catholics have).

What PZ did do is mock your beliefs. In a free society, no belief is, or ought to be, exempt from mockery. What you are demanding, however, is not respect, but deference; that is, is that everyone, not just Catholics, treat your beliefs as sacred, and that's just silly. We are not members of your club, and your rules about crackers do not apply to us.

Sandi, do you eat beef? If so, then you have just treated the deepest religious sensibilities of a billion Hindus with contempt by committing the most egregious sacrilege. And worse, you have been an accomplice to the death of a sacred animal, because all cows are sacred in Hinduism. Cow protection is as holy a duty to Hindus as protecting the holy cracker is to you. Unless Sandi, Donahue, and the rest of the Catholics renounce all violence to cows, then they are guilty of the same vicious treatment of Hindu beliefs that they have accused PZ of doing to the Catholic faith.

Remember, by your own standards, Sandi, any object thast is venerated by one set of people, must be venerated by everyone else, too. Renounce the hamburger or risk insulting every Hindu on earth!

Shantih, shantih, shantih!

Posted by: DrSweetscent | July 23, 2008 3:51 PM

What a pity, we prepared such a nice proposal for the cracker...

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 3:52 PM

Michelle, you don't have the right to go in to Mass and take the Eucharist or disrupt worship in any way. It is illegal. I don't go to atheist meetings and disrupt them either.

The bigotry I have seen and experienced here is equivalent to burning a cross in a black persons yard. You are the bigot not me. Atheists have murdered over 100 million people in the last century and continue to do so. Many of them are believers. Check out the log in your own eye first.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 3:55 PM

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 3:52 PM

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 3:56 PM

Craig, you don't think the flag is a symbol? You don't think symbols have power? I don't believe that. Do you wear a swastika? It is just a few lines, so no one will mind right? PZ did this because he knows the power of symbols and he wanted to hurt other people. That seems to bother no one here.

Posted by: raven | July 23, 2008 3:58 PM

Wrong move. You should have left it as a mystery. It would haunt the deep background forever.

Like the Maria Celeste ship. If the crew hadn't disappeared, it would be just another forgotten shipwreck.

The Lost Dutchman's goldmine.

Judge Crater.

The Ark of the Covenant.

The Holy Grail. King Arthur's camelot.

Atlantis and Mu.

A thousand years from now, treasure hunters and archaeologists would be combing what was once Morris, MN looking for the Cracker of Myers.

Posted by: JimC | July 23, 2008 3:59 PM

Christie, he didn't have the guts to do it that way.

He needs guts? Why because all the catholics are violent and oppressive people? I call BS. Why would he need any more guts than he has shown?

He did this to hurt as many people as possible.

No he did it to show the very simple and apparently lost on you fact that it is a simple cracker and not anything else. Why does that bother you? It is you with the perception problem not PZ.

This guy is supposedly a professor at a university and he pulls this kind of stunt. Talk about a lack of professionalism.

He IS a professor. He simply said a cracker is a cracker. That to you is lacking professionalism but you come on the blog and make these type of comments? hypocrite.

His colleagues should be ashamed. His family should be ashamed. This is the only thing PZ will ever be remembered for, so I hope he enjoys his 15 minutes

This is not bringing him fame, in a mostly Protestant country people realize it's just a cracker. He simply said the truth and why should anyone be ashamed of that? You prefer to lie to yourself and that sir is a far greater problem.

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 23, 2008 3:59 PM

Lessons we learned...

... and that obscurantist zealots will still try anything--up to and including death threats--to attempt to stifle ridicule, and keep a laughable absurdity wrapped in its protective veil of cloying sanctity.

And that sometimes, they still fail.

Posted by: freelunch | July 23, 2008 4:00 PM

If we all can't just respect each others views, what is America all about?

Do you really think that the views of the KKK deserved respect? That the murderers of civil rights workers deserved to have their hatred respected? Really?

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 4:01 PM

"Craig, you don't think the flag is a symbol? You don't think symbols have power? I don't believe that. "

I think I pretty clearly said that symbols DO have power. In the minds of the stupid and dangerous.

Fr J, when you church stops preaching every fucking day that I deserve eternal torture simply for not thinking what you think, THEN maybe you can say something to me.

Until then, it just increases your hypocrisy and makes you more of an asshole.

Your church is a still for liquid hatred fueled by millions of burning corpses.

Posted by: freelunch | July 23, 2008 4:02 PM

Father J. Your analogy implicitly tells us that you think that Catholics are little children.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 4:02 PM

Wailing about causing pain is an ironic thing for a right-wing orthodox catholic to do, seeing as how they so enjoy causing it in the world.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 4:04 PM

Posted by: Kristina | July 23, 2008 4:03 PM

blah blah blah

Posted by: Aden B | July 23, 2008 4:05 PM

A really nasty thunderstorm just picked up outside! Professor, what have you done?! You've doomed us all!

Posted by: davery | July 23, 2008 4:06 PM

#64 Michelle, you don't have the right to go in to Mass and take the Eucharist or disrupt worship in any way. It is illegal.

Um, how is receiving the jezit disruptive? and how is walking out of a building with something of very little monetary value THAT HAS FREELY BEEN GIVEN TO YOU illegal?

Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 23, 2008 4:07 PM

@ #14: Sandi, what you could learn from "Prof. Meyers' circus", is to read and understand how that circus began, namely with death threats to a student, because he showed a 'consecrated' communion wafer to a friend, rather than swallowing it.

As for me, you can believe all day long that the wafer was a 'he' rather than an 'it', but when you or other believers go public with this belief, you may learn that a lot of people will not treat it with deference.

Why not? Just read the doctrinal wafer texts and ask yourself what exactly they demand you to believe. Then find a good reason for why one should not consider those who do believe in the doctrine to be selectively insane.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 4:08 PM

Kristina, better run away from the hatred, to the safety of your church where they preach EVERY WEEK that anyone who doesnt think like they do is immoral, evil and deserves eternal torture.

I mean, sure, they may be saying that billions of people deserve to be roasted on a spit for eternity - but at least they aren't smashing a cookie or tearing a sacred bedsheet or something.

Posted by: Chrisb | July 23, 2008 4:09 PM

While I don't condone Myer's efforts at self-agrandizement, and while I am Catholic, I can certainly withstand his sacriligious gesture toward my faith. On the other hand, truthfully, it's not the Catholics he should be wary of. His efforts to appear to do the "ethical" thing and avoid the tag of hypocrit by including the Quran in his idiotic gesture is an unnecessary prodding of the Muslim zealots who are most certainly aware of this lunacy. And his comment to Bill Donohue " Thanks, Donohue, for reinforcing prejudice about Muslims" is so laughable insofar as he is doing exactly that toward Catholics. I guess the degree of bigotry on his part is proportional to his overall cowardice. Myer's... your ego is out of control.

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

I don't go to atheist meetings and disrupt them either.
And yet here you are.

The bigotry I have seen and experienced here is equivalent to burning a cross in a black persons yard.
Burnign a cross in a black person's yard constitutes an implicit threat of immediate physical harm to that person. Playing with a cracker in one's own home is not a threat to anyone.

You are the bigot not me.
Again, you seem not to understand the definition of bigotry, which is an unreasonable prejudice against a class of persons. If PZ argued for taking health insurance away from Catholics, or denying them jobs or homes, then he'd be guilty of bigotry. (Of course Catholics have lobbied to deny jobs and homes to gay people, and to keep employers form giving them health insurance). Mocking a belief is not bigotry. Have you ever laughed at astrology or Tarot card reading? Then you are as guilty as you claim PZ to be.

Atheists have murdered over 100 million people in the last century and continue to do so.
No, totalitarian governments did that. Totalitarian governments substitute their leaders as religious figures to be worshipped, so it's nonsensical to call a state that practices the cult of personality "atheist".

Posted by: Dustin is extremely oracular. | July 23, 2008 4:11 PM

Fatwa envy! I saw it coming. I saw it through time!

Posted by: Newfie | July 23, 2008 4:11 PM

Sandi, What lessons can we learn from Prof. Meyers' circus?
1) That we should be intolerant of people who believe in God;
Nope, but their silly beliefs deserve as much credit in today's world as astrology.

2) That we should be hate-filled bigots;
Hate is a tricky word, Sandi. Most good people do not hate religion, they hate what religion does to people. When you see the vitriol that is spewed from the mouths of 10 year old children, only because of indoctrination into an extreme view of the world, It saddens people. (some consider the religious indoctrination of children a form of mental abuse.. myself included)

3) That we should intentionally insult Catholics and feign surprise when they get angry about it;
Do you feel that you are insulting Hindus when you eat a hamburger? No, because it doesn't mean anything to you, like a cracker or a splinter from the "one true cross" or an image of The Virgin Mary on a slice of toast matters to us. When you start putting spiritual meanings on everyday objects, it makes you look more silly than we already think you are.

4) That we should treat other people with disrespect;
Show us why any religion deserves respect. Organized religion does not deserve any respect. Organized religions as a whole, produce the most intolerant, bigoted, hateful, superstitious, and dumb people on the planet. Why? Because they "believe" that they are right, people of authority tell them what to think, to have "God" on their side. Learning the truth about something doesn't even change their minds, because they "know" the truth. So, I will even argue that religion stunts the growth of the human mind, and our natural curiosity.

And to finish, Sandi, religions don't care about you, they care about continuing to exist, and to keep you giving them your money... ie, The Bottom Line. Religion has always feared having the curtain being drawn back, and the public being able to see the truth. From the earliest Shaman tricks being disproven, to Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein.. and it will never end. It's never a worry about the challenging of belief to them, they move and adapt with the times, it's the challenging of their authority and power over people that makes them put together silly organizations like the Discovery Institute, and put together silly propaganda pieces. God is an idea that used to explain everything that we couldn't. The idea gets weaker when things are explained in a more thought out, rational, and logical way.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 4:12 PM

Fr J, you of course know that Stalin didnt kill millions IN THE NAME of or for the CAUSE of atheism.

But you're a liar and a vile sick fuck so you'll say that over and over.

Please, Fr J, flee from this cracker crunching hatred and return to your safe, holy house of "everyone who isn't cathlic will BURN!!!" and "fucking altar boys isn't so bad really."

Right a nice sermon about how the vast majority of people who aren't Catholic are terrible haters and will be sent by your loving god to be tortured for eternity.

Sick fuck.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 23, 2008 4:12 PM

By the way, PZ, I don't get your priorities.

Surely yammering on about a cracker has to be at the top of anyone's priorities. I mean, judging by the numbers of posts...

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Miss Infidel | July 23, 2008 4:13 PM

Fr J Said:
"yes he has the right to mock our views. But having a right and exercising it are two different things. My niece has a stuffed bunny that she loves. If you walked up to her with the same kind of bunny and tore its head off she was cry and be very upset. You have the right to do that. But would any decent human being do so? I don't think so."

The difference is, that little bunny doesn't breed hatred and bigotry along with oppression of progressive and reasonable thinking.

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 4:13 PM

When you go to Mass and receive the Eucharist is is part of the service. To take it for nefarious purposes IS disruptive. The law protects religious expression, see the 1st amendment. You do not have the right to turn a worship service into a vehicle for your protests.

Michelle, Stalin 30 million, Mao 50 million, Pol Pot 3 million-there is 83 million right there. So now attack the atheists, I would like to see that. Oh and take a moment to calm down, you are hyperventilating.

Posted by: Jimc | July 23, 2008 4:14 PM

you don't have the right to go in to Mass and take the Eucharist or disrupt worship in any way. It is illegal. I don't go to atheist meetings and disrupt them either.

Disrupt yes, recieve a cracker no. Once given it is yours.

The bigotry I have seen and experienced here is equivalent to burning a cross in a black persons yard. You are the bigot not me.

No sir and your apparently incapable of seeing the difference. If someone thinks your belief is bullocks that is an opinion. Hating a black person is an absurd analogy because well 1. they are born black 2. belief in a cracker being sacred is an indoctrinated absurd belief. The fact you equate them says far more about your lack of rationality than anything else.

Atheists have murdered over 100 million people in the last century and continue to do so

Really 100 million huh? Of course atheists fired all those bullets and dropped all those bombs. I'm sure you mean Hitler while ignoring the fact that his mostly theist soldiers pulled the triggers.

Be at least a little objective and honest.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 4:16 PM

Fr J, you pull out your cowardly and disgusting "criticizing my ideas is bigotry" bullshit.

If criticizing your ideas is bigotry, how is YOUR criticizing atheism not bigotry?

How is every sermon in the Catholic church not bigotry then?

Of course they aren't, and you know it. You're just a craven coward.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 23, 2008 4:16 PM

Fr. J,

Let's assume for a moment that you have a point (which you don't). Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc., were all motivated by their atheism to acquire power, kill, maim, and oppress.

You still have no evidence that your god exists. Sorry, thanks for playing though.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 23, 2008 4:18 PM

@ Fr. J.

Nope... it wasn't an answer, you coward. Just as I expected. And you knew it wasn't an answer because you felt the need to qualify it.

I'll say it one last time, unless you can own up to what was done by the catholics in this incident, own up to the physical abuse of Mr. Cook and the death threats made to PZ, then keep your lying little coward mouth shut, because you have no right to complain about anything done do the friggin cracker.

If you are that unable to recognize clear abuse on one side, what right do you have to whine about perceived abuse on the other side? Seriously.

I'm not surprised you didn't answer... it's not in you. You are a coward and a hypocrite. Go away. Now.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 4:20 PM

Communism and Fascism are not the same as Atheism. Duh.
How many Jews were murdered by the Christians Germans in WW2?

Atheism is NOT a politcal or governmental construct.

Nevermind Fr. J you're not all that bright.

Most despots have a moustache or beard. I blame the facial hair.

Posted by: SC | July 23, 2008 4:20 PM

Surely yammering on about a cracker has to be at the top of anyone's priorities. I mean, judging by the numbers of posts...

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 23, 2008 4:12 PM

Surely :).

Posted by: Jason Failes | July 23, 2008 4:21 PM

Matt @48: "I've recently realized (with reading this blog) that there's something all of you are missing:

Respect."

I don't miss it at all.

Get this, we call fundamentalists' actions stupid because they are stupid, we call their ideas crazy because they are crazy, and we call their effects on society dangerous because they are dangerous.

You can't make yourself respect something that you have no respect for,

or are you saying that we should continue to act like British aristocracy while the other side has descended into death threats and gibberish?

I'm sorry, but the least they deserve is a little mockery.
If that is too much for you, feel free to leave the internet, because this isn't stopping any time soon.

Posted by: jparenti | July 23, 2008 4:21 PM

What utter sacrilege! How can you consider yourself to be a decent American, nay, a decent human being? You haven't seen "The Dark Knight" yet? :)
Also, something about a cracker, I don't really remember.

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 4:22 PM

Miss, I fail to see virtually anything progressive or reasonable in what PZ did or what the atheists here are writing. But the point remains: what kind of person would deliberately do such a thing? Not a decent one.

Well folks, time to go make that Holy Hour. This has been enlightening. I am sorry I don't have enough faith or hate to be an atheist. You have certainly confirmed my opinion of what atheism does to otherwise normal people. You turn into fanatics who seem incapable of argument. I wish you all the best and hope that you will regain your sense of sanity. Cheers.

Posted by: JimC | July 23, 2008 4:22 PM

But if I were to say Mass in an atheist country, say China, I would be in danger. I hope that answers you. If it doesn't then you really don't want an answer.

yeah but that has to do with government style not atheism. Atheists in America are not preventing you from doing the same.

chrisb- your not to bright:

Thanks, Donohue, for reinforcing prejudice about Muslims" is so laughable insofar as he is doing exactly that toward Catholics. I guess the degree of bigotry on his part is proportional to his overall cowardice. Myer's... your ego is out of control.

PZ is doing nothing toward catholics-nothing. Outside of simply saying a cracker is a cracker and then watching you folks embarrass your selves and your sect.

Donohue is saying muslims are violent killers without control. Big HUGE freaking difference.

Posted by: Cleon | July 23, 2008 4:23 PM

Surprise entry, eh?

Hrm.

The only Jewish equivalent I can think of would be to desecrate a Torah scroll, but those cost thousands of dollars and it seems to be a waste to shell out that kind of cash for some simple run-of-the-mill desecration. Trashing a chumash (the mass-produced book version) just doesn't have the same effect.

Maybe PZ danced a jig inside a Mormon temple or something. :)

Posted by: Moondog | July 23, 2008 4:24 PM

"Yes, the sad little cracker has met its undignified end, so stop pestering me. The cracker, the koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone."

"The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: "I can destroy your Church."
The gentle voice of Our Lord: "You can? Then go ahead and do so."
Satan: "To do so, I need more time and more power."
Our Lord: "How much time? How much power?"
Satan: "75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."
Our Lord: "You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."

Posted by: The Alpha Centaurian | July 23, 2008 4:24 PM

A belief that can drive people to commit acts of assault and make threats of death is abelief that deserves no respect. Such a belief is an indication of fundamentally flawed thinking, and I applaud those who have brought this to our attention.

Posted by: dinkum | July 23, 2008 4:25 PM

When you go to Mass and receive the Eucharist is is part of the service. To take it for nefarious purposes IS disruptive.

Wanting to show it to his buddy, who was curious about the ceremony, is now "nefarious"?

Cool.

What if nobody knows you're being nefarious? So, you know, nothing happens. No disruptions, no assaults or death threats by desecrated Catholics (which is the disruptive part, by the way). What then? Is it still "disruptive"?

Posted by: Jesus Christ | July 23, 2008 4:26 PM

No one fucks with the Jesus!

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 4:26 PM

"maybe he just ate a cracker"

No, he said he wouldn't do that, because the moral Catholics threatened to send him poisoned wafers.

Posted by: commissarjs | July 23, 2008 4:27 PM

It seems that the theistic trolls have made up their minds about PZ's motives, methods, and personality without bothing to look for any evidence to support their point of view. But at least theists don't do that about any major decisions which effect their lives!

Posted by: freelunch | July 23, 2008 4:27 PM

But the point remains: what kind of person would deliberately do such a thing? Not a decent one.

You haven't offered any reason for us to accept your claim. I'm sorry that you worship a God that is incapable of protecting itself, but I'm not the one who decided to worship such a thing.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 4:29 PM

Well folks, time to go make that Holy Hour. This has been enlightening. I am sorry I don't have enough faith or hate to be an atheist. You have certainly confirmed my opinion of what atheism does to otherwise normal people. You turn into fanatics who seem incapable of argument. I wish you all the best and hope that you will regain your sense of sanity. Cheers.

Says the man who considers a capricious, genocidal torturer "loving."

Posted by: Tulse | July 23, 2008 4:31 PM

The bigotry I have seen and experienced here is equivalent to burning a cross in a black persons yard.

Cross burning is an implicit threat of violence against blacks. So far, the only ones who have threatened physical violence against actual people in l'Affaire Cracker are Catholics.

It is emblematic of the issue that you can't seem to distinguish between real threats against people and symbolic actions against ideas.

Posted by: Jesus Christ | July 23, 2008 4:33 PM

Damn me. I just defecated myself. Er, desecrated.

Posted by: qbsmd | July 23, 2008 4:33 PM

Relevant definitions from dictionary.com:

re·spect
-noun
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
5. the condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect.
9. to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
10. to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.

The whole point of this is that Catholic beliefs do not deserve privilege, deference, esteem, honor or consideration. And PZ has not interfered with anyone's rights. Stop bringing up respect because Catholicism does not deserve any definition of it that it has not been given.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 23, 2008 4:34 PM

I just want to make an observation at this point.

Does anyone notice that the religious trolls almost never want to engage the substantive issues of faith vs. skepticism? They devote 90% of their time whining about how mean or hateful we are. I think this speaks to the profound weakness of religious claims.

These meta issues about which side is meaner or nastier aren't really interesting. We win on the core arguments.

Posted by: rjb | July 23, 2008 4:34 PM

I've always wondered if I once committed an act of unintended blasphemy at a highway rest stop. I had stopped with my dog, took her over to the "pet area" to do her nasty business, and as she was crapping away, I turned and saw a muslim family by their van, in prayer, bowing in the direction of me and my squatting pooch.

Was that blasphemous? I really don't know. And I really didn't care. She had to go, that was the pet area, and let the chips (heh) fall where they may.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 4:36 PM

"What if nobody knows you're being nefarious? So, you know, nothing happens. ... What then? Is it still "disruptive"?

Of course it is. The threat that it has happened before and may happen again at any time in any church is a disruption to every Mass.

When and where it does happen, it is theft.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 4:36 PM

Rjb, maybe they weren't muslim. Maybe they were dog worshipers.

Or shit worshipers.

Posted by: Gobear | July 23, 2008 4:36 PM

PZ is going to the movies and is not in fear of his life from Catholics.
Actually, he is in danger of his life from Catholics who have been sending himn death threats through e-mail. Pay attention.

But if I were to say Mass in an atheist country, say China, I would be in danger.
Not true. You have a 1950s mindset. Mao has been dead for 30 years, and China is not the Red menace that Americans think that it is. I've taught English in China, and religion is thriving there. Catholics attend Mass regularly and are not bothered by the government in any way. Falun Gong, however, is definitely illegal in China because they crossed the line and got involved in politics. The PRC government lets the people do what they want as long as they don't threaten the government's authority. Falun Gong flexed its muscle and got smacked down for it.

I'm not in any way defending the PRC because the government is grossly incompetent and corrupt, but they don't throw you in jail for going to Mass.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 4:39 PM

This just made my day:

At work I have a friend who is an atheist. We discuss (and debate) a lot about everything from movies to politics to religion.

For the past two days we've been talking about Myers's threat to desecrate the Eucharist. For a long time, he didn't see why it was a big deal.

Today, he wrote me an email saying, "I see your point." ... and when I wrote to him mentioning that Myers had gone through with it, he wrote back, "FWIW, I'm sorry that he did this."

Posted by: freelancer | July 23, 2008 4:40 PM

At Father J @

I will of course make a Holy Hour of Reparation for PZ's hateful and bigoted acts.

In other words, waste another hour you could have spent eliminating your strawman view of atheists.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 4:42 PM

"So you two turning around the argument have just compared Catholics/religious types to NAMBLA, the KKK, and murders."

Well, I didn't intend a direct comparison, but it actually fits a little better than you should feel comfortable with.

Anyway, you are intentionally missing the point. You are saying that ideas must be respected.
By saying that NAMBLA members' ideas are NOT worthy of the same respect that Catholics' are, you are disproving your own argument.

You know what NAMBLA members believe, and you find their ideas unconvincing and unworthy of respect. As is your right. And we have done the same with the Catholics' ideas.

Are you arguing that SOME ideas must be respected and others not? If so, why do YOU get to decide which ones?

Looking at ideas and criticizing the ones you feel are harmful is not only your right, it's RIGHT.

Posted by: Gobear | July 23, 2008 4:44 PM

Rjb, maybe they weren't Muslim. Maybe they were dog worshipers.

Or shit worshipers.

So Bill Donahue does have some admirers.

Posted by: SC | July 23, 2008 4:45 PM

l'Affaire Cracker

That reminds me:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Dreyfus.html

Another proud moment in Church history.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 4:46 PM

If you walked up to her with the same kind of bunny and tore its head off she was cry and be very upset.

That we should treat other people with disrespect.

Of all of the things that have been done in this incident, the persons who actually committed real acts and threats of violence belong to which group?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 23, 2008 4:46 PM

@ SDG

Spare us your story of your friend's miraculous, convenient conversion.

Today, he wrote me an email saying, "I see your point." ... and when I wrote to him mentioning that Myers had gone through with it, he wrote back, "FWIW, I'm sorry that he did this."

And I'm sorry that because of catholic's complete and utter loss of the ability to grasp reality or reason, this act of protest was necessary. But I'm sure that's lost on you.

Posted by: Matt | July 23, 2008 4:47 PM

At qbsmd #152:
The whole point of this is that Catholic beliefs do not deserve privilege, deference, esteem, honor or consideration. And PZ has not interfered with anyone's rights. Stop bringing up respect because Catholicism does not deserve any definition of it that it has not been given

What kind of argument is this?

So no matter what +80% of Americans believe doesn't deserve consideration (note I'm not saying +80% of America is Catholic...+80% of America believes in God). Remember, us atheists are in the minority, lest we forget. I think giving consideration and respect to what a majority of the population believes in should be afforded to them. If not, then you are kidding yourselves.

Respect has nothing to do with rights...I never said that. PZ has every right to take a cracker and do with it as he pleases.

You people are way to extreme and need to think about antognizing those who you seek to influence. All this rhetoric does is polarize positions. It doesn't do anything to help the situation.

Posted by: Jérôme ^ | July 23, 2008 4:47 PM

Congratulations! You've done it. "It" being your duty to blaspheme once in a while so that no anti-blasphemy law or custom can settle. This really important in any civilized society.

Now, you converted me to atheism. I'm going to get myself excluded from the roman catholic church's list of believers as soon as I can go to where I was baptized. (That last sentence was no joke).

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 4:48 PM

I wonder if the phrase "will it blend?" is popular with PZ.

Posted by: Damian | July 23, 2008 4:50 PM

SDG said:

Cows are sacred to Hindus. Not all cows are Hindu property, acquired only in Hindu precincts, to be entrusted into the exclusive care of other Hindus.

If it's MY cow, born and bred outside Hindu property, I can't help it that Hindus regard it as sacred. My eating my hamburger has *nothing to do* with their beliefs, in a way that Myers cannot say regarding his present actions.

Sure, you can bait and switch. There is a difference, but you cannot deny that your consumption of beef is highly offensive to many Hindus. So, as long as you drop the part about desecration being highly offensive, I'll grant you that.

The point is that Catholics won't. What they will do, though, is switch to the argument that you have laid out, once the beef analogy has been made. Which is fine, of course, but it does remove much of the power from your argument, as I will explain.

SDG said:

We are not talking here about Myers's freedom to eat his own crackers over the objections of others. We are talking about (a) entering private property on false pretenses (attending a Catholic Mass for the express purpose of purloining a consecrated host), (b) theft (the host is only given to practicing Catholics to be consumed on the spot), and (c) deliberate incitement.

Ah, you see, this is where you have [almost] ruined your whole argument. PZ has said that at least one of the wafers that has been sent to him is years old.

Therefore, when it was taken the individual that took it with them had no idea that it would be used for these purposes.

That leaves your argument in tatters, I'm afraid. The most that you can argue now is that the individual that took the wafer shouldn't have done it. Fine, I say. We don't even know who it is. And you can also argue that the same individual has in some way betrayed the Catholic Church. Fine, once again. Take it up with them, if you can find out who they are.

By the way, hundreds of people have said that they have taken a wafer home with them when they used to go to mass, and for a variety of reasons. And, many people have said that they took part in all of the mass rituals, even though the Catholics present knew that they weren't Catholic, themselves.

Posted by: jay | July 23, 2008 4:51 PM

Has everyone watched Chris Abani's talk on ted.com yet? If not, DO SO NOW.

Chris Abani

"The Ebo used to say that they built their own gods. They would come together as a community and they would express a wish, and their wish would then be brought to a priest who would find a ritual object and the appropriate sacrifices would be made and a shrine would be built for the god. But if a god became unruly and began to ask for human sacrifice, the Ebos would destroy the god. They would knock down the shrine and they would stop saying the god's name. This is how they came to reclaim their humanity. Every day, all of us here, we're building gods that have gone rampant. It's time we started knocking them down. And forgetting their names."

Posted by: Christie | July 23, 2008 4:51 PM

The threat that it has happened before and may happen again at any time in any church is a disruption to every Mass.

When and where it does happen, it is theft.

What's interesting about this to me is that in some of the early threads people who grew up Catholic said that this happens all the time. The crime seems to be usually perpetrated by kids, who just don't like them.

I'm still having trouble understanding how doing something other than what was intended with something that is given to me is theft. If I give you a cookie, and you do not eat it, but instead pocket it, take it home and feed it to your dog (or other unclean animal,) and then blog about it, I may be offended that you treated something I worked hard on that way, and I will probably think you're rude and not encourage our continued friendship, but I certainly couldn't accuse you of stealing it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 23, 2008 4:52 PM

I still have yet to see a Catholic explain why it matters if PZ desecrates their perceived body of christ cracker.

It's PZ doing it, not you. Why should you give a fuck other that to satisfy some persecution complex?

Do you think your God is going to punish you because of what PZ does? (though everything I hear about him I wouldn't put it past him)

It's really showing off your collective need to be victims and cry in public like some Jerry Springer show guest who just had their mom insulted.

I'll be glad after the sure to be 1000+ post tomorrow has come and gone and you people fade away into crazy land where you normally are.

Posted by: Tulse | July 23, 2008 4:53 PM

l'Affaire Cracker

That reminds me:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Dreyfus.html

Posted by: Hap | July 23, 2008 4:54 PM

I wonder exactly how making death threats over the symbol of a belief helps anyone but the one making the threats - if the cracker is converted into Jesus, and were somehow threatened, you would figure God could stand up for him quite nicely. So, that must mean that the threateners don't think God would do so - either no god exists, and they believe in the symbol and what it represents equally (which is to say, not at all), or they've decided what God should do, and are hoping to do it (or have it done, without that pesky responsibility thing), and so have decided that they ought to be God(s).

Either way, I can't really figure how the defense of death threats over communion wafers by certain Catholics is serving anyone's interest other than rabid nutcases with delusions of grandeur and intellectual sufficiency and desires for bloody and violent power. It does seem to bring both their feelings of impotence and the things they would do if they weren't impotent out into the light, though I suspect if they were smart they would have preferred to keep those things quiet until they could actually act on them.

Posted by: ildi | July 23, 2008 4:55 PM

Matt: "I think giving consideration and respect to what a majority of the population believes in should be afforded to them. If not, then you are kidding yourselves."

Why?

Posted by: dinkum | July 23, 2008 4:55 PM

I understand Donohue's position pretty well. I also know PZ's

Mmkay.

But he lacks control over his ego and is only about self promotion.

Whoops. Just contradicted the shit out of yourself there.

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 4:57 PM

It's a straight road from the desecration of symbols to the burning of Churches and the gulag.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp[ | July 23, 2008 4:58 PM

Funny thing- If he desecrated a picture of your mother then you would be upset. Even when it goes along with your own perception that it's just a symbol. Lets me some pictures people, lets desecrate her. Lets see how many of you are offended, but why? isn't it just a picture or does it have more meaning? Childish-absolutely childish ...PZ enjoy your gardening career. The University may have to wait for the storm to blow over, but I highly doubt that you will have a job soon. When the college loses money from parents pulling their kids out of that school and when enrollment declines- You'll be gone.

You fail. Your remedial assignment is to read all of the previous posts to find out exactly why you have failed in such and epic and public way.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 4:58 PM

"You think following through is going to put this behind you??? All you have done is stirred people from their lethargy. Your action didn't end this. It merely created a new beginning."

Wait... so you're saying that the Catholic Church, which has been losing members drastically enough that the church has been in a panic about it - is now SAVED?

PZ saved the Catholic Church? Oh shit!

Face it. The Catholic Church is losing members (as are most others in developed nations) because education kills religion.

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 23, 2008 4:59 PM

It's a straight road from the desecration of symbols to the burning of Churches and the gulag.

... also, if you make fun of anything I hold sacred, clearly, you'll be eating babies next.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 23, 2008 5:00 PM

chrisb #191

Cowardly, yes, and certainly an idiotic gesture from an educated individual doesn't define him as an idiot. But he lacks control over his ego and is only about self promotion. I avoid namecalling which I see as a sign of ignorance and inability to articulate a thought.

Irony... Ur doin it wrong...

Posted by: Brian W. | July 23, 2008 5:01 PM

"If he desecrated a picture of your mother then you would be upset."

Why would i be upset? To quote a girl i used to have a crush on "emotions are for pussies"

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 5:02 PM

"It's a straight road from the desecration of symbols to the burning of Churches and the gulag."

It's a fine line between clever and stupid. - Spinal Tap.

Posted by: Kristina | July 23, 2008 5:02 PM

"I will never harm you in any way, or infringe on your right to believe, and say, whatever inane pathetic bullshit you want."

See this idea I like, just leave catholic people alone, let them believe what they want to believe, why start up trouble all the time???

Posted by: Nobody | July 23, 2008 5:03 PM

Quoted from IAmNomad:

Atheists have killed, but not for their non-belief in a god or gods.

Horsefeathers. Nazis (and Communists) did precisely this.

Do symbols have power? No, they don't.

I am something the church hates - an intelligent, free thinker who didn't accept their fairy tales at face value and asked questions when I didn't understand. Because of this I would be ridiculed, put down and slapped. So tell me - who is worse here: PZ or the nuns who taught me scripture in school?

Two things: One, Marauder, like all other sycophants here are of the belief that the Church requires blind obedience. Nothing could be further from the truth; but as you revel in your deliberate ignorance, whatever. Keep knocking yourselves out.

And PZ is infinitely worse than your nuns.

As for the rest of you, bravo. You uphold your unparalleled collective skill at responding to rational argument with "blah blah blah" (MAJeff, a moron of long standing) and name calling.

Boy, I can't WAIT to become an atheist Pharyngulite!!!!!

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 5:04 PM

Jesus, Matt, I'm sorry but you're truly thick.

Posted by: Cleon | July 23, 2008 5:05 PM

[quote]
Funny thing- If he desecrated a picture of your mother then you would be upset.[/quote]

Actually, no, I wouldn't give two shits about it. I would wonder why he bothered, but no, it really wouldn't affect me.

Not because I don't love my mother, I do. I just don't see any reason to get that upset about a picture.

[quote]
Even when it goes along with your own perception that it's just a symbol. Lets me some pictures people, lets desecrate her. Lets see how many of you are offended, but why?[/quote]

Offended, no. Puzzled, yes.

[quote]
PZ enjoy your gardening career. The University may have to wait for the storm to blow over, but I highly doubt that you will have a job soon. When the college loses money from parents pulling their kids out of that school and when enrollment declines- You'll be gone.
[/quote]

So it's your theory that a financially significant portion of the 50,000 or so students of the University will be withdrawing because a professor at a satellite campuses desecrated a communion wafer.

I find that unlikely.

Posted by: AaronSTL | July 23, 2008 5:06 PM

The cracker, the koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone.

So that explains the extra spring in my step that started today.

Posted by: Sandi | July 23, 2008 5:07 PM

What lessons can we learn from Prof. Meyers' circus? 1) That we should be intolerant of people who believe in God; 2) That we should be hate-filled bigots; 3) That we should intentionally insult Catholics and feign surprise when they get angry about it; 4) That we should treat other people with disrespect. These are great life lessons. I'm sure you've imparted them to your son, Myers. Wish him a happy birthday from me. P.S. I bet God will have the last laugh.

Posted by: Sandi | July 23, 2008 3:27 PM

Hey why don't we all go around wearing swastikas near Jews and calling Blacks the "N" word? Let's offend as many people as possible. Gee, the atheist society is a very pleasant one. Instead of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," your golden rule is: "Treat others as if I am the only person who exists and the only person who matters." No God = no values. (Or, more accurately, rotten selfish values.) I repeat: you folks are a bunch of hate-filled bigots.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 5:07 PM

I'm still having trouble understanding how doing something other than what was intended with something that is given to me is theft.

Fair question. Here is my response.

Suppose during the offertory in church, an offering plate is passed down the pew, and one person, upon receiving it, leaps up and goes running out of the church with the money in his hand.

Is that theft? He was just sitting there, and another person handed him a plate of money. Nothing was said about what he was or wasn't to do with it. At no time did he commit to carry out any particular course of action with that plate, such as hand it to the next person.

However, we all know that just because a plate of money is put into someone's hands doesn't mean it is now his personal possession to dispose of as he sees fit. Within the social context of the offering ritual, there is an implicit understanding that this plate is handed to you solely to (a) put in your own offering if you choose and (b) to hand to the next person.

Likewise, within the communion ritual, when a person gets in line and goes up to stand before the priest, and the priest holds up the host and says, "The body of Christ," there is an implicit understanding that what is designated the "body of Christ" does not now become the private property of the recipient. It is placed in his hand (or on his tongue) for one purpose only, to be consumed on the spot.

To go up for communion with any other purpose is as much theft as taking the communion plate with the intention of running out of church with it.

Posted by: Ooparts | July 23, 2008 5:08 PM

"'Atheists have killed, but not for their non-belief in a god or gods.'

'Horsefeathers. Nazis (and Communists) did precisely this.'"

Ah yes, "Gott mit uns" is such a stirring atheist phrase.

Posted by: Radovan Karadzic | July 23, 2008 5:09 PM

I guess you know by now that GOD is punishing us all for your CD (cracker desecration) by sending a hurricane (Dolly) to KILL as many Texans and Mexicans as possible.

Posted by: chrisD | July 23, 2008 5:09 PM

Happy Birthday to PZed junior! Funny, my birthday is tomorrow and I'm dragging my parents along to see The Dark Knight. Now I know this idea isn't so extraordinary!

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 23, 2008 5:10 PM

Fetuses! I get a weekly delivery from a local PP.

Too chewy for me. Tho' I hear deep-frying gets 'round that.

Me, I like the newborns. The toes pop like popcorn shrimp.

Posted by: Dave- | July 23, 2008 5:11 PM

PZ is so going to lose his job-might want to get that kid in a work program soon.

Posted by: James Goetz | July 23, 2008 5:11 PM

PZ, you and Donahue deserve each other. Anyway, how do you or anybody else know that you had a RC consecrated host? The world of Islam can know that you desecrated a Koran, but how can anybody know that you desecrated a RC consecrated host?

Despite Foley foolishness, you may become a threat to national security for desecrating the Koran.

And I suppose that you would consider this a negative post if I offered to pray for your safety.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 5:12 PM

By the way, the RCC protected the priests who were raping children and spirited bishops like Cardinal Law who conspired to protect the priests out of the country so they could not be prosecuted.

That Fr. J, a member of this international child-rape mafia, should so sanctimoniously lecture us about "respect" and unctuously condescend to us about our behaviour is vile and contemptible.

Posted by: Rob | July 23, 2008 5:13 PM

@Nobody: Yes, the Nazis that bring out such atheist statements as

"...Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirt of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." - Adolph Hitler

Posted by: Muzz | July 23, 2008 5:15 PM

I'd just like to say; I read this post right after watching some Zeropunctuation and PZ's words sound great with Yahtzee's delivery.
That is all.

Posted by: Matt | July 23, 2008 5:15 PM

Craig #218 said:
Jesus, Matt, I'm sorry but you're truly thick.

The last recourse of someone who can't sustain an argument is to call the other person a name.

And so ends the discussion. Thanks for proving my point, Craig.

Posted by: Damian | July 23, 2008 5:15 PM

Matt:

You are the one that is logically challenged. You have backed off from the original assertion [which was that we should respect the beliefs of others] because, quite correctly, it was pointed out that it means that we have to respect some pretty vile beliefs.

Then you attempted to move the goalposts by changing it to popular beliefs [which doesn't necessarily alter the fact that some pretty popular beliefs are still vile].

Now you are complaining about the fact that craig pointed out that the vast majority of people, who you claim we should respect, wouldn't ever vote for an atheist.

Admittedly, there are many views about how we can move the Overton Window [even on this very site], and you appear to disagree with our view. That's fine, but you cannot [unless you are dishonest] deny that atheism has been elevated in to the mainstream, and it wasn't achieved with respect.

I'm afraid that the evidence is pretty conclusively on our side, although I will admit that there are degrees of disrespect, and some will be more effective than others.

Posted by: JoshH | July 23, 2008 5:17 PM

*gnashes teeth ferociously and uncontrollably*

Posted by: Kristina | July 23, 2008 5:17 PM

CRAIG, by leaving them alone I meant from the START. This was fun for a while, but I got to go my mother is home...crap...

Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 23, 2008 5:19 PM

Fr. J - You claim over and over that PZ's motivation in this is to hurt people and then you wonder why your intelligence is questioned or your ideas are ridiculed.

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 5:21 PM

"Only if you are a myopic simple minded idiot who tries to make historical references without really understanding the history he refers to."

Much like Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion.

"... also, if you make fun of anything I hold sacred, clearly, you'll be eating babies next."

That's irrational.

Posted by: alex | July 23, 2008 5:22 PM

Fr J: Stalin 30 million, Mao 50 million, Pol Pot 3 million-there is 83 million right there.

there were, and are no atheist regimes which, when devoid of an extremist political stance, carry out these atrocities. on the other hand, more moderate political parties with a moderate-to-strong religious agenda are demonstrably (even nowadays) more extreme than secular goverments in their dealings.

o, and you've done nothing to demonstrate your particular version of the Abrahamic deity exists. were it the case that atheism really did entail world-destroying nihilism, that would not make gods real, it would simply make everyday life world-destroyingly nihilistic.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 5:23 PM

At least have the guts to admit that you're bigots and wanted to simply fuck with the Church

I'm perfectly happy to fuck with a pedophile protection racket and civil rights denial political action committee.

Posted by: dave | July 23, 2008 5:24 PM

#240 -"That Fr. J, a member of this international child-rape mafia, should so sanctimoniously lecture us about "respect" and unctuously condescend to us about our behavior is vile and contemptible."

That is truly a nasty thing to say. Statistically this problem is shown in the same percentage in Teaching, Physicians and every other profession. To accuse someone of such an act without any proof is disgusting. You can't argue anything outside of some vile accusation? You must have been in the Nutty Professors class- Great debating. You are a scholar, class act-

Posted by: mayhempix | July 23, 2008 5:25 PM

That must explain why my hair caught fire, a dude with a big sword in a turban is chasing me and the smell of sulfur is everywhere.

Way to go PZ. You beat the Particle Accelerator.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 5:26 PM

"You claim over and over that PZ's motivation in this is to hurt people and then you wonder why your intelligence is questioned or your ideas are ridiculed."

Put it this way: If one imagines Catholicism reconfigured so that no one would be pained by desecration of the Eucharist -- if anyone were permitted to walk into Mass and walk out with the Eucharist for any reason, and there was no scandal, no outrage, no anger over whatever was done with it -- even if Catholic belief in the Eucharist were otherwise substantially unchanged, in such a world it is hard to imagine PZ working up such enthusiasm for this course of action.

Posted by: Ooparts | July 23, 2008 5:27 PM

"Why waste our precious time? After all, we've got the Big Green Cookie Monster in the Sky to do that for us."

And yet you felt the need to respond.

Posted by: Hap | July 23, 2008 5:27 PM

#226: I'm sure you could find a lawyer willing to take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, but 1) there probably aren't a whole lot of jurisdictions willing to press theft charges over (much less than) $ 500, and 2) the inherent self-parody of that court case would probably be even funnier than everything that's happened so far. It would almost certainly be counterproductive to the things you claim to hold dear - but that hasn't stopped you or your fellow travelers yet, so I see no reason to expect it now, either.

The problem with your analogy is the money in the offering plate, like most of the other symbols in a church, has exchange value - a thief can exchange the money for goods, or the goods for money. (Copyright cases don't fit theft - they would be more like trespassing - depriving someone of a legally given right - but IANAL.) What exactly can you exchange a communion wafer for? Without exchange value, it wouldn't seem like you have a theft case, either morally or legally. If your beliefs hold, you can't exactly steal Jesus, so what exactly is anyone stealing?

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 5:29 PM

"The last recourse of someone who can't sustain an argument is to call the other person a name.
And so ends the discussion. Thanks for proving my point, Craig.

Ok Matt, I'll try one last time.

You made the argument that people's beliefs should be respected. I and others argued that all beliefs are open to criticism, and used NAMBLA as an example.

You completely missed the point of that, seemingly outraged that someone would compare NAMBLA'S beliefs to the Catholic church.

This showed a lack of comprehension on your part, because we did NOT compare the church's beliefs to those other groups. We merely pointed out that ideas must be judged and accepted or rejected on their individual merits, without getting some kind of pass.
Your response also completely undermined your own argument because you yourself were displaying that kind of acceptance/rejection of ideas.

When this was pointed out to you, you countered that Catholicism is different and must be afforded respect simply because it's a "popular" idea.

I could have countered with an observation of how your position is not only wrong, it's dangerous. I could have said that with that attitude, no progress would ever have been made, we'd still have slavery. I could have said that if Dr. Martin Luther King felt as you do, he'd probably still be alive living a completely ineffectual life.

I could have pointed out that if Rosa Parks had felt the way you do, she would have happily rode in the back of the bus.

Instead, I used my "castration" remark as shorthand... that by sitting down and shutting up so as not to offend the majority, giving their ideas respect not for being worthy of it but simply for being dominant, that you are rendering yourself completely irrelevant.

THAT went completely over your head.

So I called you thick.

I've now explained fully. But at this point I think it was a waste of my time.

You think ideas should be afforded respect simply because they are widely held - this makes you a nothing. A complete and utter nothing. You would have stood back while the Nazis marched, you would have idly watched as people were lynched.

You aren't a boat rocker. Oh well. There are many like you, and thanks to your own inclinations, we can happily and safely ignore you.

Posted by: freelunch | July 23, 2008 5:29 PM

It's not a tautology.

I never said it was. Learn to write clearly if you don't want to have people think that you are justifying all opinions, no matter how heinous. Two people jumped on you in exactly the same way for your writing. Don't blame us for what you did.

Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 23, 2008 5:30 PM

@ #262
Dear Dave, please show the data to support your statement that child-rape is perpetrated at the same rate by catholic clergy as "in Teaching, Physicians and every other profession."

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 5:31 PM

"CRAIG, by leaving them alone I meant from the START."

ah yes, we started it. We atheists shouldnt have made the catholics beat up on that kid.

Posted by: Ooparts | July 23, 2008 5:32 PM

@276

The rates really don't matter. Now, if teachers unions and medical societies were found to be in practice of actually protecting the offenders, then that would be something.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 5:33 PM

Dear Dave, please show the data to support your statement that child-rape is perpetrated at the same rate by catholic clergy as "in Teaching, Physicians and every other profession."

He didn't say it was a higher percentage. He called it a mafia--an organized crime syndicate involved with the protection of criminals. Indeed, not only the protection of the criminals, but moving them around and giving them access to more children.

Some people just can't deal with the fact they're part of a corrupt organization.

Posted by: arensb | July 23, 2008 5:35 PM

FrJ:

Atheists have murdered over 100 million people in the last century and continue to do so.

Out of curiosity, how are you correcting for inflation? By which I mean, if a genocidal ruler had decided to exterminate all Jews in, say, the 11th century, he wouldn't have been able to rack up the raw numbers that Hitler did, simply because a) there weren't as many people in Europe in the 11th century as in the 20th, and b) he wouldn't have had the benefit of radio, telegraphs, bombers, firearms, mass-production, a mostly-literate audience, chemical factories, and so on, and so forth.

If you don't take this sort of thing into account, the numbers are meaningless. It'd be like comparing the opening weekend gross of Gone With the Wind ($945,000) to Gigli's ($3,753,000).

Many of them are believers.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that atheists don't believe in anything. So obviously, if these people are believers, they're not True Atheists™

Posted by: leki | July 23, 2008 5:35 PM

@262

There might not be a difference between the number of paedophiles within the catholic church and without (I will look this figure up). The numbers aren't the issue. What is disgusting is the fact that the catholic church was busy covering up incidents of molestation and child rape thorugh such measures as the relocation of buggering priests to other parishes rather than alerting the authorities and having these criminals arrested. I have not heard of the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the National Science Academy, or any other organization with control over its members' conduct sweeping paedophile members under the rug. From what I understand, paedophilic physicians lose their medical licenses, they don't get transferred to a new clinic.

Posted by: Anne | July 23, 2008 5:37 PM

MAJeff, part of it was right, yes. But part of what you said was wrong. We have asshole, evil (wait, can I say "evil"?) pricks who abuse children and many of us are fighting to kick the fuckers out. But saying that ALL priest abuse children is such a massive oversimplification. Is everything so black and white to you? Do you not see that groups--any group be it Catholics, atheists, blacks, Jews--are made up of good people and bad? So was your comment wrong? No and yes. Right? No and yes. The sweeping generalizations I would think would be beneath you. You're obviously to wicked smart for that?

But I don't think you were going for a truth statement were you? It seems like you were going for the shock.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 5:38 PM

"And your right...I may disagree with the way this group attempts to move the Overton Window. While athesism has been thrown into the spotlight, I'm not sure its for the better."

That's not what the Overton Window is about.
If people LIKE what you do and say, you're not moving the window.

Posted by: Anne | July 23, 2008 5:39 PM

Nick, you're brilliant. That's the point exactly.

Posted by: arensb | July 23, 2008 5:40 PM

craig @ #127

And your god was defenseless (which you knew because if you didn't, you would have just ignored it and let Jeebus defend himself)

Seems to me like your god is a wuss.

Where's the "mod up" button?

Posted by: Miki Tracy | July 23, 2008 5:41 PM

Ildi writes: "Don't forget that Miki ends the vitriol with that creepy 'We pray for you, love' thing."

What vitriol? After all, true Christianity is all joy--even when idiots run amok:

"Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them. ... Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' Rather, 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.' Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good." ~Romans 12:14

"But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you...." ~Matthew 5:44

Little Paul can do all the evil he likes--all us *good* faithful, practising Catholics will just love him to death! Ahhh.....;o)

Posted by: no_worries | July 23, 2008 5:42 PM

Let us break their chains, they say, and throw off their fetters.

The One enthroned in heaven laughs; He scoffs at them.

Posted by: Ooparts | July 23, 2008 5:42 PM

@291
"Education Week Series 1996 several faculty were found covering up abuse."

Really? What happened to them?

Posted by: chancelikely | July 23, 2008 5:43 PM

Dave #291:

"The teachers are doing it too" doesn't exactly absolve the RCC of coverups of child rape or molestation.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 5:44 PM

We have asshole, evil (wait, can I say "evil"?) pricks who abuse children and many of us are fighting to kick the fuckers out.

But its the official policy of the church to protect and hide them. And that policy was written BY YOUR POPE.

So maybe not all priests are child molesters... but the Catholic Church is official a haven for them. Not accidentally. Officially and intentionally.

What does the Catholic church call people who are fighting against church policy written by the Pope himself?

If the Church is that corrupt, that rotten, then what about it makes your belief in a god require that it be in that corrupt church?

Wouldn't you at least conclude that the Catholic church is NOT the structure in which to worship your god?

Honest questions, not taking digs. It just really makes no sense to me... seems more like a devotion to tradition and a conservative (with a small c) fear of breaking from what you've had drilled into your head, rather than an actual, open and honest belief system which you are following.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 23, 2008 5:44 PM

Myers, who seems to have been surprised by the response, has waffled between "I was just kidding" ("Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death, is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, 'I am only joking!'," Prv 26:18-19) and promising that he shall indeed carry through on his threat. One gets the impression that both he and his followers, having nothing but contempt for Catholics, have no real grasp of the interior contours of Catholic faith and belief, and therefore no grasp whatever of the hierarchy of values at work in Catholic life.

www.insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4140&Itemid=48

So unlike the various cultists, who commit these acts for the own perverted pleasure, PZ Myers doesn't seem to derive any tangible excitement from the desecration but appears to delight simply in the provocation. I'm not sure which is more twisted. I pray he has a change of heart over night.

Posted by: freelunch | July 23, 2008 5:45 PM

#262 in response to #240

Statistically this problem is shown in the same percentage in Teaching, Physicians and every other profession. To accuse someone of such an act without any proof is disgusting.

But it isn't without evidence. The point is not that the RCC is uniquely vile in having child rapists in its midst, but that it has hidden behind its legal structure as an independent nature to keep justice from being done. Other organizations cooperate in the prosecution of child rapists who happen to work there. The RCC has a history of being very uncooperate -- almost as if they approve of child rape -- though I could not imagine anyone in the RCC saying such a thing. It is up to them to explain to us why they refuse to cooperate in the prosecution of rapists.

Posted by: Phentari | July 23, 2008 5:45 PM

...and of course, Miki, Jesus also commanded us to call people idiots, didn't he?

Oh, no, wait; I seem to recall that anyone who calls his brother "Fool" will be in danger of hellfire.

Again: very Christian of you.

Posted by: KD | July 23, 2008 5:48 PM

Shame on you... Preaching hate.

If the host means nothing to you why hurt it and us?

You have a devil inside and are furious at the site of something so holly.

YOU KNOW its holy and you hate THAT! It is the Devil in you and you are a willing participant!

When you face God and Jesus you will see.. We all pray for you.

Posted by: Phentari | July 23, 2008 5:51 PM

"You have a devil inside and are furious at the site of something so holly."

Yep. PZ can't stand holly. Mistletoe drives the demon inside him to even greater apoplexy.

Coming soon: the ritual desecration of a candy cane, a glass of egg nog, and a package of tinsel.

Posted by: horse-pheathers | July 23, 2008 5:51 PM

A couple of points:

Fr. J -- symbols have no inherent power, but only the power we as individuals choose to give them. That's the point of this whole affair -- no symbol is worth ruining another human being's life over. No symbol is truly sacred; the ideas people attach to that symbol might be, but the symbol itself is just an arbitrary representation of those ideals and separate from them is only worth the sum of its parts. Here's the message that you refuse to hear: Your cracker is just a symbol -- something inherently worthless that you and yours have arbitrarily assigned great meaning to -- and not worth trying to destroy Webster Cook's life over! Or PZ's life for that matter.

Regarding the assertion that atheism has killed millions this past century -- no, it hasn't. Pol Pot, Stalin, and so on may have been atheists, but their atheism was not the reason motivating their actions; the fact is that the majority of those killed under their regimes died for political reasons, for being perceived as possible threats to the despot's power. Their is a difference between killing someone because they are seen as a potential threat to your regime and killing them because they, for instance, refused to believe a cracker literally (rather than symbolicly) becomes Jesus before you eat it. While I don't deny that their are likely cases where some barbarian killed a believer solely because of his own atheism, as of present I've never heard of one.

For those that are buying into the idea that Hitler was an atheist -- he wasn't. He was born and raised Catholic and, though he appears to have subsequently drifted away from the faith of his youth, it looks like he never lost theistic belief. Moreover, he would never have been able to rise to power without the Catholic Church's recognition of the Nazi Party; before the Church stepped in, outside nations refused to take him seriously.

Furthermore, many try to toss Darwinism into the mix as a motivator for the Nazi atrocities, when eugenics is based not on natural selection but animal husbandry, which predates Darwin by centuries, mixed with a strong dose of Lutheran anti-semitism. Much of what Nazi Germany did was at the very least justified and enabled through the use (or misuse) of Christian belief.

As for the mystery object -- I'm laying my money on it being a science or atheist text of some kind to help drive home the "no symbol is sacred" message. Probably Dawkin's "God Delusion".

-- Horse-Pheathers

PS> Fr. J, you really need to get your brain flossed. Something in there is gumming up the works and causing you to confabulate derision for an idea as bigotry and even _hatred_. Some hate the organization you belong to, sure, but how is that any different than the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mantra I hear so many believers repeatedly mouth?

Posted by: chancelikely | July 23, 2008 5:51 PM

KD #312:

How can you hurt a cracker? Do crackers have a heretofore unknown nervous system?

How, in hurting the cracker, is PZ hurting you?

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 23, 2008 5:53 PM

#306

"So unlike the various cultists,"

Yes, Catholicism included.

And I'll pray that you gain critical thinking skills overnight. But, as an atheist, I don't have much faith that it'll happen.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 5:54 PM

Re. post #317: oops, my itals didn't carry all the way down. FWIW, only the last line is mine.

Posted by: Phentari | July 23, 2008 5:54 PM

"Being an asshole for it's own sake is very rewarding."

Some people seem to think so. There have been some very interesting studies done on the correlation between traits that allow one to thrive in the business world and traits common to sociopaths.

That being said: whether it's rewarding or not doesn't change the fact that it happens. I, for one, find someone who's just overtly a jerk and unapologetic about it more tolerable than someone who's a jerk and covers it in saccharine and unction. "Ooooh, you're an evil moron who will burn in hell, but we LOVE you anyway, you poor deluded scumbag!"

Posted by: The Chemist | July 23, 2008 5:55 PM

When he was Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Ratzi the Nazi... -Gobear

Is it safe to invoke Godwin's law yet? ;-)

(Since this is a heated discussion and people are liable to actually object to this comment with a straight face: Don't tell me he was a member of the Hitler Youth, enrollment was mandatory)

Posted by: True Bob | July 23, 2008 5:55 PM

My niece has a stuffed bunny that she loves. If you walked up to her with the same kind of bunny and tore its head off she was cry and be very upset.

Best analogy from a christer yet. christers are all small children who need their lovey stuffed bunnies, or they'll cry.

Well played, Fr J, well played.

/golf applause

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 5:56 PM

and one more time:

cracker =/= person

Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 5:57 PM

Sandi and Fr J So what did the actions of PZ prove and disprove? That this god thing is nothing but a made up god and all the irrational crap that accompanies it. Where the hell was your god to come down and save his own body? Funny how the universe kept going on it's daily workings, unconcerned with the fate of a measly cracker on earth, the sun still in the sky, people brushing their teeth, eating and doing all those sundry other things as if nothing important was happening in Morris, Minnesota. Wasn't your god pissed at this horrible desecration and able to prevent it? Good grief, when are you going to at long last comprehend that you are living a demented and insane life all fueled by the vile pox of religion? Can you imagine how much of the population is laughing at you over this incredible show of abject insanity? Of course your kind is not laughing, and you can thank your imaginary god for what has transpired. Think about that and consider that you had no one to let you down. The proof that your god does not exist was expressed in the most blatant terms that irrationality was witnessed to. You shall have no more crackers to worry needlessly over.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 5:57 PM

We all pray for you.

And a hearty "fuck off" to you too!

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 5:58 PM

#318:

How can you hurt a cracker? Do crackers have a heretofore unknown nervous system? How, in hurting the cracker, is PZ hurting you?

See comments at #298. As a partial analogy, if I steal the mortal remains of your loved one, I haven't harmed your loved one, but I have wronged you, because you care about what happens to them. Especially if I steal them precisely to mock your attachment to your loved one and/or his remains, it is a viciously cruel act.

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 23, 2008 5:59 PM

Well, PZ, it certainly looks like you're in the soup! Soda Catholics didn't like your response to the cheesy Bill Donehough. They are certainly doing a lot of crumbling about it. Some of them are even resorting to salty language. Your typical critic likes to claim victim status, but I'd tell him: "Don't be such a waif, uh?" Don't give up the chip, respond with your usual crisp-bred logic.

Posted by: jtradke | July 23, 2008 6:00 PM

...And the ground beneath me yet holds. Just as I expected.

Also, I wish people would not deign to indulge the fantasy about atheism or theism causing genocide. Because even if it were at all true, it's quite beside the point--that being, whether or not there's a god. The murderousness (or lack thereof) of individuals who hold a particular worldview is not in any way indicative of the worldview's truth value. It's a pointless game to play.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 6:01 PM

and again for SDG

cracker =/= person

former or present.

Posted by: H.H. | July 23, 2008 6:01 PM

I presume the "late entry" is a copy of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. If so, I think it makes a great point.

Posted by: JimC | July 23, 2008 6:02 PM

if I steal the mortal remains of your loved one, I haven't harmed your loved one, but I have wronged you

Analogy is no good, he didn't steal the mortal remains of anyone. He didn't steal anything. It is a baked good. A cracker no amount of hand waving makes it anything else.

Posted by: Miki Tracy | July 23, 2008 6:03 PM

"...and of course, Miki, Jesus also commanded us to call people idiots, didn't he?"

Actually, Christ was using hyperbiole (as evidenced by the context of the passage) when He said, "Do not say 'Raca' to your brother." And, he was speaking to the attitude that came with specific name--in Aramaic--not the word itself.

Christ also called Herod, "That old fox" which as I understand the invective to mean actually translates to "a high-piched, screeching woman." Heck of a thing to say about your civic leadership, eh?

As well, the Apostle Paul referred to believers in his own See (in writing, no less) as idiots and ignoramuses, so, yes, it *is* *very* Christian of me, isn't it?

I'm always amused when people who claim to believe nothing about Scripture--and no nothing of it, either--try to use it as a weapon! It's fun to watch you twist the Bible for sport.

By the by, I have a query, in light of the present tenor of the atheist attitudes, here:

Y'all keep claiming that Catholics are making death threats against Little Paul and others of his ilk, but I have yet to see any real evidence of this as a demonstrable fact. Thus far, we only have Little Paul's mewling complaints to go by. Were this actually true, one would think that the Morris P.D. and Campus Security would be involved...but they *aren't*. How's that work? I believe that y'all are just itching so bad to slander Catholics by any means necessary that when insults don't work, you resort to lying claims of imaginary violence to assuage your own disappointed self-importance.....

Show me I'm wrong.

Good Catholics go to war on their knees. Good atheists just spew insults, hate and intolerance. Good Catholics offer Masses for the conversion of morons. Good atheists rail against them for their kindness. Poor atheists.

We pray for you. We love you. And we want to give you a hug!

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 6:03 PM

So let me see.

If you give me a tie for Christmas, and it's yellow with brown polka dots, and instead of wearing the damned ugly thing as you intended, I give it to the Goodwill or toss it out, I'm a thief?

You say it IS theft if the people who GAVE you the thing decide it is, if they feel that way after the fact?

Well then, can we vote on whether or not you were born an idiot? Since reality doesn't matter and what matters is what we decide afterward based only on what makes us feel good...

Geez. With that way of thinking, you could look around the universe and come up with... a religion or something.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 6:04 PM

The German Nazis were Christians. Modern American Nazis are Christians too. Thinking a cracker is a cracker despite what any religion says it is isn't hate speech. It's reality. Destroying a book, piece of cloth, a cracker, a doll to say "these things are objects, and nothing else, not sacred, not transmorgified, and as objects, entirely irrelevant" is not hate speech.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 23, 2008 6:05 PM

"Y'all keep claiming that Catholics are making death threats against Little Paul and others of his ilk, but I have yet to see any real evidence of this as a demonstrable fact. "

You'd think that this desire for concrete evidence would extend to your belief in a sky fairy, as well.

Guess that's too much to ask for, though.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 6:06 PM

We pray for you

And a big ol' "Fuck you!" right back atcha!

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 6:08 PM

MAJeff @#344: So what? Work out your argument, don't just shorthand. A corpse is not a person either, even if it is substantially composed of matter and structures that were once a person. It's just inert matter now; the only objective point at issue is whatever feelings we may have regarding it. I understand you don't share my feelings about the Eucharist. Someone else may not share your feelings about your loved one's remains.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 6:08 PM

To go up for communion with any other purpose is as much theft as taking the communionoffertory plate with the intention of running out of church with it.

Making off with the offertory plate is simple larceny.

The wafer is freely handed out as a consumable to whomever approaches the Minister of the Eucharist with no test for eligibility nor express preconditions whatsoever and is not expected to be returned. It is freely given away, notwithstanding the "implicit understanding" that you may have as a Catholic.

Whatever "not doing with a cracker what the giver intended" might actually be, it is certainly not simple larceny.

I accept entirely the argument that was put forward (by a former barrister of the CPS in the UK) that under UK law, taking the wafer could be construed as theft by misrepresentation/fraud, but your contention that it is simple larceny is another matter entirely.

Posted by: andyo | July 23, 2008 6:10 PM

Come on people ... by now everything that could be said about the Freakin' Cracker, WAS said. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again. Aren't you getting tired?

Let's move on to some more interesting things ... we don't have to loose precious time over some stupid crackers.

Posted by: Joe Cracker | July 23, 2008 6:06 PM

Has it been said already how cute is when religious people start capitalizing random words? The like with these catholics and the eucharist thing. Even it's cute when the dictionary does it!

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 23, 2008 6:11 PM

The church is Catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all.
When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me - Pete Rooke, quoting John Donne

How about when "she" rapes one, Pete?

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 6:13 PM

"It IS something to grapple with but without walking away from the beliefs that go so far beyond the people who are priests (and again, there are so many good ones), it seems worth it at this point to fight for change (and justice) than to give up on a faith that has much goodness because some human beings did some very evil things."

But you're ignoring my point. I'm not asking why you stick with the church despite the bad priests. I'm asking why you stick with a church that has an official policy from the POPE DOWN to hide those priests.

It's not about sticking with an organization with some corrupt members, its about sticking with an organization that has corruption as official policy, and that has an "infallible" leader who authored those policies who the church claims was appointed BY GOD.

If the structure of the Church is that corrupt from the very top down, why stick with it?

Is the STRUCTURE holy? Can you not worship the very same God without clinging to a structure that is corrupted to the very core? From the very top down?

You're not going to be Pope, I'm sure... you have little chance of influence in that structure at that level - so why stick with it?

Just what is it you're worshiping? Can't you say "I don't need to worship my god through an organization that is corrupt?"

Why the allegiance to a man-made structure which you yourself seem to admit has the flaws of failed men?

What exactly is your religion? What exactly is it you worship? Honestly, it seems to me like the man-made structure is being treated as more "holy" than the supposed god or morals or ideas it claims for worship.

Posted by: anne | July 23, 2008 6:14 PM

Andyo, you have a VERY good point about the fact that we CAN have goodness--loads of it--without religion. To be honest, I'm the only religious person out of my friends (and they still like me!) and they are deeply good, intelligent etc....So yes, you do not need the Catholic Church to be good but the church has done or encouraged good, in the form of supporting the poor, abused women, the homeless kids on the drag here in Austin (I won't go on cuz I don't want to set off MAJeff's blahs). As a formerly ex-Catholic (and then they ROPED ME BACK IN!), I personally--and that is the crux--have found the social ministries and then all that spiritual mumbo jumbo like meditation rewarding. The spiritual beliefs that are beyond the people have to do with an inner peace (of course brought on, I believe, by that guy I'm so fond of, Jesus). I didn't get it with Buddha, with the transcendental spirit or in all my books. So it seems to work for me. But the ORGANIZATION that is the Church is certainly flawed b/c people fuck it up. Someone asked what is done with people who fight the Pope? Not much really. Depends what you're fighting for, I guess.

The problem obviously is that all this IS NOT quantifiable or justifiable or anything logical. I get that. So I need to get off this science blog!! :-)

Posted by: arensb | July 23, 2008 6:14 PM

My dear... please look up the history behind this incident before you go making claims that anyone is just "stirring up trouble"

To steal a line from someone else, PZ did not cause a disturbance. He merely improved one that was already there.

Posted by: Susanne | July 23, 2008 6:15 PM

Prof. Myers,

Hmmm... I think you may have been wrong on 2 of your assumptions...

One, you made such a *huge* deal about this, there seems to be some ulterior motive? Seriously, it's such an important thing in your life, to "show someone how wrong they are", that it draws into question if this is pure science or a reaction of an instance earlier in your life (perhaps by a deviant person claiming to be "religious") or... well... something.

When I look at this, it's kind of like the religious zealot Fred Phelps and his hyper-public anti-gay crusade - I am a man of a God who espouses love and tolerance but I want to kill people and hate, look at the attention I get. You did this in such a massive public forum, the apparent real intended result *was* to get people to "pester" you. It's a drive of Ego. Otherwise, why not keep this private?

Second item. Re your other statement "the sad little cracker has met its undignified end" seems flawed. It still exists, both in the energy your act released and the physical matter of which it was once and is still composed of. Am I wrong? Sure, it has changed physical states, but it still exists. Just like the ashes of a deceased person...

On an etherial level, if you believe that you "desecrated" or burned or whatever a certain thing, believing it *was* in fact a transsubstantiated host (I think that's the correct term), then you yourself *do* buy into the whole transsubstantiation thing. Sorry, but you can't do a thing believing you are doing a thing without actually believing in the thing, even if your belief is that no such thing exists, yet to have a non-existence you must feel that on a plane there *is* an existence that is there for you to ardanently prove your non-belief therein.

And if you really *do* fel it was a consecrated host then you do follow the possibility of said transsubstantiation, as such how can you feel, if a deity can impose itself into a piece of bread, then how can you not believe that this same omnipotent being can as easily remove itself from said "Cracker" before you culd desecrate it? (Would that be untranssubstantiatability?)

By your act, which was obviously not a scientific experiment, rather, an exposition of self-ego (not unlike the cat who burned the man early, Paul Addis), you may have thought you were defiling something that some hold sacred, but IMO what you did was expose your own shortcomings and laid your soul (you know what I mean here) bare. And as such, to the layperson you made yourself appear less of a man of science and more of a religious (or anti-religious) zealot nutcase. Had you done something more in line with your stated discipline (like show how division by zero is possible, and will lead to warping of the dimensionality of space, etc.) then you would have come across, at least in some eyes, as less of a crackpot and more of a scientist and professor.

Strange coincidence? Years ago I found myself attracting certain religious types, in general the bible thumpping born again evangelista types which were prevalent in the 1970's (wasn't my fault, maybe it was how I looked or something, as it wasn't my "scene"). The one thing I remember them, almost to a person, saying was how convinced that there was no god, that they too, were people of science and logic, until something changed. Reading your writings on theology makes me giggle too, as, well... they, too, swore that there was no God, that it was all a sham, etc... until they changed. Now you can't shut them up, as it's God this and God that. Serious. All they do is talk "conversion" (and we're not talkin' football, either!)

Something to think about. Those who have the loudest and most in your face thing going on usually have the deepest connection, closeted within their psyche, perhaps their subconscious, to that which they wish to destroy. And the funny thing is... like ol' Fred above, an action intended to shock usually has an opposite effect. Be careful what you're trying for.

Sorry to go on so long, my apolgies, but it was an interesting foray into the psyche of yours which your actions broadcast to the masses. One never knows, perhaps I, too, am wrong. Maybe we all are wrong. Or worse, maybe it is *all* a figment, and no more real than a passing thought stuck in the nth of ones mind, no more based in so-called "physical reality" than the thought that division by zero is impossible.

Then, would it matter what you did or said you did? Or is this all a project exploring the development of the physicality of the human psyche?

It's been a fun half hour, on this subject. I'm sure you are having a wonderful day, and those you are trying to sway to your thought are, too.

thanks. Have an awesome day...
Susanne

Posted by: N.K. | July 23, 2008 6:19 PM

I always laugh at the people who harp on Hitler, Stalin and others being atheists.

Hitler was not an atheist, he was a Catholic. And even if he was, atheism was not the reason he killed all of those people. The same goes for Stalin, and others. All atheism is is a lack of belief in a god. There's nothing about killing gay men, or wives submitting themselves unto their husbands, or killing people who work on Sunday, or religions other than one's own narrow, shallow mind are inferior, or anything of that hateful, violent and oppressive nature.

"Gott mit uns."

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 6:21 PM

Dave @#262,

That is truly a nasty thing to say.

Statistically this problem is shown in the same percentage in Teaching, Physicians and every other profession.

To accuse someone of such an act without any proof is disgusting.

You can't argue anything outside of some vile accusation?

You must have been in the Nutty Professors class- Great debating. You are a scholar, class act-

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 6:22 PM

"Hitler was not an atheist, he was a Catholic. And even if he was, atheism was not the reason he killed all of those people. The same goes for Stalin, and others. All atheism is is a lack of belief in a god. There's nothing about killing gay men, or wives submitting themselves unto their husbands, or killing people who work on Sunday, or religions other than one's own narrow, shallow mind are inferior, or anything of that hateful, violent and oppressive nature."

And even if somehow being an atheist actually made you feel compelled to kill people...

...there still would be no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a god, and the murdering atheists would have no effect on that one way or the other.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 23, 2008 6:23 PM

Shorter Susanne, preserving all significant content:
blah, blah, blah.
(Sorry to butt in, MAJeff)

Posted by: Hap | July 23, 2008 6:23 PM

#371: note - the "you" in the last paragraph is general (the set of aggrieved ones, particularly those with fatwa envy), not implying SDG personally.

Posted by: Joe Cracker | July 23, 2008 6:24 PM

Susanne, what part of "random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" don't you understand?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 6:24 PM

(Sorry to butt in, MAJeff)

Feel free. I'm relaxing after a lovely dinner. Thinking about opening up some pinot noir.
Living is good.

Posted by: True Bob | July 23, 2008 6:26 PM

SDG @ 158 and others,

You are saying that an unworthy person taking the eucharist cracker is theft. Do you believe that every single person in every single communion queue is in a state of grace (or had the sacrament of redemption), has fasted, etc? Because I bet they haven't, which means every single mass is disrupted by catholics.

Cue NTS defense.

Posted by: Greg | July 23, 2008 6:27 PM

Careful P.Z.

Eating that theater popcorn might offend the juju-bians...juju-ites....juju-farians...whatever they're called. :-)

And happy birthday to your son!

Posted by: Todd | July 23, 2008 6:28 PM

YOU KNOW its holy and you hate THAT! It is the Devil in you and you are a willing participant!

Nothing makes me want to go to a mass and steal crackers more than statements like this.

Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | July 23, 2008 6:29 PM

Hey! Today's my birthday, too. Go tell your special oldest son I'm wishing him a real Happy Birthday from this blogger who's also celebrating her birthday today, too!

Posted by: andyo | July 23, 2008 6:29 PM

Anne, #370

The problem obviously is that all this IS NOT quantifiable or justifiable or anything logical. I get that. So I need to get off this science blog!! :-)

This pretty much sums up your position then, if that's what you meant. And I pretty much agree. But to claim the right not to be offended (as others do, don't know about you) based on something not quantifiable, or (better yet) not justifiable or not logical is just downright asking for undeserved special attention. In fact, even if we did have a logical belief, we don't have the right not to be offended if someone wants to transgress it. We can speak up, but censor, I don't think that's good.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 6:30 PM

True Bob @ 390:

You are saying that an unworthy person taking the eucharist cracker is theft.

No. I'm saying taking the Eucharist during communion for any other reason than to consume it on the spot is theft. The state of the person who consumes it on the spot is between that person and God.

Posted by: Brian W. | July 23, 2008 6:30 PM

This was linked to a few days ago by someone else but it seems like an appropriate time to bring it up again.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Posted by: SC | July 23, 2008 6:30 PM

Christ also called Herod, "That old fox" which as I understand the invective to mean actually translates to "a high-piched, screeching woman." Heck of a thing to say about your civic leadership, eh?

'Cause you can't really insult a man without comparing him to a woman.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 6:31 PM

and don't worry...it's not a magical varietal....and I don't have any crackers in the house (no good cheese either)

:)

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 6:33 PM

After all, if GOD does not exist, why do Little Paul and the poor deluded Richie spend so much time and energy trying to prove it (as I recall from junior high biology, you cannot prove any negative, so how is this logical or rational)?

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!

Posted by: JeffreyD | July 23, 2008 6:34 PM

Ah, Fr. J. brings up the all atheists are alike canard again. Hmmm, let us run with that idea, i.e., lie, as true shall we?

Ok, all atheists are alike. I am the same as Stalin and am personally responsible for one of the bloodiest regimes in history. By the way, if that is true I am sorry.

Well, if atheists are all alike, we can group religions into large chunks. Hmm, Eastern thought, those are one group. Christinanity , Judasm, Islam all believe in the god of Abraham and common decent, therefore, you are one large group with a little bit of argument and some schisms. My question then, is when is the Catholic church going to apologize for 9-11? When are Muslims going to apologize for the Inquisition?

OK, I also need to apologize to the uber dumb on here. I know the above is not solid logic. It is easy to recognize when it is silly, so why do Xtians not recognize the silliness of lumping atheists into a group? It is a lie and you know it is a lie.

Looking forward to the dawn of a kracker krazy free day.

Posted by: Moses | July 23, 2008 6:35 PM

No. I'm saying taking the Eucharist during communion for any other reason than to consume it on the spot is theft. The state of the person who consumes it on the spot is between that person and God.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 6:30 PM

I'm saying you're an idiot. You can't steal something given to you. At best the Church could get someone for "breach of contract," but there are so many elements missing that you'd be a clown to think that'd work too.

Man, they don't make internet bunk-house lawyers like they used to...

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 6:35 PM

mayhempix @#399:

It would seem the point you are trying to make is that emotionally it is the same thing. But you don't have to be indoctrinated in religious dogma to mourn the death of a loved one. Mourning of the dead is universal through all cultures and religions. The belief in holy crackers is not.

Mourning the dead is universal, but how they are mourned and how the body is treated differs. Burial at sea may be perfectly respectable in some cultures but anathema in others. So if someone from the latter sort of culture is horrified that I have taken their loved one's body and dumped it in the ocean, we may say it is their culture that has taught them to be horrified. It doesn't change the fact that I've wronged them.

Posted by: Logicel | July 23, 2008 6:36 PM

PZ did this because he knows the power of symbols and he wanted to hurt other people.
_______

It is more a case of priests knowing how to wield symbols to keep their flock cowed to the point of obedience and submission. Treating such symbols, like the cracker, with disregard, disturbs priests because that is where their power lies.

In other words, priests hurt people by keeping them dumb and subservient by manipulating the flock through symbols, while PZ is cutting through the priest's power base by making a joke of the priest's symbol.

I love you, PZ! You are a hero for our times.

Posted by: andyo | July 23, 2008 6:37 PM

Niether is there any measurable evidence for rationality - the god of atheism.

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 6:32 PM

Ha ha! Somehow this comment reminds me of that "reality-based commmunity" comment from that Bush buttlicker. I'd say thank you for saying we're the rational ones, and I agree. I don't know that atheists are rational just for being atheists, and I certainly don't care about the word "god", but otherwise, you're onto something here!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 6:38 PM

Beautiful treatise, Girlfriend--and right on the mark!

That's just sad.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 23, 2008 6:39 PM

"Christinanity" - JeffreyD

I don't know whether the typo was deliberate, but it is brilliant!

Posted by: Moses | July 23, 2008 6:40 PM

Craig, you don't think the flag is a symbol? You don't think symbols have power? I don't believe that. Do you wear a swastika? It is just a few lines, so no one will mind right? PZ did this because he knows the power of symbols and he wanted to hurt other people. That seems to bother no one here.

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 3:56 PM

Stupid, illogical ass. An isult is like a glass of wine. You can't get drunk if you don't drink it.

Center yourself you lying-piece-of-shit, goat-turds for brains and none of that crap will get to you.

And if you can't, well, fuck you and live your life as an over-reactive nellie. I don't care. Nobody cares. Not even your non-existent God who, historically speaking, isn't even the God you think he is...

Posted by: Vivek | July 23, 2008 6:41 PM

Why is "MAJeff, OM" not global killfiled? I can't recall him ever contributing anything but one-liner sarcastic gripes, most of which consist of iterated invocations of his mantra, "blah".

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 6:42 PM

Ha ha! Somehow this comment reminds me of that "reality-based commmunity" comment from that Bush buttlicker. I'd say thank you for saying we're the rational ones, and I agree. I don't know that atheists are rational just for being atheists, and I certainly don't care about the word "god", but otherwise, you're onto something here!

Haha - are you really that stupid?

Posted by: mayhempix | July 23, 2008 6:43 PM

...it doesn't change the fact that I've wronged them.
Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 6:35 PM

You dodged the point of my post. Let's try this:
So that means when you eat meat you have "wronged" the Hindus?

Posted by: Religiophope | July 23, 2008 6:43 PM

Hey, PZ, maybe you could score this piece of gristle for some really high-class desecration.

Posted by: Joe Cracker | July 23, 2008 6:45 PM

// As G.K. Chesterton so wisely noted, "If there were no GOD, there would be no atheists...."

Come one ... that's wisdom? It isn't even logically correct.

The correct thing to say is: "If there were no deluded people believing in imaginary "beings", we would all be atheists".

Posted by: andyo | July 23, 2008 6:46 PM

Haha - are you really that stupid?

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 6:42 PM

No.

I think you're pretty thick if you don't appreciate the irony of your comment. But, you did make the comment. Don't worry, I'm agreeing with you there, mostly.

Posted by: Hap | July 23, 2008 6:46 PM

#426 - There is, for starters, the "OM" after his name. Of course, if you had read, say, the rest of this thread, you might not have wrote what you did, but...

Kseniya's Rule, please.

Posted by: Kel | July 23, 2008 6:46 PM

I guess this explains why there are Nazis riding dinosaurs in my back yard.

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 6:47 PM

Niether is there any measurable evidence for rationality.

That is indeed the case where you are concerned, Baba.

Convincing repartee.

Posted by: pvrugg | July 23, 2008 6:48 PM

Dammit PZ! would ya give us some warning next time next time you descrate major religious icons????

We just had VIOLENT VIOLENT thunderstorms here in New England, and TORNADOES in Rhode Island and Massachusetts!!! That's unheard of!!!

To me, at least, it's small consolation that god has such crappy aim...

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 6:49 PM

"So if someone from the latter sort of culture is horrified that I have taken their loved one's body and dumped it in the ocean, we may say it is their culture that has taught them to be horrified. It doesn't change the fact that I've wronged them."

And TAKING someone's body and doing something with it is exactly nothing like ACCEPTING a CRACKER and not eating it.

It's understandable why people value the bodies of their loved ones (though I personally don't.)
It may even be hard-wired.

There is NOTHING hard-wired about placing a huge amount of emotional value on a cracker, so much that you'd make death threats over it, or actually KILL people over it, as many Jews were.

Being emotional about the body of a loved one is understandable. Being emotional about a pastry is INSANE.

It is simply INSANE. And demanding that OTHER treat your cookie as sacred even though they are NOT insane is immoral. trying to make worship of your cookie mandatory is immoral - and make no mistake, forcing others to treat your cookie as anything other than a cookie IS demanding it be worshiped.

And heres the final thing... you can wail and scream and cry and threaten and twist logic all you want - but we will NEVER see your cracker as anything but a cracker.

We will NEVER treat your cracker with any more deference than is due any other cracker... because we are not insane.

And for you to continually argue that it MUST be treated with respect by people who do not share you delusion does only one thing - it casts into further relief the difference between delusion and sanity.
It simply makes that much clearer why your demands for deference must be resisted.

So keep it up... you're simply assuring that your cracker will be treated with more public disrespect than it would have if you morons wouldn't have gone off the deep end in the first place.

Demands for fealty to fantasy MUST be met with derision. Expect nothing less.

Posted by: E.V. | July 23, 2008 6:51 PM

Eucharist label warning: No Actual Body Was Harmed In The Consumption Of This Wafer

Symbolic gesture: playing cops and robbers
Literal gesture: actually robbing a bank

Symbolic gesture: giving someone the finger or saying "fuck you!"
Literal gesture: anal assault with a broom handle

SDG, understand the difference?

Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 23, 2008 6:52 PM

There have now been I think hundreds of comments from Catholics that taking a consecrated wafer from the service is theft. Arguments on and on, back and forth, over and over about theft. But never, to my recollection, about abduction or kidnapping.

For a two cent misdemeanor you lose your god.

Posted by: Brian W. | July 23, 2008 6:53 PM

"Niether is there any measurable evidence for rationality."

OK, explain.

Posted by: Janine ID | July 23, 2008 6:54 PM

For all the people going off about the bad weather where they are at, I have to point out, here in Chicago, it is a beautiful sunny day in the low 80's. Blasphemy, it does my weather good!

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 6:54 PM

I think you're pretty thick if you don't appreciate the irony of your comment. But, you did make the comment. Don't worry, I'm agreeing with you there, mostly.

Irony was the intention, which seems to have been lost on you.

Posted by: mayhempix | July 23, 2008 6:55 PM

You dodged the point of my post. Let's try this:
So that means when you eat meat you have "wronged" the Hindus?
Please see my response all the way back at #115.
Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 6:46 PM

I read it but you again dodged the point of my post.

One more time.

Hindus believe their ancestors are reincarnated in cows (along with other animals).
It has nothing to do with whether or not they own the cow. To them you are a sacrilegious cannibal eating the flesh of someone's relative.

To you that is OK because they don't own the cow?

You are a hypocrite like all religious believers... including the Hindus.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 23, 2008 6:55 PM

Here is an analogy you might understand. Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away.

Now desecrating the Eucharist would have the same effect as desecrating that book and posting the evidence in glee.

Posted by: andyo | July 23, 2008 6:57 PM

Niether[sic] is there any measurable evidence for rationality - the god of atheism. - Baba

Atheists need not be rationalists, so at the most elementary level, your jibe is foolish. Incidentally, how did your comment arrive at this blog? Did you propel it by the power of your imaginary sky-fairy? Or did you send it, like everyone else, using rationally-designed machinery? The whole of science and technology is evidence that rationality works, halfwit, unlike appeals to your fantasy-daddy.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 23, 2008 6:52 PM

That very short comment from Baba can be deconstructed in more than a couple of ways that makes it ironic and funny. That's the mark of a good writer. I have to give him credit for that.

Posted by: andyo | July 23, 2008 6:59 PM

I think you're pretty thick if you don't appreciate the irony of your comment. But, you did make the comment. Don't worry, I'm agreeing with you there, mostly.

Irony was the intention, which seems to have been lost on you.

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 6:54 PM

Unless it was a Poe, then no, that was not the irony I'm talking about. As I said above, I like your writing style though, intentional or not.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 7:00 PM

There were tornadoes out here?

I had some rain (and it got really dark at 4:30ish) but it's just mild and damp in the Hub today. Saw the crawl on the tv mentioning lightning, but that's lightning...for some reason I have a hard time seeing lightning strikes as news, but I grew up in the Midwest and thunderstorms seem a hell of a lot more frequent out there.

then again, we were supposed to fall in the ocean in 2004, so blasphemy, desecration, wrath of god, or whatever doesn't seem like it's gonna have such dramatic effects.

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 23, 2008 7:02 PM

Here is an analogy you might understand. Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away...

I'm pretty sure I saw that episode of 'Tales from the Crypt'. Is that the one where the taxidermist involved felt bad about his part in it, tied to go to the police, but the crazed husband caught on and used him to make a hammock and two bookends, which he also placed in the library?

... Damn, but that was a weird show.

Posted by: S.Scott | July 23, 2008 7:02 PM

I think I know the answer!

Sorry about the spoiler PZ. :-)

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 23, 2008 7:04 PM

I'm with you, Mike (#401). The rehashing of the same old shit has been re-rehashed so many hashing times by now that I can't even summon any more ridicule; not even a snide one-liner seems worth the trouble of typing it any more. Nutty idiots clogging comment threads is just old hat now. Boring in fact.

Catholic cracker-worshippers: I yawn in your general direction and take my leave from the whole Ineffable Holy Magical Cracker scene.
Pharyngulistas: "see" you when something interesting happens.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 7:05 PM

Here is an analogy you might understand. Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 7:06 PM

Being emotional about the body of a loved one is understandable. Being emotional about a pastry is INSANE.

This is manifestly untrue. Insanity is a clinical psychological diagnosis. On any objective clinical or psychological guidelines, countless believing Catholics are in fact lucidly and perfectly sane. Your contempt for their beliefs does not render a medical diagnosis.

"And heres the final thing... you can wail and scream and cry and threaten and twist logic all you want - but we will NEVER see your cracker as anything but a cracker."

There seems to be a confusion here. I make no plea for PZ or anyone else to make the slightest act of obeisance to my faith. I don't ask that he tip his hat as he passes my church or bow his head at the name of Jesus.

But here's the thing. I do ask, in a spirit of humanistic respect and common decency, that he and his friends stay out of my church unless they are genuinely curious and willing to behave respectfully, leave our rituals alone, and in particular not invade our sacred space for the express purpose of taking what is most sacred to us out of our sacred space and do stuff to it for the sole purpose of rebuffing our objections.

Is that really too much to ask?

Posted by: chancelikely | July 23, 2008 7:08 PM

Baba #473: Aside from losing on the strength of Godwin's Law, I think you'll find that that's not true.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 7:10 PM

SC,

Come on. This has to be some kind of theater of the absurd.

Utterly bizarre!

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 7:13 PM

Hehe. They haven't noticed that PZ doesn't need to sway us. We sashayed our own way to the same conclusion. Religion is some inane goofy crap based on superstition, fear and metaphysical mumbojumbo.

Posted by: The Chemist | July 23, 2008 7:13 PM

I would like to point out various aspects of teh stupid that seem to be recurring themes in this discussion:

1. Atheism/Catholicism was the reason the holocaust happened (and variations thereof)-

Let's make one thing perfectly fucking clear: Hitler made the holocaust happen. Period.

Just like Stalin made the Purges happen, just like Genghis Khan made the Mongolian Empire happen, just like Tang Taizong made Chinese reunification happen. Mature, scholarly interpretations of history do not place emphasis on singular ideologies, but on the agency of the groups and individuals who created and acted on them. A lot of factors played into these things I mentioned, but in the end the keystone is one individual. Can we now please just move the fuck on?

2. How can this offend?-

Easy, it's interpreted by the targeted party to offend. That's all it takes. Any other view of what constitutes offense is naive. Offense is subjective. No one gets to decide, "x is offensive, but y is not" for somebody else. Offense is inherently irrational and visceral. It is always a cultural construction.

I could ask why Atheists are so offended by the notion that someone is praying for them. I know why of course, but it's not a rational thing, it's visceral and depends on how you interpret the gesture. If you interpret it as condescending, you're offended. If you interpret it as blindly ignorant, you might feel pity more than offense. Offense has nothing to do with the spirit with which the communication was offered, but how it will be received.

Whether that makes PZ wrong or right is another matter, but the point is that is an act designed to provoke. Anyone who doesn't see that is fucking stupid. (Yes, that is intended to offend, but I might still be unsuccessful, see how that works?)

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 7:14 PM

So say *you*. Where's the proof??? Documented, empirical proof, Love.

I'm taking it on faith. A higher authority - the people at 1-800-FLOWERS, have issued a holy writ or press release or whatever you call it.

Posted by: anne | July 23, 2008 7:15 PM

Andyo, you're absolutely right in that no one has the right not be offended. I don't mind being challenged in my belief; everyone should be in order to learn why they believe what they believe. But what is bothering Catholics--at the most basic level--has to do with the impinging on our right to practice our belief, sort of the idea that your rights stop where mine begins. The fact that someone came into our Church just to misleadingly acquire something is unethical and reason for upset, yes? It's not like we willingly handed over a Host to a non-believer and said have at it...THEN got upset.

And yes (I forgot who said this bit) but Catholics wrongly take the Eucharist weekly--and that is immoral by our standard and it sucks. They are either ignorantly practicing their religion or willfully ignoring its tenets--both of which is idiotic.

PZ's initial intention to defend that kid was fine, I think, but the way in which he protested the treatment actually distracted everyone from his original argument completely.

Posted by: Todd | July 23, 2008 7:16 PM

Here is an analogy you might understand. Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away.

Now desecrating the Eucharist would have the same effect as desecrating that book and posting the evidence in glee.

This analogy works very well if you are wheat.

Posted by: El Herring | July 23, 2008 7:17 PM

SDG #298: Did you see what happened to Graham Chapman's ashes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utHmeN31RT0

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 23, 2008 7:17 PM

"This analogy works very well if you are wheat."

Better than being chaff any day.

Seriously. Fuck chaff.

Posted by: raven | July 23, 2008 7:19 PM

Max Verret threatening PZ again:

I'm afraid so PZ, again, again and again until, as Donohue puts it, "Justice is done". I think this current post assures that the pressure will intensify.

Oooh, threats. Again. You are right about Donohue. He makes the Catholics look like rabid Moslem terrorists with brains the size of a walnut. The vast majority of the 75 million US Catholics probably ignore him unless they wish he would just shut up.

Don't you have some protestants to kill or witches to burn or heretics to torture or something? Really, catholism today is a shadow of its former glory.

Posted by: JackC | July 23, 2008 7:21 PM

A very happy birthday to your Son, PZ and I hope you both enjoyed the movie.

JC

Posted by: 386sx | July 23, 2008 7:21 PM

Here is an analogy you might understand. Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away.

What if that loved one was invincible and lived forever and had omnipotent powers. Would they even give a freakin crap? Would they still be your loved one if they threw your friends and loved ones in frekin eternal torture for freakin ever? Doh!

Posted by: Damian | July 23, 2008 7:22 PM

Miki Tracy

Give me ascertainable FACTS or go back to the 'toons in Mommy's basement. And take a shower while you're at it, Love; you'll feel better.

Death Threat

Title of email: Thread-Topic: "your short life"

"Paul,

what I would like to know is how did you even
get a job at a collage.

when you are obviously a moron.
How would you feel if nice folks starting ranting against
Fags, and atheist like yourself.

well sir, you don't get to blaspheme and walk away from this.
You have two choices my fucked up friend, first you can quit your job for the good of the
children. Or you can get your brains beat in.

I give you till the first of the month, get that resignation in cunt"

Confession

c kroll, on July 16th, 2008 at 12:11 am Said:

"Melanie Kroll did not send an email to anyone named Paul. Melanie Kroll did not threaten anyone in an email with death, or as was the case in the email in question, a physical beating.

this email did not come from 1-800-flowers, or anyone connected in anyway shape or form to that company, which happens to provide good paying jobs, for lot's of folks who might otherwise not have them. they also happen to provide a good product at a fair price.

The fact is, that this email to the so called professor, was sent by an angry male catholic, who was very upset after reading that some crazed person in a position of responsibility, charged with teaching children biology, had been encouraging people to steal and desecrate the body of CHRIST, which for Catholics is represented by the Eucharist.

I know this to be true, since I wrote the original email to this so called teacher.
[...]

C. Kroll,

Brookhaven, NY"

Posted by: mayhempix | July 23, 2008 7:23 PM

Did you see what happened to Graham Chapman's ashes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utHmeN31RT0
Posted by: El Herring | July 23, 2008 7:17 PM

Best. Funeral. Ever.

Posted by: Joe Cracker | July 23, 2008 7:24 PM

Miki/Craig, about the Chesterton idiocy. ... it's quite easy.

You don't need a God to exist in order to believe in it. Did it ever come to you that you're just deluded.

So when you say "I believe in God", it doesn't automagically mean that there is one. If that was true, then you are in trouble. Why? Because: "If there was no Zeus, there would be no people not believing in him".

See ...

Posted by: CJO | July 23, 2008 7:26 PM

They are either ignorantly practicing their religion or willfully ignoring its tenets--both of which is idiotic.

Those options aren't exhaustive. Most likely, nobody in the entire world actually believes any of the bat-shit insane crap this incident has induced Catholics to profess. You're all a bunch of pathetic liars playing a bizarre game of epistemological chicken with the fundies and the jihadists to seee who can claim to believe the weirdest shit. It would be fucking hilarious if it weren't so frightening.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 23, 2008 7:27 PM

Sky-fairy - Baba

Liar.

Agreed, the Nazis were the most scientifically advanced society of their day. - Baba

Baba, it is both stupid and childish to "agree" with something you know has not been stated. You are, of course, fortunately, wrong; if they had been, they would likely have won WW2. If they had not, in their irrationality, driven out many of their best scientists, they might indeed have been the most scientifically advanced; but they did, so they weren't.

Posted by: chancelikely | July 23, 2008 7:27 PM

My guess for the third party: a plate of spaghetti, tossed in the garbage with the Qur'an and the cracker.

Or maybe the aura of an Indigo Child.

Posted by: True Bob | July 23, 2008 7:28 PM

Emmet @ 453,

Azteca @#305, LOL!

Your welcome.

I was incognito.

Posted by: Kel | July 23, 2008 7:29 PM

The scariest thing about this whole incident is that it's shown that around 1,000,000,000 people are part of a cracker-worshipping cult. Worshipping a Jew zombie was bad enough...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 7:29 PM

You all mock my analogy because perhaps the thought of PZ Myer's (and your?) actions have finally sunk in.

No, but because you've demonstrated exactly how warped and sick you really are. You really are a sick little puppy.

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 23, 2008 7:31 PM

... (rumoured to still occur in various cults - no doubt atheistic)...

Heh. See also the blood libel. Traditionally used against the Jews, of course. But ya know. Times change. Gotta change wit' em.

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 23, 2008 7:33 PM

You have a devil inside and are furious at the site of something so holly.

YOU KNOW its holy and you hate THAT! It is the Devil in you and you are a willing participant!

When you face God and Jesus you will see.. We all pray for you.

Posted by: KD

My goodness... You are just all kinds of wigged-out gonky over this, aren't you?

Your idolatry, although somewhat endearing to anyone with a rational mind, is also a mortal sin in the eyes of that figment you believe exists. In other words, you worship a freakin' cracker. Not a person. Not a god. A cracker.

Couldn't you have gone with a dusty sandal? I think then you'd have a little more room for comedy, and you militant death-cultists with your silly cravings for god-meat and blood would at least have a small sense of humor about the whole ordeal. I mean, eating your god in order to get as close as possible takes things to a rather creepy level. And, I'm not talking "ha-ha" creepy. I'm talking Two Girls & One Cup kind of creepy.

Posted by: mayhempix | July 23, 2008 7:34 PM

"This analogy works very well if you are wheat."
Better than being chaff any day.
Seriously. Fuck chaff.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 23, 2008 7:17 PM

Careful! The One and Only Wholey Grain Wheat Germ loves chaff just as much as loves Wonder Bread.

Posted by: Baba | July 23, 2008 7:35 PM

Uh, no they weren't. Unless you're thinking of the Volkswagen. The Nazis were pseudoscientific cranks and mystics.

Uh, yes they were - tiger tanks, panther tanks, V1 and V2 rockets, the first assault rifle, the first jet aircraft, the first rocket propelled aircraft, autobahn and yes, the Volkswagon Beetle (they're still making 'em in Mexico).

Don't you know anything? Duh!

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 7:36 PM

Let me explain why taking the consecrated Host at Mass and pocketing it is a disruption. The purpose of worship for Catholics is the Sacrifice of the Mass and receiving Holy Communion. If we have thousands of atheists deciding to come to our churches and desecrating the Hosts then we have to figure out what to do. Do we limit access? Do we ask for ID's? Do we only give Holy Communion to those we know personally etc.?

See what happens? Our ability to practice our faith and worship is disrupted. We have to worry about who is at Mass and what they will do. PZ has set a precedent. But he is not the first, atheists disrupted Mass in New York and desecrated the Eucharist during Mass and in Canada a group of them tore up a tabernacle trying to get it open. In Chicago a group of protesters pled guilty to disrupting a Mass. Such incidents are becoming more common.

Communion is given to be consumed at Mass, an implied contract if you will. We, like every Church, have rules about who can receive Holy Communion. Within our Church we can enforce these rules and the courts will support us. To come with another purpose is to interfere with our rights, the very ones you swear you would uphold.

What you are asking for is the right to interfere with our worship and that would change how we conduct our services. You do NOT have that right. Federal law and the Constitution guarantee that we can worship in peace. So ridicule our faith if you must, but do not come to Mass with criminal intent. Whoever gave PZ the Eucharist, if he had been caught, would have been accountable by the law. You may disagree, but just try it and find out if I am right.

You have told me that if I don't like this blog to stay away. If YOU don't like Mass then YOU stay away. If you want to debate us in the public square then do so with reason and logic, if you can. If you don't like how we vote then vote for the other guy. Don't try to silence our point of view. Don't just call us pedophiles and smirk like somehow you won the argument. Don't pull juvenile stunts like PZ had done, which are unworthy of any mature professional adult.

What I fear is that a bunch of idiots will decide to emulate PZ. They will go to a Catholic Church and desecrate the Eucharist. They will think it is funny, but they will go to jail. I do not believe that the authorities will allow wholesale interference in our right to freely exercise our religion.

2000 years ago they decided that if they crucified Jesus they would finish off his movement. It would prove he was a weak failure. Ooops, didn't work did it? Now you think that by desecrating the Eucharist you will show God is weak? LOL, when PZ is long forgotten the Catholic Church will still be here. Many before you have attacked us. Doing this only shows your true colors and even some atheists have told you that it makes you look really bad. When will you learn that persecution only makes us stronger? We have already won. Pax

Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 7:36 PM

#505 - Akshelby, a curtsy to you! :) Free grog and swill tonight.
We must be getting crackered out, I can't even muster my outrageous french accent. Good thing OctoberMaid is here for the ladies team!

Oh Emmet, Voxday has posted your comments, the sniveling coward.

Posted by: Todd | July 23, 2008 7:37 PM

But anne, think of the poor crackers. Oh the humanity.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 23, 2008 7:37 PM

"This site is supposed to be a science blog? Looks like nothing but a bunch of buffoonery carried out by a bunch of buffoons, chief among them "PZ".

ROTFLMAO"

Um, wow. Yeah. Sick burn, there, fella. Nice one. No, really.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 23, 2008 7:39 PM

Miki Tracy,
You are a particularly brazen liar; you keep it up even when the evidence is placed right in front of you. One has to reluctantly admire your crust.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 7:40 PM

Don't just call us pedophiles and smirk like somehow you won the argument

Haven't done so you lying sack of shit. We've called you a pedophile protection racket, a criminal organization that protected child rapists and continued to give them access to children...and continues to protect the protectors. Yes, a criminal organization.

Done lying yet fuckwit?

Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 7:41 PM

Max Verret @ 465 We "manhandled" your imaginary god, so I am sure we can handle The Bill Donahues and assorted morons who attempt to roughshod on this site. We have pure unadulturated reason(sic) and the punch to remind you that you are demented cretins and will be emaciated if you persist in your moronic pukings. We are omnipotent.

Posted by: True Bob | July 23, 2008 7:42 PM

anne, do you understand what a threat is? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

It seems you don't think it's a threat unless PZ is attacked. Also, Morris PD might not be appropriate to contact for a cross-country threat. But I don't think the FBI will tell you what they are investigating.

Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 7:43 PM

Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to complain.
Fr.J is using this list to preach and prostyletize.
I also accuse him of godbotting, stupidity and wanking.
Thank you,
Patricia

Posted by: Todd | July 23, 2008 7:45 PM

I respect you as a human being.

I tolerate your beliefs only as far as they don't interfere with my belief that they deserve no respect. Kapeesh?

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 23, 2008 7:45 PM

Glen D wrote:

Seriously, I'm glad that this nonsense will be over soon.

Not me. I was hoping for PZ to exploit it for more media coverage. But I guess the attention he got wasn't the kind he wanted... from both sides.

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 23, 2008 7:46 PM

This site is supposed to be a science blog? Looks like nothing but a bunch of buffoonery carried out by a bunch of buffoons, chief among them "PZ".

ROTFLMAO

Posted by: Jonsey

You may not realize this since your seem rather rock-stupid, but there is more than this entry in this blog.

Just remember to breathe while that sinks in. I'd hate for you to stroke out and cripple that unused puddle of sludge between your ears.

Posted by: ildi | July 23, 2008 7:47 PM

Miki "Good Catholics go to war on their knees. Good atheists just spew insults, hate and intolerance. Good Catholics offer Masses for the conversion of morons. Good atheists rail against them for their kindness. Poor atheists.

We pray for you. We love you. And we want to give you a hug!"

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 23, 2008 7:47 PM

I came accross this article written by George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a leading Catholic theologian :

In contrast to this thin account of tolerance -- we should be tolerant because it works better -- there is the argument for tolerance given by Pope John Paul II in his 1989 encyclical letter on Christian mission, Redemptoris Missio [The Mission of the Redeemer]. There the Pope taught that "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." The Catholic Church respects the "other" as an "other" who is also a seeker of truth and goodness; the Church only asks that the believer and the "other" enter into a dialogue that leads to mutual enrichment rather than to a deeper skepticism about the possibility of grasping the truth of things.

The Catholic Church believes it to be the will of God that Christians be tolerant of those who have a different view of God's will, or no view of God's will. Thus Catholics (and other Christians who share this conviction) can "give an account" of their defense of the "other's" freedom, even if the "other," skeptical and relativist, finds it hard to "give an account" of the freedom of the Christian. That the Church did not always behave according to these convictions is obvious from history.

The point today is that the Church recognizes, publicly, that acts of coercion undertaken in its name were offenses against its own true doctrine. That is why, on March 12, 2000, Pope John Paul II led a "Day of Pardon" at St. Peter's Basilica. This was not an exercise in Catholic political correctness, nor was this pandering to approved victim groups. This was confession: an acknowledgment of sin and a plea for divine mercy that recommitted the Church to live the truth it professed about the freedom of the human person.

What about the violent reactions of Catholics to Webster Cook ? Did they try to enter into a dialogue, or were those acts of coercion undertaken in the Church's name and therefore offenses against its own true doctrine ?

What about Bill Donohue and all the violent reactions of Catholics to PZ that he stimulated by his various bigotted press releases ? Did they try to enter into a dialogue, or were those acts of coercion undertaken in the Church's name and therefore offenses against its own true doctrine ?

Yes, Catholics failed once again to resist the temptation to behave according to these bad reflex that they have so deeply rooted in their brains.

No, the Church still won't do a thing about it, only maybe in 20 years a nice encyclical letter that noone will read and another "pardon" from yet another useless Pope.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 23, 2008 7:49 PM

Damn!

I take the wife & kids to see Wall-e & have dinner, and I miss the desecration. What time is the next show?

Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 23, 2008 7:50 PM

OK since you don't get it I will try a different tack of a variation I constructed a few blog entries back.

Young ladies like to wear an item of clothing called a mini-skirt these days. The material is often sheer and by its definition does not even come close to covering the knee roll.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniskirt)

Now if someone chooses to wear such an item it does not in the least bit make rape and sexual abuse permissible despite the fact that the odds increase exponentially. In both the eyes of the secular law and of my religion the assailants are still just as culpable.

So merely because Catholicism may seem like a remarkably soft target for PZ Myers (he has since been roped into desecrating the Koran) he is still as culpable as someone who chooses to attack say the more benign and watered down religions of Quakerism/Unitarian-Universalism.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 23, 2008 7:51 PM

"Your Mom's a liar."

My mother is a SAINT!

Well, I mean, not a Catholic saint.. I mean, don't send me any death threats or anything. I'm just saying, you know... Lovely woman. Total class.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 7:52 PM

Calling your religion bullshit is not disrespecting you, it's disrespecting your religion. Not the same.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 23, 2008 7:54 PM

Pete Rooke certainly has some weird and unhealthy obsessions, hm?

Posted by: Eric | July 23, 2008 7:56 PM

A cracker? A cracker? We talkin' bout a cracker? Most of these Catholics support the Bush crusade, sanctioning the murder of innocent men, woman and children, and they decry the abuse of a cracker?

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 23, 2008 7:56 PM

OK since you don't get it I will try a different tack of a variation I constructed a few blog entries back.

Posted by: Pete Rooke

Yowza! Really, dude. Now you're just getting pathetic.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 7:57 PM

So crumbling a cracker is rape, Pete?

You are one stupid motherfucker. PZ has routinely pointed out stupidity and poor actions of many other delusions, religions, astrology, etc.

Where were you in those threads? I didn't see you.

As far as quakers, well, stupid beliefs are stupid beliefs, but some people with stupid beliefs don't tend to make quite as much pests of themselves as others.

Posted by: ildi | July 23, 2008 8:00 PM

OctoberMermaid: "Most likely she just stayed long enough to ejaculate all over the comments, but didn't stay to help clean it up."

I'm going to be stealing that line, with your permission. (Wait a minute, is it stealing if you ... oh, never mind.)

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 23, 2008 8:03 PM

Craig, #557

Sounds good... when were you guys planning to start that?

hmmm, apparently they were "planning" to start in 1989 (see my post #554), but with the amount of delusion and cognitive disonance that they continue to cause, it might probably take another 100 years before it starts taking effect.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 8:04 PM

So wait...

Is Pete Rooke saying the Church giving away free magic crackers is the same as that a mini-skirt is an invitation to rape?

Dude. You're a freak.

Posted by: Daniel | July 23, 2008 8:05 PM

P.Z.,

For someone who claims not to believe in God, you sure are wasting a lot of time trying to spit in his face. If there really is no God then your antics are a ridiculous waste of time. If, God is real and sovereign (as I believe) then your juvenile antics aren't going to bother him much - Though he probably will feel sorry for you. He would be glad to save you and give you a much more fullfilling life if you would just turn to him.

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 23, 2008 8:05 PM

OK since you don't get it I will try a different tack of a variation I constructed a few blog entries back...

Let me be the first to say: I support unto the death your right to wear a mini-skirt, dude, if that's really what you feel you gotta do, man. Might snicker a bit, depending on the state of your legs, but I totally promise not to try to rape you. And if anyone does, you let me know, I'll have words with 'em... We don't take kindly to people who rape guys who wear mini-skirts around here. Or something... I think...

Okay, actually, it hasn't come up much, yet. But I'm putting my foot down there, all the same...

But still, y'know, if you keep saying suitably amusing stuff about crackers turning into deities, I'm still gonna have to make fun of you. Them's the rules.

(Also: please don't make any of your deceased loved ones into a book. I'm not sure if it's actually illegal. But it's weird, that's fersure. The miniskirt, okay, I can get used to that. The book... that's just creepy.)

Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 8:06 PM

#545 - DingoDave - I owe you an apology. I mistook one of your remarks as being that of a goddist. Please pardon my stupidity, I'm sorry.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 8:06 PM

"Desecrating is not dialoguing. Read my earlier post. What do you think about the "dialogue" that the atheists are engaging in here? I don't see any anger from you about it. Selective in our outrage aren't we?"

It's a CRACKER. You cannot desecrate a cracker. In fact, you can't desecrate anything. You can do property damage, and that would be wrong, unless the property is yours, was purchased by you or was GIVEN TO YOU.

Yes, nothing is sacred.
Desecration is a religious concept, and demanding that we adhere to the concept is demanding that we take up religious beliefs.

You can be assured that I will never damage church property.
But if a Catholic gives me a cracker, I'll do with it whatever I want to.

I used to work for a Catholic organization. Some of the members send each other consecrated wafers at Christmas. For that reason, some have been sent to our home.

We threw them out. We're atheists, what the hell else are we supposed to do with them?

Sorry we threw out your jesus. :(

Posted by: Monado | July 23, 2008 8:08 PM

MAJeff [325], I hope you're posting recipes!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 8:09 PM

Shorter Fr J and Rooke,

you fucking atheists don't show off enough when you do good works. How else is god supposed to know if you don't show off and instead just go about doing it?

Posted by: JeffreyD | July 23, 2008 8:13 PM

Crap, MAJeff and Patricia always talk about food and now my salad looks pathetic. OK, should I go out for ribs, Memphis dry rub, or fresh caught shrimp? Decisions, decisions.

Love you all, may I call you all "love"? I will not pray for you, you are welcome.

Night sweeties

Posted by: Damian | July 23, 2008 8:14 PM

Fr. J:

I'm sorry, but there is not a nice way to say this: you're a plonker! [which isn't actually that bad]

There are hundreds of Secular charities.

Also, some of the greatest philanthropists are atheists.

Bill Gates - $11 billion

Warren Buffett - $30 billion [which is staggered]

And we do smile. In fact, I roll around of the floor every time I read one of your posts.

If you'd like me to take you seriously, START MAKING DECENT ARGUMENTS AND STOP MAKING SHIT UP.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 23, 2008 8:16 PM

OK- I didn't miss it after all.

I just received the video from a friend of mine at the NSA.

***SPOILER ALERT***

The NSA had diverted a Predator drone from the Mexican border to fly stealthily above pastoral Morris MN.

Just before sun-up this morning, Dr. Myers launched a small boat by remote control in a neighboring lake. The contents of the boat were identified to contain:

One cracker with cross (presumed to be "the wafer")
One copy of the Qu'ran
One copy of the King James Bible
One copy of Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard
One set of Morman underwear, women's size XL, soiled
One plate of steaming thin spaghetti with marinara sauce
and Two tickets to a 1996 Green Bay Packers playoff game

On the bow of the boat was a 12" statue of Jesus.

When the boat ran out approximately 100 yards, some combustable material on the boat was ignited, then the boat sank in a glorious Viking funeral which could be seen for miles.

I also got some info from a friend in the CIA that apparently, to piss off the Jews, PZ paid full retail for the boat.

***END SPOILER ALERT***

Posted by: Epikt | July 23, 2008 8:17 PM

Frere Jacques:

He did this to hurt as many people as possible.

Stop your damned bleating about "hurting people." You do not have the moral authority to lecture anybody here about that, or about anything. You and your sanctimonious ilk not only deign to tell others that, e.g., embryonic stem cell research is prohibited, but you make a point of electing politicians who dance to your tune, and enact laws to that effect. You would deny any possibility of the benefits of such research not only to members of your own cult, but to all of us, regardless of whether we share your beliefs. If you consider PZ's behavior, which harmed nothing but (possibly) a cracker, to be "hateful and bigoted," how would you describe your cult's actions? Will you say earnest and ineffective prayers for those who may in the future die because of your superstition, and your insistence on imposing it on those of us who do not wish it?

And yet you have the arrogance to call us hateful. Astonishing.

Posted by: Dan | July 23, 2008 8:19 PM

Thank God it's finally done. Now this smug, attention-whore professor can find something else to occupy his time.

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 8:21 PM

If he insulted the Scientologists then he really is in trouble. They have no mercy. I would actually feel sorry for PZ if they came after him.

Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 23, 2008 8:24 PM

Damian

In the interest of fairness, both Gates and Buffet are agnostics.

Fr J

I think we all agree that true charity is a good thing. However, frequently religious charity is nothing more than the "carrot" that precedes the "stick" of religious dogma.

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 8:24 PM

Craig, if someone tried to take a Host from my parish I would have them arrested. It isn't Sam's Club, it is a Church. You don't have the right to interfere with our worship. SO GET USED TO IT or go to jail. Either works for me.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 8:26 PM

Exactly, where is their Mother Theresa?

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 23, 2008 8:26 PM

"Craig, if someone tried to take a Host from my parish I would have them arrested"

No, you'll TRY to have them arrested.

I know you like to believe in lots of silly, nonsensical things, but try to stick with the more supernatural, ok?

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 8:27 PM

Ron, I have helped plenty of people who are not Catholic or religious at all. I have even helped Jehovah's Witnesses and you know how they feel about the Catholic Church. We help anyone, even atheists, without demanding their conversion.

Posted by: A | July 23, 2008 8:28 PM

Yeah, thank god this is finally over. Now maybe you self-righteous martyrs can go back to doing what you normally do, trying to deny me my rights because I don't fuck who your sky-daddy says I should.

Posted by: JimC | July 23, 2008 8:29 PM

Desecrating is not dialoguing.

You can't desecrate a cracker, thats the entire point it's just a cracker no matter what else you may irratioanllythink.

What do you think about the "dialogue" that the atheists are engaging in here? I don't see any anger from you about it. Selective in our outrage aren't we?

You mean the atheist who say you have no evidence, no case, and no clothes? It seems to this reader your posts have been generally attacking, lacking in honesty and integrity, and generally ill informed.

It is given to you to consume on the spot.

The first part is correct the cracker is given to you. given implies transfer of ownership. It's not borrowed.

When will you learn that persecution only makes us stronger? We have already won. Pax

Your sect is slowly dying except in Africa where it competes with native religions in a superstitious free for all. In America and Europe between Protestantism(generally more rational) and secularism the dinosaur is going extinct.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 8:29 PM

"Craig, if someone tried to take a Host from my parish I would have them arrested. It isn't Sam's Club, it is a Church. You don't have the right to interfere with our worship. SO GET USED TO IT or go to jail. Either works for me."

If you really are a priest, then you're pretty dim if you don't know that many of your blessed crackers have been taken.

I don't have to get used to it, cause I'm not stupid enough to go into a church. Someone might see me.
But if you're really concerned that there's going to be a rash of people crashing your party, you're a fool.
And if the occasional curious person pockets a wafer, you'll never know.

That's reality. The reality is, probably millions of consecrated wafers have found their way into pockets and wastebaskets, and that will continue. Face reality.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 23, 2008 8:34 PM

Here is another analogy that will illustrate the point nicely.

Suppose your are an embalmer. You are busy embalming a person for an open coffin ceremony and you decide to pilfer there lush locks of blonde hair for the construction of high class wigs (a business you have going on the side).

This person happens to be a Sikh. In order to hide the fact you have stolen their hair you then purchase a cheap synthetic wig and replace it. In the small print of the contract (which the distraught family don't read carefully enough) you make mention of this.

After the event you then decide to publicize this gleefully on a blog. No physical harm has been done to either person and yet I would argue that this is equivalent to PZ Myer's theft and subsequent desecration of the Eucharist publicized on his blog (of which extra web traffic generates money).

Posted by: Lulu | July 23, 2008 8:35 PM

I highly enjoy how before the desecration, the offended said "Oh noes! You are offending us!" and now, after the desecration, the offended are saying "Ha HA, you tried to offend us but our faith is STRONGER now." Look, you're just reacting to something you disagree with and changing your position because your fist-shaking had no influence on PZ's opinion or his professional position.

Besides, the point was never to offend you people. The point was to defend the actions of this UCF student. Offense was just a gleeful side-effect, as the degree of offense just exascerbates the pointlessness of the offense taken, as it is (hopefully you have surmised) just a cracker TO US. The idea that an object can be ritualistically sacred to a group of people while meaningless to another group is something some people cannot come to accept, but legal acceptance of this disagreement is something you have to deal with in a free country. Regulate your own distribution of the sacred crackers and you won't have this problem.

To those who may respond, "Yeah, it's a free country -- so we should have the freedom to distribute the Host and not be violated!", you might consider that religious entities are private operators in this country -- who get federal funding, like many businesses. That's because we've decided religious entities contribute in a disproportionate way to helping the poor and furthering certain social justice programs. And I don't, in principle, have a problem with that. But when considering the distribution of an object NOT LEGALLY SANCTIONED as sacred, that's on you. Not on the unbeliever. PZ wanted to show solidarity with that view (not to put words in his mouth. It's my interpretation).

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 23, 2008 8:36 PM

"Here is another analogy that will illustrate the point nicely."

You're a really weird person.

Posted by: Todd | July 23, 2008 8:37 PM

if someone tried to take a Host from my parish I would have them arrested.

I believe small claims court would have jurisdiction over this. It's a cracker, worth what? A nickel? I'm being generous. Here's a quarter. Go buy a gumball and we'll call it even.

Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 8:38 PM

Patricia and all interested; Just got a e-mail from the Dawkins site of "The Voices of Science", Richard is interviewing PZ. Just paused it to pass it along.

Posted by: True Bob | July 23, 2008 8:38 PM

So FrJ, you must consume the wafer in the church? Then why do your shamans take them out of the church? How do they know, when they visit someone incapacitated, that they are a True Catholic? For that matter, how would you know that anyone took away a cracker? It wouldn't even take decent prestidigitation to sneak one past the Ninja Nuns. How would you even know, so that you could get appropriately steamed?

As has been pointed out numerous times, this isn't about hate, it's about the demand that your beliefs be respected outside your community. Can you understand that, or should I type slower? The demonstration is that the cracker cannot be desecrated, as "sacred" is only a belief in what passes for your mind. There will be no supernatural retributions, because there is no supernatural. No gods, no masters.

Oh, and pray off.

Posted by: Michael X | July 23, 2008 8:39 PM

you seem very afraid of us.

You do NOT have the right to interfere in our worship. If you do you could find yourself arrested and will soon find yourself apologizing in court.

You are full of bravado J, and empty of substance.

I would bet that you are also full of hypocracy. Do you picket meat isles in solidarity with the sacred animal of the Hindu? Or do you enjoy a steak? I would bet that in this instance you would be right in line with us in showing no absurd respect for a silly symbol. And soon again you will return to the meat isle in full awareness of your blasphemy, and in great "Doublethink" tradition, you will not connect it to the sad indignation over your crackers.

Such is the life of the religious.

Posted by: Iason Ouabache | July 23, 2008 8:41 PM

I still don't see how not eating a cracker (that was freely given) is a "hate crime" that infringes on someone else's freedom of religion. This has become the theater of the absurd!

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 8:42 PM

Thus spake SDG:

Am I to understand from your post that you agree PZ's actions are beyond the pale.

and you'd like to discuss something else?

Clear enough?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 8:43 PM

Fact is- if you are right and there is no God you and I will have nothing to worry about, but if I'm right- you're screwed and you know it.

Thot. ur doin it rong.

Posted by: JonathanL | July 23, 2008 8:44 PM

@618 So, to go with your mini-skirt you are now getting a wig?

Good try with the analogies but that would be like me telling you "Eating beef is like PZ Myers desecrating a Eucharist". Would you stop eating beef because someone else thinks cows are sacred? I highly doubt it. I think you and other like donahue are using this to try to drum up some fire. Really, this all could have just died here on this blog and no one really would have known.

Posted by: freelunch | July 23, 2008 8:44 PM

Ben in #594 wrote: ... and Two tickets to a 1996 Green Bay Packers playoff game ... a glorious Viking funeral.

Looks like PZ's son will have to find a new school to go to. What with the Favre kerfuffle and the Vikings involved, a forgivable offense in other times might be just too much for us Cheeseheads to bear. The University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople might make room for him.

Posted by: Michael X | July 23, 2008 8:44 PM

I've just realized that there might be the implied contract that when I buy a bible I must use it for reading and devotion, and not to even out my dinner table legs. I suppose I could be sent to jail for that as well, seeing as the legal ramifications for such breaches of implied contracts are so clear and severe.

Posted by: Martin | July 23, 2008 8:46 PM

#526: From article at Helium.com:

The Heinkel He 178 was an ugly little machine but what made it unique was that it was the first aircraft to fly by means of jet propulsion. The He 178 was little more than a test bed for Heinkel's new jet engine but the success of that flight heralded the beginning of the modern age of aviation.

The Nazi leadership showed little interest in the flight - preoccupied as it was with the war - but the Heinkel engineers pressed on with their developments and in 1941 they produced the first purpose built jet powered combat aircraft: the He 280. The Heinkel Company was excited by the He 280 - its speed exceeded 500mph - but again the short sighted Nazi leadership was cool, even indifferent, and the project came to nothing. Only eight He 280's were built.

That there were forward thinking German engineers working at the time clearly doesn't mean the Nazis were giving them enthusiastic help or support. The Nazis were certainly behind the V1 and V2 projects more actively, but even those weren't as impressive as they could have been. Only about a quarter of the V1's fired at England hit their targets. Most were easily shot out of the sky by antiaircraft guns.

So, for all their scientific advances, which were solely geared towards support of the war effort, they still didn't win the war. Maybe that's less a sign of their scientific prowess than of the hazards of trying to run a totalitarian state from a platform of irrational ideologies influenced by mystics and cranks.

But anyway, they still weren't atheists, either. Duh.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 8:47 PM

"I'm sure that someone here will bring up the child molesting, so let me beat you to it. It's awful- do you think that we as catholics condone it?"

Yes. Absolutely. The official policy of the church, written by the Pope himself, is to hide and protect child molesters from prosecution, including placing them back in places where they can continue to abuse.

The Catholic church condones it. The POPE protects it.

You may not personally condone it. How sad for you that you don't have the ethics to break your devotion to the organization that does.

Posted by: dave | July 23, 2008 8:49 PM

Show me exactly what you said- The official policy of the church, written by the Pope himself, is to hide and protect child molesters from prosecution, including placing them back in places where they can continue to abuse. I want to see that "official policy" show it to me

Posted by: mayhempix | July 23, 2008 8:51 PM

If we have thousands of atheists deciding to come to our churches and desecrating the Hosts then we have to figure out what to do. Do we limit access? Do we ask for ID's? Do we only give Holy Communion to those we know personally etc.?
See what happens?
Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 7:36 PM

Oh wow... and the next thing you know priests will fucking kids in the ass and the church will protect them.

But I do like the ID idea. They can be signed by God so you know who is really a true Catholic. But does he also sign Mormon and Baptist IDs? Maybe the Mormons can carry around gold tablets and the Jews stone ones... but then what is left for the Catholics? Wait.. I got it... a signed cracker from Jesus. I means it the least he can do for you protecting his reconstituted flesh and all...

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 23, 2008 8:53 PM

Fr J

that Lady who twisted Webster Cook's arm did not try to enter into a dialogue instead, that was an act of coercion. This is against the doctrine of the Catholic Church according to this Encyclical Redemptoris Missio (see post #554).

So, I have only one question : as a Catholic, and as a priest (apparently?) do you condemn what she did ?

Yes or No ?

Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 8:54 PM

Daniel in the lion's den @ 578 Spit in whose face? There is no imaginary god to spit into it's face. How the hell can you spit at something that doesn't exist? Oh, you mean the wind! Funny, I have a much more fulfilling life without your ghost god, a life free of all insanities and not wasted on religious morons, except to make them look like the irrational cretins they are. I turn to nothing that is demented, least of all an imaginary god that exists only in your vile cesspit of a brain. You are a loser along with your spittle god.

Posted by: Techskeptic | July 23, 2008 8:54 PM

Dave,

it doesnt matter if its an official policy or not. Are you denying that pedophile preists were moved and protected (i.e. the new parish was not told of the previous issues)? Do we really have to pull out story after story about this. THe pope himself admitted it (and then seems to think that praying for the vistims is enough to make it right)

The problem with the priests wasn't just that they did these horrible things to kids. Its that they were not and are not in jail. When this happens in any other field (teachers). The offender is whisked off to jail pretty quickly.

Posted by: ChrisKG | July 23, 2008 8:55 PM

#281

Nick wrote, "But the legitimate protest I've heard from Catholics and others is that it's not HIS fracking cracker. They don't really give them away. They keep track of them down to the crumbs to make sure the crackers get what they consider proper treatment."

At what point do they "stop" tracking the cracker? After the large intestine?

Posted by: Pat Cahalan | July 23, 2008 8:56 PM

To sum:

I believe all of these points are essentially accurate:

> That we should be intolerant of people who believe in God

Specifically... arguing against a Catholic's stance on abortion or birth control as a matter of public policy is completely justifiable; public policy should not be based entirely upon dogma. However, a communion wafer is not a matter of public policy. PZ was way out of line here.

For an example with no immediate religious significance, I quote E.B. Sledge, from With The Old Breed: "Once on another patrol, I saw him taking great pains and effort to position himself and his carbine near a Japanese corpse. After getting to just the right angle, Mac took careful aim and squeezed off a couple of rounds. The dead Japanese lay on his back with his trousers pulled down to his knees. Mac was trying very carefully to blast off the head of the corpse's penis."

A corpse, scientifically, is just a pile of meat. Shooting up a corpse instead of rocks as target practice, scientifically, is morally neutral, no? Then why is this description repugnant? Because treating something that people generally regard as having some inherent worth or gravity with deliberate disrespect means you're acting like an ass. Someone who is a premier advocate for the science community on the blogosphere shouldn't be acting like an ass. Pissing off people for no practical reason is the response of a 12 year old.

> That we should intentionally insult Catholics and
> feign surprise when they get angry about it

I cannot possibly believe that PZ did not know exactly what sort of response he would get. If he was truly surprised, he's several orders of magnitude stupider than I imagined. It's not like public desecration of religious images, artifacts, etc., from *various* religions hasn't made the overly devout nutbags come out of the woodwork.

> That we should treat other people with disrespect.

This is unfortunately well illustrated on both sides of this stupid affair. Telling someone he's going to suffer eternal damnation for an act that causes no demonstrable harm is monstrously presumptive (particularly for someone who claims to be any sort of Judeo-Christian... remember that whole reservation of judgment to the Allmighty thing) and disgusting.

> That Catholics are no better than Muslims: both
> religions have people willing to advocate violence
> for no civilized reason.

Please edit this statement and remove all religious references. Generally, people are willing to advocate violence for no civilized reason. To tar the religious with this brush ignores the basic ability for humans to be really inhuman to each other. It also ignores and discounts, implicitly, all of the morally positive actions which have at least a partial cause of religious beliefs.

> Catholics, even the non-advocating violence ones,
> seem to think that insulting their religion is
> equivalent to death threats and physical violence.

No. Some do, I'm sure. Not all.

Posted by: Moses | July 23, 2008 8:57 PM

See what happens? Our ability to practice our faith and worship is disrupted. We have to worry about who is at Mass and what they will do.

blah, blah, blah...

When will you learn that persecution only makes us stronger? We have already won. Pax

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 7:36 PM

You're still an idiot, Friar. One with a persecution complex to boot. And I can see that you didn't manage to learn a damn thing during my trip to the mall (with four Godiva chocolates for the girls(yum, yum)). Let me break it down in terms of reality, since you can't grasp it:

I have no doubt that, over the hundreds of years of communion, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of crackers, have been walked off the premises. What happens is EXACTLY NOTHING UNLESS YOU MAKE A BIG STINK ABOUT IT. And despite this, no doubt, legion of crackers being walked off the premises the Catholic Church has yet to crumble under the onslaught. Which means your "logic" as droll and banal as it is, misses the key component -- YOU create the problem by your over-reaction.

Not the guy who palms the cracker.

You'd understand that if you weren't trapped at being 8-years old and having to "win" at every game or you'll take your football home. You can create your own problems, including your own persecution, merely through your being "outraged" and "upset" by otherwise innocuous behavior.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 23, 2008 8:58 PM

JonathanL: "Good try with the analogies but that would be like me telling you "Eating beef is like PZ Myers desecrating a Eucharist". Would you stop eating beef because someone else thinks cows are sacred?"

As discussed elsewhere I am an ethical vegetarian and as such I eat no meat.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 8:59 PM

"Ratzinger's role in protecting the church against scandal became apparent four years ago. In May 2001, he sent a confidential letter to every bishop in the Catholic church reminding them of the strict penalties facing those who referred allegations of sexual abuse against priests to outside authorities."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection1

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | July 23, 2008 8:59 PM

Fr. J.,
You don't have to worry about me, or most of the people who regularly post here, stepping foot into a catholic church to steal a cracker. I (we) might get catholic cooties and all.

But I have several in-laws that are catholic (not uncommon) and some of whom are not on good terms with the church (again, not uncommon) for a number of reasons, which may include: birth control, abortion, stem cell research, over presence in politics, hiding abuse by priests, and maybe actual abuse by priests. Since they know all the rituals, they would have no problem obtaining a cracker and sending it to PZ. If you are so worried about your crackers, why don't you go back and tend to your church. Make sure everything stays internal and does not reach the outside world.

Posted by: mayhempix | July 23, 2008 9:02 PM

WOOHOO, Father!
Hehehe....I love priests....
Posted by: Miki Tracy | July 23, 2008 8:54 PM

And you were probably about eight years old when they started "loving" you.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 9:04 PM

"We have already won."

Um, no. You think a cracker is God. Epic fail. You never even got out of the gate.

Posted by: Catherine | July 23, 2008 9:05 PM

Fr J,
You really don't get it. Atheists don't need to get together to talk about non-existing sky daddies. You'd be surprised at how many non-believers there are in the world helping out others (believers and non) and just don't think their non-belief is relevant to helping out. You don't have to believe in fantasies to do the right thing.

Also, my "guess" is that a great majority of the science based quality of life things (like vaccines, TV, cars, the internet, medicine, etc. You get the idea... I think) is being handled by rational, yes, even skeptical scientists. And a great majority of them believe in no personal god or gods. They do and have done more for the planet than anything you can come up with. When you get cancer (or some other kind of disease) just try praying alone and see what god does for you.

Posted by: freelunch | July 23, 2008 9:05 PM

You can't destroy church property or interfere in the free exercise of religious worship. Taking a Host under false pretenses as I have pointed out does that.

Your ignorance of the law is noted. Your arrogance is sickening. Your self-righteousness is predictable.

Remember that every single doctrine you teach is completely unsupported by any evidence at all. Every single one, yet you are incomprehensibly arrogant.

Posted by: SC | July 23, 2008 9:06 PM

Here is another analogy that will illustrate the point nicely.

Suppose you're a frog, set to be dissected in a biology class at a secular university. You've been issued your standard minijupe, thigh-high boots, and bustier, but they're for the express purpose of being worn in the Darwinian dissection ritual. The night before the big event, though, a buff squid catches your eye, and you want desperately to run away together. There's no time to remove the dissection garments; plus, the boots are stapled to your legs. If you hop off in them, are you stealing? Have you offended the students? Dishonored your species? Disrespected the somber scientific ritual? What if you later post a gloating video of your escape on your frogblog?

Posted by: Karla | July 23, 2008 9:08 PM

What a sad man you are. There are many of us who are praying for you even though you'll probably laugh at this comment. How someone could be so full of hate and contempt for the Catholic faith and what is most dear to us is really incomprehensible to me. Something (or someone) has a hold on you and I will pray for your conversion before you leave this world and stand before the very person you desecrated at your death. May God have mercy on your soul.

Posted by: JonathanL | July 23, 2008 9:09 PM

As discussed elsewhere I am an ethical vegetarian and as such I eat no meat.

Okay, so you do believe that no one should eat beef because Hindus believe cows are sacred? You now will attest to the fact that cows are sacred? Because in your line of thinking one group believing something is holy/sacred means it should be treating as such by everyone else. I guess we need to get informed on the beliefs of every other religion... unless you only believe yours is to be respected?

Posted by: Moses | July 23, 2008 9:10 PM

Emmet, I worked with the MC's for a year. At a hospice for homeless dying AID's patients. They did work that no one else would do with people who had been abandoned by everyone.

blah, blah, blah, gratuitous gay bashing, blah, blah, blah, lie about Mother Teresa blah, blah blah...

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 8:35 PM

It's their JOB dumb-ass. And you're still totally ignorant:

Among religious and secular charities that provide health or human services, secular charities and other FBOs are more likely than congregations to serve only the general public rather than their own members and to target their services to low-income groups. However, secular charities are more likely than congregations or other FBOs to receive government contracts and to have completed a recent evaluation of program outcomes or impacts.

In other words, relgious charities tend to take care of flock and FUCK THE HERITICS AND UNBELIEVERS.

You know Friar, I've never seen anyone with such a high opinion of himself and yet be so wrong and emo about everything. You're 8-years-old in a man's body.

Posted by: akshelby | July 23, 2008 9:12 PM

Patricia @ #? Thanks for the encouragement to get past the perversity of some the catholic wierdos.

Fr. J and Pete Rooke (except for his recent disturbing fantasies) are all starting to read like MAJeff's blah blah blah blah stuff. I start reading their accusations and my mind doesn't even register much of what they are saying. My head spins trying to figure out what they are trying to say.

Maybe it's Satan inside me keeping me from seeing the truth of their words. (that's why my head is spinning)

Or maybe it's just because it is a bunch of magical mumbo jumbo that should have fizzled out over a thousand years ago.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2008 9:12 PM

Karla,

May Satan knit you a sweater and Gnesh bake you a cake.

Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 9:13 PM

#626 - Holbach - Wow! Thanks for the breaking news. I'll look forward to that.
Have you noticed the catholic's are scared shitless to answer your questions, or mine about their gawd?
Yet they want to martyr MAJeff with a globalkill file for blah, blah, blah. You must be one big scary Bulldog of an atheist. So... *grin*... I'm gonna change my tactic.
THERE IS NO GAWD blah blah blah
SHOW ME YOUR GAWD blah blah blah
I DENY THE Holy SPIRIT blah blah blah
Oops, supper time - gotta cook and eat PIG, blah blah blah

Posted by: dave | July 23, 2008 9:15 PM

Dave,

it doesnt matter if its an official policy or not. Are you denying that pedophile preists were moved and protected (i.e. the new parish was not told of the previous issues)? Do we really have to pull out story after story about this. THe pope himself admitted it (and then seems to think that praying for the vistims is enough to make it right)

The problem with the priests wasn't just that they did these horrible things to kids. Its that they were not and are not in jail. When this happens in any other field (teachers). The offender is whisked off to jail pretty quickly.

You said it was policy-that's what you said
It's not right and not all catholics priest and lay people are ashamed of it. Nothing can make it right. There are some facts that you probably are not aware of though. First, this has been a problem in the American Catholic parishes, but the rest of the world. Second, percentages are the same in the field of teaching, physicians and all occupations. Three, Priest are not professionally "good" people. There are some bad priest.

Posted by: E.V. | July 23, 2008 9:16 PM

Micki is a twisted little NeoCon in a nun's habit. Is she Opus Dei? Hmmmm.
Actually, I don't care. She lost any and all credibility with me. She's not stupid, but she's very deluded. She and Fr. J. can go fuck each other. Oops, NOT fuck each other.

Posted by: raven | July 23, 2008 9:16 PM

Peter Rooke with his preoccupation with rape and dead bodies is one sick, perverted dude.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be psychotic. More like just a stone cold psycopath. Chances are he has a cemetery someplace with his collection of random killings or a freezer full of human body parts. Dollars to donuts there are a lot of unsolved murders and missing people in his neighborhood. Something that normal people can't even really imagine.

There are 75 million US Catholics. There are 4 or 5 very marginal personalities on this thread making comments ranging from the inane to the stupid to the frankly incredibly bizarre and perverted.

I doubt if half of these are even Catholics. Just the internet equivalent of the shopping cart people downtown. Doesn't look like hardly anyone really cares about PZ and his crackers.

Posted by: AgnoAtheist | July 23, 2008 9:17 PM

RCC (679)

"People who insult others' religious sybols...."

Please give us a cogent explanation of how one might insult a symbol.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 23, 2008 9:19 PM

You can't destroy church property or interfere in the free exercise of religious worship.

Taking a Host under false pretenses as I have pointed out does that.

Doing something "under false pretenses" can be regarded as significant in a fraud case, for example, but not in a matter of property damage or disruption. That's why we don't have "vandalism under false pretenses" or "rioting under false pretenses": it's just fucking stupid and you should stop saying it.

What part of that can't you understand? For someone with an IQ of 142 you are a) awfully thick and b) awfully bad at punctuation.

Posted by: SDG | July 23, 2008 9:19 PM

Emmet Caulfield @#634:

Clear enough?

No.

Since you ignore the distinction I made between the senses that I did, and did not, propose and ask for (mutual) respect, your comments don't amount to a meaningful response to what I said.

All you've done is abuse the Church on those areas where you perceive her to be vulnerable, and while each of the topics you raise may be valid subjects in their own right, as I said we can't discuss everything at once.

Anyway, charges of hypocrisy are one thing, and whether people should treat one another with respect is another. You are free to charge the Catholic Church with hypocrisy, and each charge may involve a legitimate discussion. But if you use the charges to demonize Catholics and so short-circuit pleas for ordinary human respect and common courtesy, yours is the humanity that suffers.

I'm sure there are some who will be happy to live with that. I'm writing for those that might not be.

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 9:20 PM

"You said it was policy-that's what you said"

okay, okay, so it wasn't policy, it was just a memo penned by high authorities stating that unless followed would result in severe penalties for those exposing the pedophile priests.

But not policy. Just a strongly worded memo from the boss with strict penalties for non-compliance.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 23, 2008 9:20 PM

Good grief, another explosion happened while I was asleep.

I see we've got some fun new trolls with some weird twists on the old arguments.

They've said (basically) this:

'________ was an atheist; therefore, the cracker is Jesus and you're all bigots! Rationality is nasty and bad! Love!1! I'll pray for you!1!

Pete Rooke's a problem - his sickening rape and grisly necrophilia fantasies are disturbing even me, and I've got a box full of well-thumbed Richard Laymon novels and American Psycho.

Then there's our recent addition, the 'disingenuous turd', Fr. J, back to exercise some more futility. Are you going to bring up your pointless story about Louis Pasteur again, Fr. J? It was so effective last time.

Now I've caught up I'll ask the same question I've asked a few times over the posts:

If this is such a big deal for catholics why hasn't the pope (who I'm to understand is your spiritual leader) said anything about it?

Is it because he can spot a losing battle when he sees one?

Posted by: Gerry Bevan | July 23, 2008 9:23 PM

I don't know if there really is a super-human
cracker-loving entity or not, all I know is I
am more comfortable with Pharyngulites than
with someone who expresses him/her/itself like
Miki Tracy (#257 et al.). Ngggggnggaargghhh!

Posted by: Hessenroots | July 23, 2008 9:24 PM

What's all this talk of atheists being an entity? "their mother theresa, "their charities" blargh blargh blargh...

Since when are atheists any sort of organized entity? Stop with the 'their' nonsense.

Charity...hmmm...aside from some donations to MPR and giving a few guys on the stree some loose change I guess I am an asshole.

I do pay my taxes though and the government uses some of that money to help churches brainwash children, that's close right?

Yes, I can sleep at night knowing that I'm not a great philanthropist. Does that have anything to do with my lack of fairytale worship? Nope, it doesn't even register.

Before some idjit comes back with that "if i had morals BS"...I know plenty of religious folks that are far wealthier then myself whom don't give to charity and I know atheists whom volunteer and give plenty as well.

As for organizations? The great organized atheist charity project is a failure, DAMN! I knew those bioengineered-soup kitchens were a bad idea. I guess we'll all have to go back to researching medicine, educating people and developing new technology so you can keep up with your comfortably blind little life.

Is trollfest over yet?

Posted by: dave | July 23, 2008 9:24 PM

okay, okay, so it wasn't policy, it was just a memo penned by high authorities stating that unless followed would result in severe penalties for those exposing the pedophile priests.

show me where it says that?
severe penalties for THOSE EXPOSING the pedophile priest.
It doesn't say that either

Posted by: craig | July 23, 2008 9:26 PM

Am I the only one who gets mental images of very undesirable flavors of Dolly Madison brand snack cakes when he hears the word Ratzinger?

Posted by: Phentari | July 23, 2008 9:26 PM

Miki @350:

"Actually, Christ was using hyperbiole (as evidenced by the context of the passage) when He said, "Do not say 'Raca' to your brother."

Ah, yes. "Christ didn't MEAN that part." If I had a nickel for every supposed Christian who uses that rationale to ignore those commandments he or she finds personally inconvenient, I'd be no more able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than a camel could pass through the eye of a needle.

If I had an extra nickel for every supposed Christian who claims special knowledge and understanding of the "context"--despite having no knowledge whatsoever of ancient Greek, vulgate Latin, Aramaic, or any of the other languages required for this kind of understanding--I'd buy everyone on the Internet a steak dinner and have change left over.

Sorry, Miki--that rationale holds no water. Whether it was meant literally or figuratively, it CLEARLY was not meant to be interpreted as "It's okay to call people morons as long as you don't like them."

Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, hyopcrites!

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 9:28 PM

Emmet, it isn't a cracker. It is integral to our worship. Do you really think that you could take the Eucharist and stamp on it at a Mass and not get arrested? The Act Up people were arrested for it, so it has already happened. But don't worry, you would have an opportunity to make your defense in court. I see nothing wrong with my punctuation. However, I am writing pretty fast and don't have time to check.

Bob, the logic of your reply is stunning. A true example of atheist reasoning. It is obviously the best you can do.

Good night all.

Posted by: Mary Elizabeth | July 23, 2008 9:29 PM

I have learned through all of this, that atheists are enlightened people. And so kind too!

Posted by: mayhempix | July 23, 2008 9:29 PM

Is it really worth the wager to make yourself look like an idiot?
Posted by: expiatus | July 23, 2008 9:27 PM

Was it really worth posting that comment to prove to us you are an idiot?

Posted by: Phentari | July 23, 2008 9:30 PM

Baba @373

"That makes you a masochist."

I'm here reading this nonsense, aren't I? I think anyone participating who claims NOT to have at least a streak of masochism is fibbing.

Posted by: DingoDave | July 23, 2008 9:31 PM

Craig wrote in #127:
"Well anyway, PZ took an actual, real, transubstantiated slice of your all-powerful creater of the universe, and did with it what he would. And your god was defenseless (which you knew because if you didn't, you would have just ignored it and let Jeebus defend himself). Seems to me like your god is a wuss."

To all you Catholics out there who are whining about this heinous cracker abuse, I propose a little test for you to perform. The Bible relates a charming little fable about one such test which supposedly proved that Yahweh (the god of the Bible) was real. Anyone who has ever attended Sunday School will probaby recall this one.
See if you can duplicate it.

The story goes like this;

1 Kings 18:
21 Elijah approached all the people and said, "How long are you going to be paralyzed by indecision? If the Lord is the true God, then follow him, but if Baal is, follow him!" But the people did not say a word.
22 Elijah said to them: "I am the only prophet of the Lord who is left, but there are 450 prophets of Baal.
23 Let them bring us two bulls. Let them choose one of the bulls for themselves, cut it up into pieces, and place it on the wood. But they must not set it on fire. I will do the same to the other bull and place it on the wood. But I will not set it on fire.
24 Then you will invoke the name of your god, and I will invoke the name of the Lord. The god who responds with fire will demonstrate that he is the true God." All the people responded, "This will be a fair test."
25 Elijah told the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls for yourselves and go first, for you are the majority. Invoke the name of your god, but do not light a fire."
26 So they took a bull, as he had suggested, and prepared it. They invoked the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "Baal, answer us." But there was no sound and no answer. They jumped around on the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah mocked them, "Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, or perhaps he stepped out for a moment or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping and needs to be awakened."
28 So they yelled louder and, in accordance with their prescribed ritual, mutilated themselves with swords and spears until their bodies were covered with blood.
29 Throughout the afternoon they were in an ecstatic frenzy, but there was no sound, no answer, and no response.
36 When it was time for the evening offering, Elijah the prophet approached the altar and prayed: "O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, prove today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command.
37 Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, O Lord, are the true God and that you are winning back their allegiance."
38 Then fire from the Lord fell from the sky. It consumed the offering, the wood, the stones, and the dirt, and licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they threw themselves down with their faces to the ground and said, "The Lord is the true God! The Lord is the true God!"
40 Elijah told them, "Seize the prophets of Baal! Don't let even one of them escape!" So they seized them, and Elijah led them down to the Kishon Valley and executed them there.

Dear Catholic idolators,
Until you can do the same thing, then I suggest that you quit your whinging and whining, and retreat into silence. If your god was able to defend himself back in those days, then I would expect him to be able to do the same thing now. Of course, deep down, I imagine you realise that this event never actually happened. If you did believe it, then surely you would feel no need to continue offering your hollow threats and your pathetic mewlings.

Remember what is written in your own scriptures;

Romans 12:19 - Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

Hebrews 10:30 - For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."

Or perhaps you need to;
"Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, or perhaps he stepped out for a moment or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping and needs to be awakened." : D

By the way, are you aware that the name 'Baal', when translated into English, simply means 'The Lord'?
How's THAT for irony?

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 23, 2008 9:32 PM

Pete Rooke,

That you choose to use analogies with overtones of rape and necrophilia, when you could have chosen any another subjects, is a projection of your personality - fostered, no doubt, by the catholic tradition of revering hatred, misogyny and death.

Posted by: Miki Tracy | July 23, 2008 9:32 PM

"Much to my own chagrin, it appears we must accept that the hypocritical old bitch is one of us: according to her own diaries, she stopped believing in God many, many years ago."

No, actually Mother Teresa's Diaries do not say that she stopped believing in GOD--what they actually say is that she stopped feeling His presence and she wondered if He had abandoned her or if she was doing His will because she didn't have any palpable consolation to her petitions. Read the woman's own words for yourself before you start parrotting the same tired tripe you so readily imbibe on the internet....

And to October Mermaid's: "'Craig, if someone tried to take a Host from my parish I would have them arrested'

"No, you'll TRY to have them arrested.

"I know you like to believe in lots of silly, nonsensical things, but try to stick with the more supernatural, ok?"

Actually, Fr J is absolutely correct. I am a registered parishoner at the Cathedral of St. Paul and we have had several instances over just the past couple of years in which security has stopped people from walking out of the church during Communion with hosts they've pilphered--and those persons have been arrested by City of St Paul Police and charged with criminal trespass and theft. The priests in my home parish don't screw around with this garbage, and neither do many others.

If you come into a Catholic parish with the intent to subvert our Liturgy for the sake of personal hate and the wanton desecration of our Sacraments, you deserve to face the consequences--spiritual and temporal.

Mock if you like--it's your criminal record....

Oh, and by the by, in response to some witless knucklehead's earlier opin (I forget who): Why do you think the Source and Summit of all things has any need to "protect Himeself" from the likes of you? Talk about arrogance. GOD is not mocked--He lives on regardless, whilst you, you sad little terminal blob of protoplasm, will whither and die in spite of your best efforts, and your objections to Him will whither and die with you....and be forgotten by all. You rail against Something so much bigger than yourself that you don't even realise the absurdity of it.

What's really, truly hysterical is that a bunch of us so-called delusional, cracker-worshipping Flat-Landers have actually gotten all of you so-called "rationalists" arguing on ad nauseum about how superior you are because of your unbelief--and even better, y'all keep getting your panties into such a twist that you're enraged to the point of profanity and insults....all over a GOD Whom you claim doesn't exist!

Now talk about laughable! The intellectual "elites" blowing spittle all over themselves, eyes bulging and tempers raw because, dammit! GOD does not exist....whatever. It just goes to prove that the old addage about "angry athiests" really does hold true!

...Y'all were also the geniuses who, thirty years ago, said that Dark Matter was a delusion. I guess we cleared that one up, too, haven't we.....

Hehehe....

This is so much fun!

Posted by: Paul | July 23, 2008 9:33 PM