Pharyngula

Posted by: Jeff | July 14, 2008 3:58 PM

This is sadly how the internet works. Someone makes a post, and masses of people get involved in something that's none of their business. Too many people are looking to get involved and cause trouble.

Posted by: Scholar | July 14, 2008 3:58 PM

PZ, you can't have your crackers and eat them too.

Posted by: James F | July 14, 2008 4:00 PM

Perhaps just posting IP addresses rather than email addresses? Email addresses will inevitably lead to someone sending something....

Posted by: pradeep | July 14, 2008 4:01 PM

PZ, this is the price of fame, and the price of having raving heathen hordes ready to consume your foes like locusts at your disposal. But this post should calm your restless readership a bit.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 14, 2008 4:03 PM

Where do people get the time to harrass even the idiots?

I only sent one email to Bruininks, and one to the webmaster at UMM (politely urging timely re-link of Pharyngula, presumably with disclaimer). You couldn't get me to do more.

Any chance this will all go away any time soon?

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

Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | July 14, 2008 4:07 PM

Gosh, and just when I had my thoughts aimed in the right direction, you pull the plug, and save those crum-bums from the levitious effects of my full concentration. Oh well, a mind is terrible thing to waste, don't you think?

Posted by: geoff | July 14, 2008 4:08 PM

I'm afraid I saw this coming. People are likely to overreact given highly emotional topics such as death threats. I suspect that the type of individual that could send a death threat is every bit as malicious as to get someone else in trouble for it.

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | July 14, 2008 4:10 PM

Nice metaphor at the end there. Just sayin'.

Posted by: kmerian | July 14, 2008 4:12 PM

PZ, I hope you use this as an opportunity to see that human nature is what it is. That your fellow "godless atheists" are no better (and no worse) than us "lunatic" Christians.

There are extremists and downright wackos in every group. Yes, the Catholics that sent death threats to that student, and who are sending them to you, are a lunatic fringe that is hardly representative of Catholics. by that same token you have opened a door where people are threatening those who threatened in order that you can show that threatening is wrong (whew!)

My advice to you is that you rescind your request for people to send you Eucharistic hosts to desecrate and be the intelligent and mature man many know you are and say "It ends here, it ends now." And let this all go away.

Posted by: unicow | July 14, 2008 4:14 PM

PZ, you should probably just scrub the email addresses from the mails. They're so trivial to forge that I'd be surprised if even the most careless fool would use his own email address in a death threat.

By all means leave the rest of the headers, though. They're a lot harder (though by no means impossible) to manipulate, and are far more valuable information-wise than an email address anyway.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 4:15 PM

Whatevs. I'm merely "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate" us.

Anybody know the emails of Stephen's kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids?

Posted by: Dlux | July 14, 2008 4:17 PM

Yep.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 4:22 PM

You're meant to be better than that? Says who? I've long known that many Pharyngula readers are just as wild, aggressive, stupid and in their own way faith-based as any typical Catholic fundamentalists.

Faith-based? Yes, faith-based. Political correctness is morphing into a secular dogma.

Wank, wank. The reality is that you're generally shitty at argumentation and the wrath you incur is a result of said lack of skill and talent.

However, knowing that you'll merely take it on faith that you're being persecuted for being the lone dissenting voice standing up for apple pie and the American Way, I say:

Fight on, thou lonely freedom fighter, fight on!

Posted by: SC | July 14, 2008 4:22 PM

You should never underestimate people's capacity to behave stupidly. It's one thing to hope that they don't, but it's unwise to act on the expectation that they won't. I would think a parent would know this :).

Posted by: E in MD | July 14, 2008 4:24 PM

If you're getting physical threats I'd report it to the FBI and/or the postmaster general and leave it at that. Posting the things publicly only gives the assholes that sent them a boner for more publicity. Where as if you file a complaint you might be able to actually see these douchebags in court.

On the plus side, in most jurisdictions you are now permitted to app for a gun carry permit because you have received death threats.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 4:25 PM

You should never underestimate people's capacity to behave stupidly.

true dat.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 14, 2008 4:27 PM

Oh fuck off Neural. He's posted things before and it didn't happen.

Posted by: pzph | July 14, 2008 4:29 PM

Well, what the hell did you think was going to happen? Buddha on a cracker! (Oops! Bad choice of terms.)

Posted by: Dan | July 14, 2008 4:30 PM

@ #24

Yeah, I thought the same.

Seriously PZ, you didn't see this one coming when you posted their emails?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 14, 2008 4:31 PM

On the plus side, in most jurisdictions you are now permitted to app for a gun carry permit because you have received death threats.

Aside: Oh, wonderful... a the existence of violent enemies is a good reason to let someone have a gun?!?! Are we trying to maximize the chance of gunplay on the public streets?

Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 4:32 PM

However, knowing that you'll merely take it on faith that you're being persecuted for being the lone dissenting voice standing up for apple pie and the American Way, I say:

Fight on, thou lonely freedom fighter, fight on!
As usual, you resort to guttersnipe-level misrepresentations. All I ever said is that there is an undesirable, irrational, anti-everything-American climate on Pharyngula. I'm not an American, and I hate the Bush Administration and most aspects of America's foreign policy since WW2. Despite your lies, this is hardly equivalent to "standing up for the American Way".

This relentless intellectual dishonestly only serves to bear out my theory. Your reaction, Brownian, is exactly that of a fundamentalist when his creed is under attack.

Posted by: paradoxbomb | July 14, 2008 4:36 PM

On the spam front, any email address that is posted in a web page will inevitably be scraped by bots and put on many spam lists. To confirm this, create a fresh email account, post the address here in comments, and see how long it takes before the deluge comes.

In any case, obfuscating or removing the email addresses would likely remove the bot aspect.

Posted by: Chris Granade | July 14, 2008 4:36 PM

That really is sad. I would have thought that the whole point was that we on the "it's just a cracker" side were driven by rationality in some sense. It still seems that many are, but as with any group, I guess we freethinkers can get out of hand too.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 4:42 PM

J ranting:

You're meant to be better than that? Says who? I've long known that many Pharyngula readers are just as wild, aggressive, stupid and in their own way faith-based as any typical Catholic fundamentalists.

J tapdancing:

All I ever said is that there is an undesirable, irrational, anti-everything-American climate on Pharyngula.

No, what you said was that Pharyngula readers were just as dependent on faith in their argumentation than religious believers are, which is a common, and quite tired, accusation from those who have nothing else with which to rebut an argument. Intellectual dishonesty indeed...

Posted by: gburnett | July 14, 2008 4:43 PM

PZ, I think that you have made your wishes clear and so it should not be a problem in the future. However, you can't blame those of us that suffer from the actions of religious nutjobs to leap to the attack. We ARE better than they are, but perhaps it is time we stop bringing knives to gunfights.

Posted by: WoodenBadger | July 14, 2008 4:45 PM

*Knock Knock*

Posted by: Raynfala | July 14, 2008 4:48 PM

I recommend posting the emails sans originating email address & IP address, but also forward the emails with full headers to a trusted group of people who are both willing and able to do some follow-up investigation and/or act as "witnesses".

The sad fact is, there are some nutters out there who would like to do nothing better than damage the collective reputation of atheists, and would probably stoop to sending equally violent and repugnant emails to the alleged senders under the pretense of "supporting" you.

Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 4:50 PM

Cracker here, cracker there; hey who wants a cracker? Get them while they are still wafer thin and easy to swallow! Spread them with cheese or jam or anything you like for they will still be the same when your stomach gets to work on them and passes them along to the rectum where they will be evacuated as holy shit. Morons!

Posted by: Chris Granade | July 14, 2008 4:52 PM

#54: Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to concern troll. I understand that shit happens and that this is an opportunity to do better. I support PZ on this one. I'm just somewhat disappointed that he has to tell us, his commenters, to calm down. It should be obvious from the get-go that this is nothing to harass people over. If it's serious enough to involve authorities, then it is. If not, then it's also not serious enough to harass.

Obviously we can and should learn, and PZ did better than Donohue (not hard there), so no, I don't think that "we're no better." Just that this didn't show our best side.

Posted by: Patricia | July 14, 2008 4:56 PM

#17 - Your advise is as useful as your prayers for PZ. Fuck off.

Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 4:59 PM

No, what you said was that Pharyngula readers were just as dependent on faith in their argumentation than religious believers are, which is a common, and quite tired, accusation from those who have nothing else with which to rebut an argument. Intellectual dishonesty indeed...
I was addressing Brownian's "American Way" comment, dumbass. What I said in my last post was to be interpreted in that context. Obviously I wasn't denying what I plainly stated in post #18.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 5:00 PM

Teh Intartubes for the win once again.

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 14, 2008 5:01 PM

unicow wrote:

PZ, you should probably just scrub the email addresses from the mails. They're so trivial to forge that I'd be surprised if even the most careless fool would use his own email address in a death threat.

By all means leave the rest of the headers, though. They're a lot harder (though by no means impossible) to manipulate, and are far more valuable information-wise than an email address anyway.

No, scrub everything, all headers, use just the message text. There is no need for us readers, who could be any kind of loons (who knows how many people I have buried in my backyard?), to have that kind of information. The people better trusted with that information is the FBI.

Don't count on every single one of so many readers being sane.

And by the way, PZ, what are you planning to do with all those saliva soaked, half dissolved, consecrated Communion wafers people have been sending you, if any? Have you thought about sending them to Bill Donohue with an apology about how you just didn't know he and his followers that dangerously crazy?

Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 14, 2008 5:03 PM

A trisket, a trasket, a red and yellow basket. What happens when the turned around collar guys sneezes on the crackers? Do they still eat those?

Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 5:03 PM

Just forward them to the FBI, PZ, there are no Catholics there.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:05 PM

Chris Granade (#57):

I didn't think you were concern trolling, so no worries. I'd say we agree on the important point. Yeah, it's a bitch that people have to be reminded to shut up and think with an organ above the neckline. Every sizeable fandom needs a whack like this, now and then (I recall some Dresden Dolls fans got rather uppity when their favorite band decided to tour with Panic! At The Disco, but at least we got a music video out of the resulting kerfuffle).

Live and learn, I say: should our host get any more threatening letters, Isis forbid, he can redact the senders' last names, let's say, and publish only the domain part of the e-mail addresses. Transparency is a powerful tool, and like anything with sharp double edges, it requires practice — and a hilt! — to use properly.

Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 5:11 PM

I have a very good friend in the FBI that is catholic.

Well if he would send them to the information specialist there, he wouldn't foward them over to the heritics division, I'm sure.

Posted by: John Robie | July 14, 2008 5:14 PM

I agree that it may be a bad idea to post the full email address, but perhaps a compromise would be to XXXX out the name but leave the domain and IP address.

I was going to email the 1800Flowers executive committee when I got home to let them know (respectfully of course) that either one of their employees was sending death threats from work, or they likely had a computer that was compromised. I would wait till I got home to keep MY employers IP out of this mess. Now I'll refrain even from that.

While internet retribution might be fun in a childish way, it's ultimately self-defeating especially against the religious. It just inflames the rhetoric and feeds into their delusions of persecution.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:16 PM

Hey! Cut it out with the bad vibes, everybody. Recriminations solve nothing. Here: panda/kitten therapy.

Posted by: Seeker | July 14, 2008 5:19 PM

And now for the lighter side of Crackergate:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/09/wafer/
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/07/14/mass/

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 5:25 PM

Your reaction, Brownian, is exactly that of a fundamentalist when his creed is under attack.

You've yet to define anything other than in terms of 'bad' when you don't like it, and 'good' when you do.

You've shown yourself to be little more than a concern troll at every opportunity J, so forgive me if I don't fall down in a rapturous seizure when you fling the word 'fundamentalist' around.

You bitch so much about what everybody else is doing, I'm starting to wonder if you shouldn't do it professionally. With all of use juvenile and fundamental atheists around, I'm sure Donohue could use a lackey like you.

Posted by: mayhempix | July 14, 2008 5:30 PM

Good idea that PZ posted a new lead message on the "Dump" thread. It was like "Groundhog Day" with late readers not checking earlier comments to see what had already transpired.

While not one of the, shall we say "excited ones" that sent off emails or phoned, I would posit that having previously clearly stated to send a message to the university president and not clearly stating what he did or did not want done when he posted the email headers, the eagerness of the response was not entirely a surprise.

The trolls who are trying to equate it with the hateful and threatening emails PZ received obviously don't see the difference. But then again they think a fucking cracker is the flesh of Jebus so I'm not surprised.

Posted by: Jim | July 14, 2008 5:32 PM

"They called down the thunder, well now they got it."

Actually, no, they didn't. They reacted to what they considered a threat. Had PZ not made the call to arms, these people wouldn't even know who he is and never would have emailed him.

You're entitled to your opinions. But based on what has been written about Webster Cook (cited by PZ), you know exactly how Catholics feel about the Eucharist. You can't make the types of threats that were made and not expect a reaction. Those two emails were out of line. They were wrong. But you can't exactly claim that they "called down the thunder". They reacted based on human instinct rather than with a cool head. But they didn't exactly start it.

Posted by: speedwell | July 14, 2008 5:39 PM

I'm kind of surprised at all this. When someone is simply and demonstrably wrong (the Catholic doctrine that a cracker actually, really, becomes human/divine flesh), and their wrongness leads them to be a danger to others, sometimes you have to resort to loud noises and bright colors to get their attention and make them stop hurting people. That's all PZ did. What else would you have him do, step up to his local priest with his had held humbly in his two hands and say, "I'm sorry, Father, but I disagree with you"?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 14, 2008 5:40 PM

All I ever said is that there is an undesirable, irrational, anti-everything-American climate on Pharyngula.

Well that's not quite true. Nearly, but not quite - you've also said Islam is given an easy ride due to "political correctness" (and to forestall the inevitable accusation of lying, you've said a few other things as well). You've repeated both your main claims numerous times - but they are still just as false as the first time you said them, and much more boring.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:49 PM

Blast. s/culture/climate

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 5:53 PM

anti-everything-American

What the hell does this even mean?

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 5:53 PM

Apple pie? APPLE PIE?!?!11!1! That's fricking repellent, you sock-puppet commie bastard from hell. It's GOT to be Key Lime Pie or nothing, for an actual Murrican Pie!

Now pray off or I shall taunt you a second time.

/silly

I was glad at least some of the commenters (seemed like the more regulars*) were arguing patience and non-interference all through the mail dump thread. It's too bad some people charged off into moronville without hesitation, but I hold out hope for the future - think of the children!**

*as opposed to the constipated nubes?
**apparently the close silly tag didn't take

Posted by: windy | July 14, 2008 5:59 PM

For one thing, we can't be certain that an innocent's account hasn't been hijacked

Which is another argument in favor of not posting the email addresses.

Posted by: Mort | July 14, 2008 6:04 PM

Wow. For a bunch that prides themselves on being brilliant and "bright" and rational, and all...this is pretty funny.

PZ declares war on a religious symbol - a rude, disrespectful thing to do.

PZ is cheered on by hundreds, who in the process of the spewing, also spew plenty of invective and hatred of those who value the religious symbol.

(Please don't pretend that the hate isn't there. It is. Y'all hate Christians, and especially Catholics. Hate.)

And now PZ is fluttering, "Well, I never!" when in this heat hecreated, an environment defined by hate, some folks decide to retaliate on his behalf?

Oh, for heavens sake.

Oops. Sorry about that.

Not much clear thinking among the rationalists here.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 6:05 PM

Pharyngula has an "anti-everything American culture"? Feh. I hereby proclaim my fervent support for apple pie. Now, I will be satisfied with nothing less than total evisceration from other commenters, followed by summary banning by PZ.

Blake, that's exactly what J would expect a fundamentalist to say.

Further noteworthy things that have been said to J that he considers exactly like what a fundamentalist might say (a damning indictment indeed): J's mom once chastised him for not brushing his teeth; a primary school teacher of his once marked his answer "4 + 19 = 24" on an exam as wrong; a cop who pulled him over for speeding let him off with a verbal warning; and those little notices on McDonald's coffee cups that state "caution: contents are hot"--all these are dirty, despicable fundamentalist tactics that he and he alone fights.

Posted by: SC | July 14, 2008 6:08 PM

Blake Stacey,

Are you right in Boston, by the way? I'm to the south, on the wateh.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 6:09 PM

Mort, you couldn't BE more wrong. It isn't hate, it's contempt of the preposterous rituals, rules, and beliefs held by any religion. Beyond that, the real concern that most atheist folks I ever encountered have nothing to do with religious worship and everything to do with the human desire to force compliance and conformity.

So please, go pray off.

Posted by: PeteC | July 14, 2008 6:12 PM

It is most definitely not intended to incite harassment.

But as a *net veteran you must have suspected that harassment would ensue.

Of course, it's not your responsibility, any more than the comments here are your responsibility - but it is worth keeping in mind that there is a huge readership here and you would not want to meet up for Pharyngubeers with all of them.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 14, 2008 6:16 PM

Luckily for me, I'm too lazy to email random people or whatever.

I do like how the theist trolls are trying to use this as an excuse to say "See? People can be bad on both sides! That means that we both have valid points of view, I guess, so um respect mine and remember that any bad is just due to the crazies."

Yes, granted, there ARE crazies and jerks on all sides in ANY issue, but that doesn't make all sides equal and it certainly doesn't forgive religion for its great sin of demanding irrational thinking of its followers, which, if anything, makes it simpler and much quicker for people to act based on emotion and do those "crazy/violent" things that all people are capable of.

Religion rewards belief without evidence and opens the door to all other irrationalities. Once you start believing one huge silly, unbelievable, unprovable thing, what's to stop you from believing more and more? Where do you draw the line? And at what point do you decide that it's ok to do ANYTHING, no matter how violent or seemingly crazy to defend and propagate those beliefs.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 6:17 PM

PZ declares war on a religious symbol - a rude, disrespectful thing to do.

Not surprisingly, you conveniently left out the first part of this story.

Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | July 14, 2008 6:19 PM

Keep the current policy, but use it only in extreme cases. In the event of particularly heinous, persistent email harassment, allow yourself the option of unleashing the horde.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 6:20 PM

(Please don't pretend that the hate isn't there. It is. Y'all hate Christians, and especially Catholics. Hate.)

Wrong, stupid. I hate Evangelicals and Baptists at least three times as much as I hate Catholics. (In fact, I used to have a soft spot for the dogans, having been one myself.)

Oddly enough, this vehement hate is relatively new; I was totally live-and-let-live until I began to encounter the most 'faithful' of the followers. (Y'know, the ones who seem to be incapable of live-and-let-live and particularly enjoy watching Africa suffer in service to their god. Like pretty well all of your religious leaders.)

If you're at all curious as to why you guys seem to earn such invective from non-believers, perhaps you might consider reading Matthew 7:3-5. If you still think you're entitled to criticise any-fucking-body else ever, read it again. And again. And again. And again. Then maybe consider following it. Then read it again. And again. And then maybe consider following it. Then read it again. Ad infinitum.

We'd all be a helluva lot happier (although Bill Donohue might have to find himself legitimate work).

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 6:23 PM

Well personally, it takes a lot to make me hate someone. It's not like I am overflowing with love for all, but dadburnit, hate takes energy, and that goes against my strict creed of laziness. Those I do hate are individuals, not groups as a whole (well, maybe excepting the shrubco incorporated "administration").

Posted by: SC | July 14, 2008 6:24 PM

Sven DiMilo @ #12,

I was at a couple of those shows! I was one of the "new folks" (couldn't be helped, as I was still young; on the other hand, I had cut my teeth to some extent at Max Creek shows). But I got it...and kept it :).

Posted by: Ermine | July 14, 2008 6:27 PM

Wow 'J', I'd love to see some cites for your claim of an 'irrational, anti-everything-american climate on Pharyngula'.

I can't think of a single post that met that criteria. I've seen a lot of rational jabs at specific problems with America or its people, but I can't think of any individuals who have been irrationally anti-EVERYTHING-American. (Or even rationally so.) Can you point out a few? By your own words, you don't apparently mean simply dislike of the Bush Administration or American foreign policy, so what DO you mean by 'anti-everything-american'?

I mean, there would certainly have to be more than a few people/posts for it to be a CLIMATE of anti-Americanism, right? For that to be the climate here, I'd expect at least 1/10 of the posts to show some sign of it, but I don't see it. Can you find some? Even just 10, say, from the last year or so? 5?

Yes, it looks like some people overreacted. I'm glad that PZ said something once he realized that there was a problem. Several other people also spoke up when they realized that some others were going overboard - I think that puts the atheistic hordes several steps ahead of the religious already!

I looked through several blogs and newspaper comment sections over the past few days, and didn't see ANY religious folk urging caution or asking people to -think- before posting. At most I've seen 2, -maybe- 3 (out of literally THOUSANDS of posts) that even noticed that their side was sending *death threats*, much less asked anyone to stop or think about what they were doing.

Come on J, surely you can do better than that?

Ermine

Posted by: Dr Benway | July 14, 2008 6:28 PM

Hating or opposing ignorant or bad ideas that harm people seems appropriate to me.

Those who want to defend the bad ideas but can't often accuse the opposition as unfairly persecuting the people who accept the bad ideas. They do this to derail the argument from a discussion of ideas to a discussion of people.

If someone says, "I don't hate Catholics but I hate this notion that a cracker is of greater value than a human being," it doesn't help for the pro-cracker camp to say, "No you hate Catholics." They also have to show that the anti-cracker camp doesn't have some valid reason for hating the idea that's on the table for debate.

In sum: people who want to shift a debate from ideas to people need to make sure the argument over the ideas has been fully addressed.

Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 6:30 PM

how it could possibly be a pejorative label as you intend it...
I got the "it" and "could" the wrong way around there.

Posted by: AlanWCan | July 14, 2008 6:34 PM

Well, you made reddit, so the common sense:number ratio went way, way down...

Posted by: craig | July 14, 2008 6:40 PM

Didn't send emails, been on the net too long to do that kind of crap...

but I am wondering, though - where is Dobson's "PLEASE STOP NOW!" plea?

Oh wait - he actually ASKED people to flood the college and PZ with complaints.

Yeah, J, we're exactly like the religious.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 6:46 PM

If I used everything as intended, Sears would never have replaced those two Craftsman screwdrivers.

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 14, 2008 6:51 PM

Pharyngula has an "anti-everything American culture"? Feh. I hereby proclaim my fervent support for apple pie. Now, I will be satisfied with nothing less than total evisceration from other commenters, followed by summary banning by PZ.

Posted by: Blake Stacey

Your bravery and patriotism has inspired me, Blake. In fact, I will state proudly that up until now, I was a closeted hot-dog eater.

Wait... That came out wrong.

I like hot dogs! And baseball... And, apple pie.

Not a big fan of Chevy's though.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 14, 2008 6:57 PM

If you want to define "concern troll" to mean "someone who frequently disagrees with consensus opinion", then yes, I suppose I'm a concern troll. But if you're going to use the word in that sense, how it could possibly be a pejorative label as you intend it, unless you think the consensus opinion on Pharyngula is something which shouldn't ever be challenged?

Nice strawman, but concern troll NE freedom fighter, or however you see yourself.

(Further, as an example of someone who disagrees with the community way more than you do, is unapologetically impolite about it, infuriates and pisses off people as much if not more than you do, and yet won a Molly for it, please see any of the comments by the Truth Machine.)

No, a concern troll is one who uses 'concern' for the community as an ostensible platform for whining. It's cloaking one's childish attention-getting with legitimate issues.

Having watched (and occasionally participated) in a number of threads in which you poorly formed an argument critical of the community, got ripped into for it, and then assumed we must all be dittoheads for disagreeing with you, I can pretty safely state that you're much more Brenda than Truth Machine.

By all means write this comment off as coming from a fundie PZ crony though; it's what you consistently do with those who disagree with you.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 14, 2008 7:00 PM

#128

Ooh, interesting. I hope he decides to pray for me! I love when people tell me they're doing that. It means they're wasting time doing nothing when they might otherwise be using their wacky beliefs to make some kind of impact on the world.

And just so kmerian doesn't freak out, I'm not saying that I think religious people shouldn't be out doing stuff, I'm saying that I don't personally like it when they base their decisions on things that their holy books tell them* or go out and evangelize.

*The whole "love everyone" stuff is all well and good, but apparently you don't need to be religious to be a good person. Shocking!

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 7:02 PM

SC (#103):

Are you right in Boston, by the way? I'm to the south, on the wateh.

Fuckin-A, mush! I'm up in Cambridge. Y'know, it's probably past time that we had another PZ-in-absentia Pharyngufest. . . .

Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 7:07 PM

No, a concern troll is one who uses 'concern' for the community as an ostensible platform for whining. It's cloaking one's childish attention-getting with legitimate issues.
Speculation. You have no way of knowing I'm trying to do that. Who do you think you're fooling?

I've made my point now. If people cut it out with the infuriating misrepresentations, I'll gladly disprove your "attention-getting" hypothesis by disappearing from this thread.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 7:13 PM

Another example: I often see snide comments on specifically American ignorance and scientific illiteracy. I think it's plain that the vast majority of people in every country on the planet are scientifically illiterate. Is there any evidence that creationism is so widespread in America mostly due to inferior education and increased ignorance (relative to the rest of the developed world)? I don't think so. The vast majority of Europeans I know don't call themselves creationists, and yet know next to nothing about evolution.

Who you know means exactly shit.

I personally know two people from turkey who both accept evolution because they are educated.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 7:16 PM

The "anti-Americanism" I refer to is best described as a gleeful, exaggerated emphasis of America's flaws.

Well that's hardly "anti-" now is it? I love my country, Murika, very much. It troubles me greatly how corrupted the gummint is, and it bothers me greatly that anyone could justify torture. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. My America doesn't torture, my America believes in habeas corpus, my America believes no searches without warrants supported by reasonable suspicion, etc. My America doesn't wear the black hat. Unfortunately, this current administration joyfully put on the black hat and became that which we despise. Go ask Dick about "the dark side". I see these guys as traitors.

Tell me, who's the real patriots, the Archie Bunker slobs waving flags? or the people with the guts to work for real change.

Aside, it's a human characteristic that it is generally easier to find negative characteristics than positive. Besides, the positive things about my country are NOT what needs fixing.

Posted by: jj | July 14, 2008 7:20 PM

@#143
I agree

I actually don't know a single person [well enough] that doesn't see evolution as the most accurate theory for our existence (note I didn't say 'believes in evolution' as with scientific theories, they are forever changing). I have a good buddy who lives in the Netherlands, and he isn't a 'creationist', nor are any of his friends [that I know]. Maybe it's because I was raised in a family that found education to be the utmost of importance, worked to help me get into a reputable [public] college and ended up with a degree in science (GO UCSC!).

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 14, 2008 7:23 PM

I think the proper way to handled the situation is to send a letter to Dr. Bruininks in support of PZ's right to be PZ, without having people calling for his job or his neck. I have some actual letters people have sent at Support PZ and will continue to publish copies of letters to Dr. Bruininks as they are sent to me at the address on the Support PZ blog.

Posted by: windy, OM | July 14, 2008 7:24 PM

Is there any evidence that creationism is so widespread in America mostly due to inferior education and increased ignorance (relative to the rest of the developed world)? I don't think so.

Good thing, then, that most of us have been arguing that it's due to greater religious influence on American society. But thanks for once again building a gigantic strawman out of some rare comments to the contrary.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 7:28 PM

Y'know, it's probably past time that we had another PZ-in-absentia Pharyngufest. . . .

I'd be down for that.

Hellz yeah!

Can't plan it this time, though. Dissertation and job search are leaving little time for that sort of stuff (and the nat'l conf is coming up fast)

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 7:32 PM

maybe we could even have some fetus sashimi at the Pharyngufest.

Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 7:53 PM

I really don't care wht you do POZ, but you puzzle me.

On the radio you said:

Myers: The response has done nothing but confirm it: I have to do something. I'm not going to just let this disappear. It's just so darned weird that they're demanding that I offer this respect to a symbol that means nothing to me. Something will be done. It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power. This cracker is nothing

Well maybe you are right, and maybe you are wrong. But when talking to you, I understand where you come from. I hope you don't expect me to pick the lice off your apes, then tell them taste like chicken. I expect men to rise above such mundane practices. I believe it is better to give a bone, than to take one, I have dogs and understand animals, and you,live up to acting like one, and have never bridged that gap of evolution.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 7:56 PM

MAJeff, SC and others:

In default of finding somebody who has the time and ability to, you know, organize an event, we could just provide a Pharyngulan contingent at Boston Skeptics in the Pub.

And on that note, I bow out. Enough of ScienceBlogs until all this blows over. Everybody has their own line drawn in the sand, and it's too damn tiring to remember where they've all been put. Will any of these postures and counter-postures resolve or improve anything? Hah. I've got a journal article to write and a DVD box set of The Prisoner which won't watch itself. Catch you all on the flipside.

Posted by: andyo | July 14, 2008 8:04 PM

Wow, for professional faith-heads, these people calling us religious or faith-based surely don't understand the meaning of the words "religious faith".

The only times I've see most commenters here have faith is when they have faith that you are stupid (and that's just the "rabid" ones). And sometimes even that's not faith-based.

Posted by: SC | July 14, 2008 8:08 PM

In default of finding somebody who has the time and ability to, you know, organize an event, we could just provide a Pharyngulan contingent at Boston Skeptics in the Pub.

Yeah, maybe. Something smaller and less formal is more my speed, but I can't expect others to do the work. It was a nice thought - perhaps another time.

Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | July 14, 2008 8:10 PM

I've tried to read through all the comments here as carefully and with as calm a head as I can, and, as I was doing so, one thing occurred to me. PZ has asked his readers to be better people; he's asked us (I'll be so bold as to include myself in that company) to take the high ground and not behave like the jerks or idiots most of us have a problem with. He's asked us to be sensible and reasonable.
Has Bill Donohue done that? Has Bill Donohue encouraged his readers, his followers to not resort to threats of violence? To follow up on an earlier poster who complained there was nothing but "hate" here, has Donohue asked his readers to demonstrate the Christian virtues of love and forgiveness?
Dr. Myers might quibble with the idea of "Christian virtues", but I believe he's calling for sensible, rational responses to people who have gone way over the top in trying to portray themselves as a bunch of martyrs.

Posted by: seastark | July 14, 2008 8:24 PM

...we're supposed to be better than that

But who is the 'we' that he speaks of? Definitely not pzs heathen crew since the bowling jackets haven't come in and definitely not 'The Athiests' as there is no 'atheist agenda'. The we is everyone. The baseline of humanity...

I wish I could rely on a skyman to tell me it's ok to hate 'them' and protect 'us' but I gave that dream up years ago.

Posted by: clinteas | July 14, 2008 8:56 PM

I agree with Orac,I dont think PZ thought this one out very well to start with,and it was probably predictable what would happen.

Im just a bit dumbfounded that people still kept insisting on sending spam,phoning or posting real names on the web,after PZ asked them mid-threat not to,and I spent my whole Sunday getting called names by those dicks when I argued against it.

Posted by: Santa | July 14, 2008 8:59 PM

Begging your pardon, but doesn't that sound a little hypocritical? When a person retaliates to your comment in an overreacting or uncharitable way, you raise the benefit-of-the-doubt and better-than-that cards. Yet when the Church allegedly overreacted in the original case reported by your earlier blog post, you publicly insulted them and threatened to pour oil in the flame in the manner you described in the same blog post. Where is the better-than-that and charity cards in that case?

Or am I wrong in pointing out this apparent hypocrisy?

Posted by: Caveat | July 14, 2008 9:07 PM

I was a little surprised that you actually posted the emails.

This isn't a private club, you know. It's open to anybody in the world who feels like dropping by. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the trolls themselves picked up that ball and ran with it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 14, 2008 9:11 PM

I dont think PZ thought this one out very well to start with,and it was probably predictable what would happen.

Obviously and obviously.

Im just a bit dumbfounded that people still kept insisting on sending spam,phoning or posting real names on the web,after PZ asked them mid-threat not to,and I spent my whole Sunday getting called names by those dicks when I argued against it.

Dumbfounded, indeed. An intelligent person would infer from being called names by those he lectures not to do something that at least some of them would continue to do it, perhaps even more determinedly. And not even the Pope can manage to get his flock to obey him, so one should hardly expect PZ to be able to.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 9:16 PM

I was addressing Brownian's "American Way" comment, dumbass. What I said in my last post was to be interpreted in that context. Obviously I wasn't denying what I plainly stated in post #18.

Obviously not...'cause you said you weren't, is that how it works? Far be it from me to keep you from weaseling out of a statement you can't back up - I actually enjoy watching you try. For future reference, when you start a sentence with "All I ever said...," be forewarned that people will infer that you are restating what you said.

And that evasion still doesn't do anything to support the claim that you made in your first post - that commenters here are just as faith-based as religious believers.

Posted by: Patricia | July 14, 2008 9:29 PM

#164 - Gawddamit True Bob, I switched threads after you busted me up with that fundament 'crack'. And now here you go again. I've spit sangria down the front of my well filled blouse. Dammit man, post a warning! ;)

Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 9:31 PM

Might do that but my point was sarcastic. But he would just fail to answer just like he does when I ask about other secret stuff.

before I die I want to know about all that secret stuff, because we all know those dirty Catholics publish the Catechism in pig Latin, a non Kosher language, so the Jews and Muslims won't have a clue.

Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | July 14, 2008 9:43 PM

Re: All of this talk of "We're meant to be better than that" being a stupid and pointless sentiment.

An immediate call for better behavior and setting a high standard of ethics is EXACTLY the appropriate reaction. Unless we demand that everyone act like a grown up, nobody will. The non-stupid jerks have to keep the stupid jerks in line. This is precisely where prominent Catholics failed.

If you're so cynical and anti-social that it grates on you when a man chastises those in the wrong and demands we strive to be better people, can I make a suggestion? Go live alone in a cave somewhere. Clearly social interaction is not for you.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 14, 2008 9:48 PM

The non-stupid jerks have to keep the stupid jerks in line.

You're fantasizing if you think you have the power to do that.

If you're so cynical and anti-social that it grates on you when a man chastises those in the wrong and demands we strive to be better people, can I make a suggestion? Go live alone in a cave somewhere. Clearly social interaction is not for you.

Oh yeah, that'll work.

Posted by: Jon H | July 14, 2008 9:53 PM

Josh West wrote: "For the record, I only sent an email to 1800flowers to notify them of the situation. I though I was pretty polite about it."

And this was needed... why?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 10:05 PM

None of us is as dumb as all of us.

I so wanted to get my boss that poster.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 10:09 PM

SC, look at the link I posted.

Posted by: Dexter Fox | July 14, 2008 10:19 PM

It is frequent that we consider ourselves and our co-believers to be better than our opponents. We are reasonable people who have reached reasonable conclusions. Would not our adherents be likewise reasonable?

Religious belief is not a prerequisite for being a jerk, nor an indicator thereof. We can all get carried away with ourselves, thinking that being correct implies a higher underlying morality. We rely on our certainty of belief - religious or secular - to justify our questionable actions, particularly when faced with an adversary.

We go nuts when a sacred symbol is threatened by Other. We go nuts when an anonymous student is threatened by Other.

And we are more alike than we see.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 10:28 PM

Majorly OT.

I'm sitting here editing a bunch of photos and have the home run derby on in the background. It's a long shot but, is anyone watching it and did you just hear what that dumbfuck said?

I don't mean to derail but this might be the dumbest thing I've heard a sportscaster say this year, and that is quite the accomplishment. He's talking about josh Hamilton who is putting on a show at a meaningless contest. Hamilton beat a drug addiction and being out of the big leagues for three years, is back in the majos and having an all-star season. This is what one of the talking heads just said. I hope I'm wrong but I think it was John Kruk

He beat Cocaine and Heroin addiction, found Religion and made it back to the bigleagues. It's a terrible night to be an atheist.

/facepalm

Ok sorry. my wife is asleep so I had to vent.

continue with your regularly scheduled programing / riling.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 10:31 PM

Thanks, Rev. BDC - links needed for us non-corporate types (for this one, at least) :).

No problem. That site has some funny stuff. I picked up a "this glass is half empty" mug. With a little half empty line and everything. It shows that I'm the coolest of the cube dwellers.

Posted by: Paul | July 14, 2008 10:45 PM

Instead of posting threatening emails here, you should be forwarding them to your local police department.

Posted by: SC | July 14, 2008 10:53 PM

I had originally thought something more along the lines of collective action, and couldn't understand how it applied here. Going by the poster, though, it actually meant that individual people, when they come together in groups, can, due to this, come to behave even more stupidly than they would have on their own. So in this case, some people said stupid things, or did stupid things and then reported them to the group, which then led others to do stupid things that they wouldn't have done on their own, either because they wouldn't have thought of these actions independently or because they wouldn't have been so riled up. I think this dynamic may well have been a factor here, and the possibility of it should probably have been considered before posting the information. In any event, it's a funny poster.

Posted by: JM Inc. | July 14, 2008 11:01 PM

I can't say I didn't see this coming. It'd be nice if everybody behaved nicely to everybody, but you can't rely on it. I thought this would happen the moment the death threats were posted publically, and it's a real shame, because it was a good idea, except in a large enough group there's always somebody who thinks they're a Batman and decide that a little of the old vigilantism is called for.

Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | July 14, 2008 11:03 PM

@162

You must be knew.

Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Yeah, you're a physicist... right.

Posted by: fsb | July 14, 2008 11:04 PM

"...you get people still thinking Kroll is a guy."

Or, 'Hey, guys, I think mkroll works for 1-800-Flowers.' Good grief.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 14, 2008 11:11 PM

HA! Nice

Posted by: ~C4Chaos | July 14, 2008 11:32 PM

"we're supposed to be better than that"

i whole-heartedly agree. it's just disappointing to me that you had a mental lapse in applying this kind of thinking when you threatened to desecrate a "goddamned cracker." you're better than that PZ. you're better than that.

a consecrated host is not just a cracker, same way as a flag is not just a piece cloth. deal with it. http://bit.ly/4qDxfW

~C

Posted by: Mena | July 14, 2008 11:50 PM

I agree with Blake Stacey. The posts over the past couple days had me longing for the good old days of Usenet, where a simple control+K could clear out any particular users who were being obnoxious and the threads that they generated. People who urged moderation were called concern trolls and were told to go fuck themselves. No one was reading anyone else's comments, it just looked like a bunch of screaming. By the way guys, you may want to consider that trolls come here (the real ones, not the ones who are just simply people who have a different opinion than the louder more reactionary posters) because it's so easy to get people to eventually start screaming and posting tons of stuff about straw men, true scotsmen, Poes, and ad hominems after the usual "you're stupids" are done with. It's almost like there's a script these days and it's getting really boring. Well, enough "concern trolling" (please go to the dungeon to learn what it really is) from me. See ya all in the future.

Posted by: andyo | July 15, 2008 12:06 AM

The only times I've see most commenters here have faith is when they have faith that you are stupid (and that's just the "rabid" ones). And sometimes even that's not faith-based.

You must be knew.

Posted by: The Physicist | July 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Been here for years already, but yeah, maybe I forgot there are some creationist and religious apologist regulars. Then again, I did say "most," and that's what I meant.

Have you ever seen one of the regular "atheists" here state something for which there's no evidence as a sacred truth?

Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 12:39 AM

Bride of Shrek, Hack on Triple J are also doing a series on belief 5.30 weeknights this week. The shows are also streamed on-line and can be downloaded as a podcast and can be found here.

Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 12:48 AM

Another thing for the Aussies. I posted this already on another thread but it bears repeatin'...

The federal court in Oz has just rejected the Popefest WYD anti-annoyance laws.
A couple of guys from the No To Pope Coalition challenged the laws in court so we are now free to wear our offensive t-shirts and hand out annoying condoms without worrying about the 5 grand penalty.

Posted by: eddie | July 15, 2008 1:13 AM

This is probly a coincidence, but I notice that 1800flowers.com stock is plummeting;

http://www.investorguide.com/stock-charts.cgi?ticker=FLWS

http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote/Quote.aspx?ticker=FLWS&SC=Q

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | July 15, 2008 1:18 AM

What did PZ expect?

My suspicion is that PZ expected intelligent, enlightened people to be, well... intelligent and enlightened. Weird, eh?

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | July 15, 2008 1:30 AM

Yeah, it's almost as if the loudly, frequently self-proclaimed "intelligent, enlightened" people are nothing of the sort.

Some of them really are, while others are in fact religious instead.

Posted by: pzph | July 15, 2008 1:35 AM

Some of them really are, while others are in fact religious instead.

I completely agree. Very religious. And following the example of their religious leader.

Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 1:51 AM

pzph, I completely agree. Very religious. And following the example of their religious leader.

Sarcasm eh. Very witty.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2008 2:18 AM

but it only takes a handful to cross boundaries that should not be crossed, and to send messages that should not be sent.

Look Kseniya, I don't know how many times I'm expected to apologise for that. As I said, at that time in my life I was very confused and it seemed perfectly reasonable that Bride of Shrek might be sending me subliminal messages of love and the only way to reciprocate was to send those Shakespearean sonnets via boxes of stuffed field mice dressed as Georgetown Hoya cheerleaders performing semaphore. She agreed to drop the charges and I submitted myself for psychiatric evaluation as per the court's order.

We've all moved on; why can't you?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2008 2:26 AM

Scott, you're the best.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | July 15, 2008 2:52 AM

Brownian

Heh? Subliminal. Damn, I'm more subtle than I thought. I would have said "overt" myself.....

Posted by: Kseniya | July 15, 2008 3:44 AM

Brownian, you are priceless! And you're right, Scott does... errr... geez, I have trouble saying that such a mind-mannered fellow "rawks", but hey, you know...

Geez, a few more ellipses and I'll start sounding like a fundie.

Oh, one more thing, for all you diction nazis:

That said, "communion wafer" is the commonly used term for the cracker in question. But everyone already knows that. Therefore, those people who are saying "cracker" must be doing so not from ignorance, but for a purpose. Imagine that!

Posted by: uriel | July 15, 2008 4:35 AM

We've heard their arguments (the provision of which places them both a step above your juvenile tear-jerking) and we don't find them compelling.

See, and here's the exact problem. Sure, equating 'faith' with atheism is a reach.

But Pharyngula is not just a community of atheists. It's a collection of people whose common beliefs extend well beyond any simple propositions regarding the existence of god, to include rather large group of opinions that have nothing to do with rejecting that existence but to proscribing and- dare I say it- evangelizing a set of supposedly proper reactions and actions based on that disbelief. Thus the endless, authoritative and universal appeals to "real atheists this" and "proper atheists that," is every bit as ridiculous as conservapedia on it's worst day.

This call to his readers to provide Eucharist for the purposes of desecration, and the ready acceptance and vehement defense of the same is a perfect example. It has nothing to do with disbelief or free thinking, and everything to do with acquiescence to dogmatic group-think and authority.

But, just mention the concept of respect, restraint, or anything resembling or tolerance and just see how quickly the facade of rationalism and free thinking fades into vindictive rhetoric, usually in one of a fairly limited and repetitious denunciations. Look at how many atheists are rejected out of hand around these parts for holding a philosophically incorrect position. Simple fact is the number of people who have read this blog for more than a week and aren't mind-numbingly aware of its idiosyncratic, value-laden references to "Nevile Chamberlain atheists," "Nisbet and Mooney" and (a generally inaccurate definition of) "concern troll," just aren't paying attention.

Unfortunately, all of this eager embracing of atheism as requiring or benefiting from dismissiveness , conflict or contempt is supported by exactly... nothing. Apart from a completely wishful belief in its correctness, utility- nay, it's unquestioned righteousness- as a matter of course. In other words- faith. It's inevitable when you try to transform a personal belief into a movement.

Merely clinging to this fiction that, "I am an atheist, therefore faith has no hold on me," while eagerly parroting and supporting every deceleration of supposed authorities, peer groups- or even one's preconceived notions- as completely infallible, is not only the height of self-delusion, it requires a level of dishonesty every bit on par with that of the DI or Focus on the Family. Once you do that, then yes- you are open to arguments regarding your 'faith' or 'fundamentalism.'

I'm not saying it's universal to all commenters here- but its a pretty evident consensus to anyone who's looking objectively.

And just to save everyone the trouble, I'm a Nevile Chamberlain concern troll who's totally in luv with both Nesbit and Mooney. So, that's out of the way.

Although, in closing, I might mention Scotsmen.....

Posted by: andyo | July 15, 2008 5:39 AM

uriel #239.

If you really think we condone PZ's cracker abuse just because he's an "authority", and it goes unquestioned, it's because of the three-thousand or so comments, the ones you paid attention to were those who agreed. What about the other atheists that disagreed?

So, some of us agreed (admittedly, vehemently), others disagreed. We have our reasons, but the ones who get scandalized or the ones dismissing it as childish at best aren't getting the big picture. It's not the freaking act, it's all the absurdity that led to it. It's about ridiculing the ridiculous.

People attacked a guy for a cracker. Other people responded by encouraging an attack to a cracker for the guy. It's just a ridiculous act to point out a ridiculous belief. I don't care about most reasonable people's religious beliefs, but when they start assigning more value to a cracker than a guy, it's time to call out the idiots. Do you think that assigning a guy more value than a cracker is also a faith-based position?

Posted by: demallien | July 15, 2008 6:40 AM

I don't have time to read all the comments, but as my point of view hadn't popped up in the first 50 or so, I thought I'd put it out there, and apologise in advance if someone else has already made the same point:

The whole point of publicising the full header details of the emails that are being sent to PZ was 'Exposing roaches to the light is usually a good way to get them to scuttle away'.

But here's the thing - it's not enough to expose these people on this blog. To refer back to the metaphor, that's around about the equivalent of lighting a birthday candle, when what you need for a cockroach is at least a 60W lightbulb, and preferably daylight.

The internet equivalent of daylight would be to make sure that people connected to this person - boss, colleagues, family and friends - get to see what the person is saying, ie, they get to see a full copy of what the person wrote, with attribution.

Abusing the person, spamming their email account, and other ways of making that person's life miserable are really not fair game.

I guess PZ just needs to be more explicit about exactly what he wants when he posts these kinds of emails. He probably needs to outline that he just wants us to find contact details for those around the author, or whether he wants each of us to contact said acquaintances with a copy of the author's 'works', or some other action.

There will of course be twits that go beyond what PZ would want - well, it's a free world, but hopefully their number will be greatly reduced.

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 15, 2008 6:50 AM

I just read demallien's comment, as it popped up before mine, and he has put more reading and analyzing effort into it than my rushed effort - it is an excellent suggestion.

It won't block a tard from being a tard, but it can help people who about to make honest mistakes in an effort to help.

Posted by: Michelle | July 15, 2008 8:16 AM

Good words, PZ, and you're totally right. We're supposed to be above that and a few people obviously were too childish to think that bit up themselves.

Unfortunately, there's always idiotic tools on both sides.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 15, 2008 8:47 AM

Anti-{everything that is American}.

As opposed to "anti-everything American", which would be American and anti-everything. The hyphen was invented for a purpose. :-)

Oooooooooooooooooh. Well. Thanks for clarifying.

Now he makes perfect sense.

Posted by: pzph | July 15, 2008 9:31 AM

But, from what I have seen, he is also an extremely intelligent individual who owns up his mistakes and tries to right them.

So then why hasn't he simply removed the email addresses from his blog? That would pretty much immediately and permanently put a stop to the shenanigans and would be the simplest solution. All this post and his amendment to his post with the email addresses do is attempt to herd cats.

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 9:42 AM

@ 251,

you are what SvenDeMilo called the weird new crowd at the Grateful Dead concert,pzph,and you should go find a new playgroup mate.

Btw,I actually agree with you on this one thing,PZ should have removed those emails,or at least the headers,instead of putting disclaimers up.
Your interpretation of the thread? What I said at the beginning.

Posted by: Iggy | July 15, 2008 10:34 AM

[[It is most definitely not intended to incite harassment. I do not want you to be dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk. For one thing, we can't be certain that an innocent's account hasn't been hijacked; for another, we're supposed to be better than that.]]

You are? You gleefully desecrate someone else's religious object, like Antiochus Epiphanes sacrificing a pig on the Jewish altar, and you think you have a claim to be "better" than someone? You're an overgrown adolescent throwing a tantrum.

Of course, you also acknowledge more than you realize: you can't "desecrate" something unless it's sacred. You're need to hurt a host is an admission that it isn't "just a frackin' cracker."

Sad.

Grow up.

Posted by: Jack | July 15, 2008 10:58 AM

"It is most definitely not intended to incite harassment."

It isn't? Spare me. You don't publicly publish email addresses unless that's EXACTLY what you intend. OBVIOUSLY.

You just "wanted a public record"?

"I didn't know that if I printed emails people would actually send emails."

Yeah, right. Stop insulting my intelligence.

Posted by: Iggy | July 15, 2008 11:15 AM

"Iggy, no it's an admission that the reaction toward Cook (the Student in the original story) by the catholics was an overreaction, i.e. the assault and death threats."

Those people are assholes. So is PZ. That fact that one group behaves like idiots doesn't mean that there is no idiotic behavior in the other direction.

And yes - if it's "just a frackin cracker," you ignore it. Desecrating it is as much a claim as worshipping it is.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 15, 2008 11:34 AM

In return, PZ also received death threats, how xian of those catholics.

Yes, and unlike Mr. Cook, he hasn't even actually done anything yet. Now he's catching more heat for posting email addresses than are the people who sent the threats to him in the first place.

See anything wrong with that, anyone? Anyone? Stein?

The threats made against Mr. Cook are what started all this. Grow up? How about first getting honest about that, Iggy and your ilky? I haven't noticed you chirping about that. Why not? Do you advocate or condone violence against Mr. Cook or Dr. Myers? If so, why? If not, why haven't you vocally objected to the threats that have been made?

Frankly, I think Catholics ought to welcome a public desecration of the Host. That'll give God a chance to pull one of those "blood spurting from a cracker" miracles that were once so effective in infidel territories. Wouldn't that be a spectacular way to settle the question once and for all?

This is not to say that I advocate or even condone any such desecration. I suppose this shows my pro-Catholic bias, for I fully support the work of Danish cartoonists. I welcome all Catholics or other interested Christians to call me on my contemptible hypocrisy.

Posted by: J | July 15, 2008 11:39 AM

I suppose that my taking PZ to task for his blatant intellectual dishonesty and pathetic cherry picking of Obama's 2006 speech on religion, for which he threatened to ban me from the site (just before awarding me (and Mrs. Tilton) the Molly) was only a matter of being unpleasant. PZ was no better in that thread than you are ... most of the time, and yes I do get "unpleasant" about dishonesty.
Won't let that go, will you? But I remember the speech. It contained a dopey "respect all religions" mentality, which is understandably irritating to many atheists. It also contained some laudable parts, as was highlighted by a different video of the same speech in a later thread. Of course, the concept of having mixed feelings about something is far and away too subtle for your fanatical black-and-white mentality.

As far as I can tell, the modern meaning [of politically correct] is "not a racist/misogynist asshole".
Then about half of Britain must be racists and misogynists, given the ubiquity of the term here. You're talking nonsense, of course. It's trivially easy to furnish examples of excessive political correctness. For instance, two Glasgow firemen had to face disciplinary measures after they refused to attend a gay pride march. What about the punishment of firms that don't meet strict "diversity quotas"? And then there's the ongoing bent-over-backwards appeasement of Muslims, which was demonstrated well by the conferring of a knighthood to Iqbal Sacranie, a man who publicly remarked that Salman Rushdie deserves a fate worse than death.

You know you're guilty of diehard politically correctness, hence you don't want to accept that it exists. It's really that simple.

And as was shown in depth in a previous thread, you have no grasp of the range of political thought or of the meaning of terms such as "leftist" or "ultra-leftist". SC, for instance, is considerably to the left of me, and both of us are considerably to the left of many people at this site.
Well let's put it this way. I'm pro-choice, anti-Bush, anti-imperialism, anti-religion, pro-science, pro-welfare, and I'm in favour of gay marriage, free healthcare and education, etc., etc. I still think you're considerably to the left of me. The reason is that you go absolutely ballistic in response to anything which even slightly, even in some vague, ill-defined sense, appears to depart from leftist ideology.

Posted by: pzph | July 15, 2008 11:46 AM

I'm wondering exactly what PZ did intend by publishing those email addresses. I can see no other logical reason other than to incite intimidation and harassment.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 11:59 AM

I'm wondering exactly what PZ did intend by publishing those email addresses. - pzph

You could try reading what he wrote in the post concerned.

Posted by: J | July 15, 2008 12:08 PM

The point being made is that this is a term which was, quite deliberately, co-opted by the right as an all-purpose sneer that could be applied to anything they disagree with.
You use the term "racist" much in the same way. It's not my fault that the wingnuts (on both sides) abuse perfectly good words.

It was part of their job to attend, in order to hand out leaflets on fire safety.
Handing out leaflets in a gay pride march is really an essential part of a fireman's duties? What if these firemen were Muslims? Do you think they would be disciplined then?

What about the hysterical reaction to E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology. Don't you think that's a clear-cut example of excessive political correctness?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2008 12:15 PM

It is a pretty common occurrence in the UK for the fire service to attend events in order to get over the message on fire safety. I imagine that fire services up and down the UK have been, and will be, attending fêtes, caruvals, steam rallies vintage car rallies and all manner of other events over the summer. Why should gay pride events be any different ?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 12:22 PM

J@269. "Politically correct" was, as has been pointed out to you, originally a term used within the left to poke fun at the overly-solemn. It was then quite deliberately hijacked by the right. "Racist" has no such history. And to say I use "racist" as an all-purpose sneer can only, I think, be a deliberate lie. I challenge you to back up that claim with specific examples, or withdraw it and apologise.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 12:36 PM

Handing out leaflets in a gay pride march is really an essential part of a fireman's duties? What if these firemen were Muslims? - J
A large part of a firefighter's duties consist in educating the public on fire-safety issues. How the fuck should I know whether Muslim firemen would have been treated the same? They certainly should be if they refuse legitimate instructions.

What about the hysterical reaction to E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology. Don't you think that's a clear-cut example of excessive political correctness? - J
I've never read it, and don't recall exactly how hysterical the reaction was, so I can't judge this particular case. I might well condemn it as irrational and intolerant, but I would never use such a stupid term as "political correctness". since its highjacking by the right-wing media, it has no meaning whatever beyond "this is lefty and I don't like it".

Posted by: J | July 15, 2008 12:42 PM

since its highjacking by the right-wing media, it has no meaning whatever beyond "this is lefty and I don't like it".
Suffice to say, I disagree. I think it's a useful term. Admittedly it's sometimes used too freely, but then so are many words, "racist" being one of them.

I really don't care about its etymology. I can't see how that's relevant.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 12:47 PM

J,

Even if I was wrong about you being a racist (and I only have your word, on which I do not place a great deal of reliance, for that), I used the term to mean "racist", not as an all-purpose sneer. Your tu quoque claim therefore falls.

Posted by: J | July 15, 2008 12:56 PM

Even if I was wrong about you being a racist (and I only have your word, on which I do not place a great deal of reliance, for that), I used the term to mean "racist", not as an all-purpose sneer. Your tu quoque claim therefore falls.
"Politically correct" can't be used to mean "magic space lobster", so it's clearly not "all-purpose". It's not even an all-purpose put-down, as it doesn't mean the same as, say, "charlatan".

I assumed by "all-purpose" you were exaggerating for effect and really meant "widely-encompassing". Which is exactly how you use the word racist.

This is wearing me down, and Truth Machine hasn't even rejoined the party line yet. The members of the ragtag mob I'm being assailed by are exactly the people I referred to in my first post (#18).

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 12:57 PM

At bottom, you're no better than the fundamentalists you persistently ridicule.

Listen, could we work out a symbol or something for you to use in lieu of this tired-ass remark? Just like the fundies, just like the fundies... I'm sure we'd all get along better if you could just put a mark in your signature for that phrase. That way, you get your rocks off spouting talking points, and we don't have to read that intellectually vacant bullshit every time you decide to play around at argumentation and try to make a coherent point.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 12:59 PM

J,
you have not established any instance in which I used "racist" to mean anything other than "racist".

The members of the ragtag mob I'm being assailed by are exactly the people I referred to in my first post - J

Oh shut your whining, please.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 1:12 PM

They also often say things like "I am not a racist but ....".
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2008 1:06 PM

You mean they say things like "I'm not a racist, but I do hate me some Muslims...and its not the same thing!" Intellectual dishonesty at its finest, indeed.

Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | July 15, 2008 1:23 PM

At bottom, you're no better than the fundamentalists you persistently ridicule.

Posted by: J | July 15, 2008 12:46 PM

Really?. While many people here may dislike fundamentalists they don't act violently or encourage anyone else to commit acts of violence against fundamentalists. While many people here may dislike fundamentalists, they're at least willing to be open-minded and debate the issues. The problem is fundamentalists consistently back down and cry "persecution!" when their beliefs are challenged. And, backed into a corner, they claim that it's okay to threaten, intimidate, and even kill people who disagree with them because, you know, just because they think the Ten Commandments should be posted everywhere doesn't mean they expect to actually abide by them.
In an earlier comment I tried to make the point that PZ has called for civility. He's even considered changing his policies. Donohue and his supporters have made threats. Yeah, I think I have a pretty good idea who really is the better person.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2008 1:32 PM

Naturally, I didn't say that.

No, what you said was the logical equivalence.

You haven't a fucking clue what words mean, do you?

Glad you're done.

Bye, whiner.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 1:33 PM

OK, that's really my last post. - J

[Loud cheers, prolonged and stormy applause.]

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 15, 2008 1:38 PM

You mean they say things like "I'm not a racist, but I do hate me some Muslims...and its not the same thing!" Intellectual dishonesty at its finest, indeed

Let's be sure that we differentiate between hating Catholics and hating Catholicism or hating Muslims and Hating Islam.

There is a difference.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2008 1:41 PM

"You mean they say things like "I'm not a racist, but I do hate me some Muslims...and its not the same thing!" Intellectual dishonesty at its finest, indeed."

Brownian,

I can see you have met such people as well!

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2008 1:52 PM

"Let's be sure that we differentiate between hating Catholics and hating Catholicism or hating Muslims and Hating Islam.

There is a difference."

Yes there is a difference.

In the UK anti-Muslim rhetoric is often a cove for racist rhetoric. Most Muslims in the UK come from the Indian sub-continent, and the likes of the BNP and the right-wing of the Conservatives have taken to talking of Islam rather than race when making it clear they do not like the idea of such people being full and active citizens of the UK.

The tactics of the likes of the BNP means those of us who object to religion in general need to be careful when it comes to criticising Islam. It does not mean we need to avoid such criticism though. One way we can differentiate between ourselves and the racists is to make it clear we disapprove strongly of discrimination against all groups. Another is to make sure we are as outspoken against the stupidity of other religions. I am quite clear that I object to the misogynists in the C of E who object to female bishops, or the ordination of gays as I am of those Muslims who want to introduce sharia law into the UK.

Posted by: kmerian | July 15, 2008 1:59 PM

It appears that some have gone from threats to actual crimes:
http://www.caller.com/news/2008/jul/15/eucharist-taken-cathedral-tabernacle/

Say what you will about Catholics, this is getting out of hand. Dr. Myers, the time has come to retract your request and put an end to this. It needs to stop, NOW.

Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | July 15, 2008 2:05 PM

While many people here may dislike fundamentalists, they're at least willing to be open-minded and debate the issues.
Oh yes, we've seen lots of open-minded, reasonable and civil debate in this thread.

OK, that's really my last post.

Posted by: J | July 15, 2008 1:24 PM

That's probably just as well since you never took an actual position or tried to debate. You just made snarky comments which pretty well proved my point. Like the fundamentalists you defend you expect everyone to just accept your word as law without actually providing a reason to do so.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2008 2:10 PM

I thought the definition of fundamentalist was they that did not allow debate over those beliefs they hold to be fundamental. Thus a biblical fundamentalist holds that the bible is the literal word of god, and will not entertain the possibility that it could be the work of men many years after the events described writing down their own interpretation of the tales that were handed down to them and thus, whilst aiming towards the truth, might not actually be a true account of events.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2008 2:41 PM

Matt Penfold, indeed I have, but brokenSoldier wrote that very excellent description, not I.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2008 2:46 PM

kmerican, others have pointed out that we don't know whether then theft has anything to do with PZ or not, so I won't belabour the point.

Nonetheless, I'd like to state for the record that there is no justification for the theft, and I hope the perpetrators are caught and punished according to the law (also, that I am thirty-two flavours and then some.)

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2008 3:11 PM

I don't know if it's the subject matter or the fact that I can't stand country music but does this song truly suck?

Yes.

Posted by: frog | July 15, 2008 3:16 PM

I've been thinking about this Eucharist thingamagig (Yeah, thinking!).

Now, it's fairly clear that the entire Christian mythos is a re-enactment of the Jewish sacred calendar, particularly passover --- a kind of "Passover for dummies" version for the semi-literate hellenized diaspora Jews of the Roman empire in the face of the destruction of the Temple.

One would therefore expect that in its "essence" (joke), the myth would be thoroughly Jewish -- and it is, except for this blood thing. Kosher, and all Jewish rituals, are expressly and adamantly opposed to drinking blood in any form -- it is ritually unclean. Drinking blood is expressly banned by the ritual decalogue.

So how the hell does a Jewish prophet ask folks, even symbolically, to drink his blood? It would be as if Josh had asked the apostles to eat a kid and goat cheese sandwich in remembrance of him --- obviously absurd.

Was there a Canaanite/Phoenician blood drinking ceremony in opposition to the mainline of Jewish tradition? Was there any period where the Eucharist was controversial in the early Christian community? Or is there something missing about this entire mythology?

Posted by: Duncan | July 15, 2008 5:03 PM

One of the commenters at the theft article blames satan worshippers. I guess we're safe for now!

And just so people realize, those crackers haven't yet gone through their magical transubstantiation, so they're no different from any other box you can buy from a church supply house (or a box of Ritz). It's only after someone called a 'priest' performs some incantations that they become all Jesusy with a hint of the divine.

Posted by: IceFarmer | July 15, 2008 5:28 PM

I love how outlandish and unsubstantiated some of the claims are! Was it stolen by Satanists? As a prank? By some cruel atheist? Was PZ involved? Was is some poor homeless dude that was hungry? Could it be the result of all the recent media attention? Who the fuck knows? If they ever catch the guy we may find out. Seeing that they hadn't "become" the body of Christ yet (I can't believe I just typed that, it's a symbol people, holy crap...)there are usually a lot of other items inside a Catholic church of an expensive guilded nature that could have been removed and not so easily replaced. All we know about the second incident is that some went missing. Let's lay off the finger pointing and ASSumptions.

Glad to know that the priciples of gathering facts in evidence before passing judgement are alive and well in Western free nations.

Posted by: Duncan | July 15, 2008 5:33 PM

(Yeah, I know, hungry trolls and all that...)

"I guess my next question is, when your time comes (and you know it is coming soon, God willing), to whom are you going to pray?"

I don't know. Which god will you choose? Please show your work.

Posted by: IceFarmer | July 15, 2008 5:45 PM

Duncan,

I think we'd have to proceed via a process of elimination to get the best results. My first set of eliminations would be foodcentric. I love to eat all manner of different and interesting things and I've enjoyed things I thought I wouldn't in my travels.

There tend to be too many food restrictions for my liking in Judaism, Christianity and Islam so I may need to pass there.

I definitely couldn't pray to Buddha. NO WAY, never. Any dude that can fast under a tree for forty years is definitely diametric to my gastronomic inclinations.

I think FSM wins this category but I need to do more research.

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 15, 2008 6:25 PM

"I'm an ex-Catholic, now a Muslim. If you go ahead with what you're planning, I do hope someone slots you. You will have deserved it. Roaches such as yourself deserve to be squashed."

This would be that peace and submission I've heard so much about, right?

"You do realise, of course, that your prank is making people laugh at you?"

THEY'RE ALL GONNA LAUGH AT YOU! Not really.

"But for the most part people are just shaking their head and telling one another that you should increase your medication dosage."

The amount of pants-wetting we've seen around here lately tells otherwise. Just a couple comments ago, you yourself were all rage and bluster. You're just changing your tune now that you've seen how unimpressed we are.

Posted by: IceFarmer | July 15, 2008 6:27 PM

William,

Who here has been a part of this prank? None have admitted to it though many have commented. I think you may be hard pressed to find the culprit of this prank here. Perhaps you should reference my previous posts. In general, we could all use a little more laughter.

As for your repeated calls for the Lord to end our existence, I will accept the "Lord's judgement" should it mysteriously come when/if/if never it comes. I'm a secular humanist agnostic (quite a mouthful I konw) so if God exists in the form and manor as you claim to believe, I will be judged on the quality of life I've lead and not by your judgement. I don't think your God would hate me, and others like me, as you claim. The quality of life lead is more important and mine for one, contains common sense, open mindedness, logic and above all, a large dose of humor. If I believed in God as you do, my God would be less fire and brimstone ready to take my soul.

Happily, your seeming interpretation of God is not what I share or would ever desire to. As an agnostic, I think that your interpretation of God is misguided and hypocritical as seen by your repeated damnations against many posters here. Is you God not supposed to be our judge? When did she/he appoint you to judge others in his stead? Look at your own life. If posting here disheartens you, don't come here, your God gave you the power of choice. Save your judgements for yourself and see where you sit in your own eyes, then ask yourself if you own introspection is true. All the best to you.

Posted by: IceFarmer | July 15, 2008 6:34 PM

Ooooooo, I never thought of Odin and the crew. What do Vikings eat? The hammer and lightning thing could be a deal breaker anyway but I'm willing to explore all options.

Posted by: True Bob | July 15, 2008 7:01 PM

IceFarmer, I think the Vikings ate all sorts of nasty salted fish.

Villy, you should be worshiping Thor at least. He's going to save the world in the final struggle between good and evil, although he will die in the act, and HE won't come back. Now there's a guy willing to make a real sacrifice. Not like some three day layabout zombie.

Oh yeah, and Villy? Pray off!

Posted by: True Bob | July 15, 2008 7:18 PM

frog, I think you meant me, but I also think BillyBob was a moniker assigned to Villy (William Lotsalettershere fromer christer current muslim).

And I thought they more settled Iceland, and cut down all the trees to build churches.

Posted by: windy | July 15, 2008 7:42 PM

Well, according to Diamond in Collapse of Civilizations, the Vikings problem was that they wouldn't eat the nasty fish --- they insisted on bovine and bread, and so they failed in Greenland when the climate turned, even though the Eskimos faired well.

That was an interesting suggestion, but it turns out that stable isotope ratios in Viking bones don't support it:

The diet of the first settlers consisted of 80% agricultural products and 20% food from the surrounding sea. But seafood played an increasing role, such that the pattern was completely turned around towards the end of the period--from the 1300's the Greenland Norse had 50-80% of their diet from the marine food chain. In simplified terms: they started out as farmers but ended up as hunters/fishers. Some archeologists have claimed that the Greenland Norsemen succumbed because they--being culturally inflexible--either could not or would not adapt to changing conditions and therefore came to a catastrophic end, triggered by deteriorating climate. This hypothesis may now be refuted.

Posted by: Dlux | July 15, 2008 7:54 PM

"I'm an ex-Catholic, now a Muslim."

You do realize that you've used up all your religion-changing credits now. Once you've gone Muslim there's no backing out. Hope you like raisins.

"For my part, I would like to know, when your last moment finally comes (and it is coming soon, God willing, if only to put you out of your misery), from whom will you ask for mercy?"

Mercy?!? Mercey is for little babies. I want to see God's Pant-Bulging Wrath! Come on, God, or Allah, or whatever you're going by this millenium, STRIKE ME DOWN, YOU PANSY!!!

There, William - if I come back to post again tomorrow then your god is even weaker and more useless than most of us thought. What do you think of that?

PS: http://mwillett.org/atheism/Smitecam_IV.htm

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2008 8:05 PM

William, in order to save you a little misery, I suggest you stop trying to buffalo us with lame stupidity.

We've survived centuries of your totalitarian tyrannies of idiocy; we'll survive this one, no matter how dumb you make yourself.

May you hear the Dhamma and free yourself from the Cycle of Rebirth.

Posted by: kmerian | July 15, 2008 9:05 PM

The Eucharists that were stolen were stolen from the tabernacle, so yes, they had already been consecrated. The unblessed ones are usually in a cabinet in the side room off of the altar.

Posted by: Dlux | July 15, 2008 9:43 PM

"The Eucharists that were stolen were stolen from the tabernacle, so yes, they had already been consecrated."

You sure about that? I thought they had to be blessed and mumbled over by a priest as part of the mass ceremony before they took on that meaty Jesus flavor. So some priest left Our Savior unprotected while attending other matters?!? Shouldn't that deserve a lightning bolt or two?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2008 9:46 PM

I'm pretty sure kmerian is right. The host kept in the tabernacle has already been consecrated. The priest doesn't do it during the mass, he does it beforehand.

Posted by: frog | July 15, 2008 9:57 PM

SH: #3 The big thing is that a widely-accepted practice (animal sacrifice) in many cultures (not just among the Jews) was essentially reworked into a symbol (the Lamb of God). Read for a discussion of what this entailed for early Christians.

Well, yes animal sacrifice was pan-Mediteranean, but the symbol of the lamb as the sacrifice, particularly of the "first-born", is emblematically Jewish, and central to the Passover. It's not a Hellenistic innovation, but at most a Hellenistic rework of a Jewish motif.

I'm curious because the answer to this question would really go to the root of Christian origins. If it's a surviving marginal ritual associated with the less-than-orthodox Jews (semites -- whatever you'd want to call them), then Christianity comes from an internal opposition to Priestly Judaism, one outside the historical record. Possible but surprising -- it indicates that things were even more complicated than we already know they were.

On the other hand, if the central ritual of Christianity came from outside Judaism later in the first century, then basically Christianity has nothing to do with the ideology of the original Christians. Less surprising than the first.

Finally, if the Eucharist is actually the central innovation of the early Christians but opposed to all earlier Jewish thinking, then who the hell were these people? What could their ideology have been? Some esoteric reversal of meaning? It wouldn't fit with any model I've seen of early Christian development. It would indicate some essential missing scholarship.

In any case, it would seem that mainstream understanding of Christian origins is outright wrong if it doesn't address the issue of why the central Christian ritual is not just not very Jewish, but actually repulsive to Judaism, while the rest of the symbology is essentially Judaism translated into Greek.

Posted by: Dlux | July 15, 2008 10:01 PM

I haven't been to mass in decades. Last I remember, the preist sets up his cup and wafers and little flask of wine, waves his hands some and then slugs down a quick pop before facing the unwashed. Isn't *that* when the magic happens? Or does he perform some sort of bulk transubstantiation at the beginning of the week and puts the lil' Jesus snacks into storage? That hardly sounds like the sort of reverent ritual worth dying over.

Don't the Bodies of Christ start to decay or anything while they're sitting there at room temperature?

Posted by: Dlux | July 15, 2008 10:23 PM

Ok, I'm kind of fascinated with this now. One last comment for today (before God/Allah/Cthulhu strikes me down) - has Bill Donahue sent his flying monkeys after Jack Chick? Can we get the two of them into a cage match? Because it's unlikely that PZ can outdo the master when it comes to bashing catholicism:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 10:46 PM

Brownian & kmerian,

As a cradle Catholic myself, though now very much an atheist, I still have my catechism instruction buried in my head (as much as I've tried to free up some much needed space on the old hard drive, childhood indoctrination is a terribly difficult thing to erase). And as I remember, and as has been noted in comments earlier on this thread, the reality of transubstantiation is dependent on the faith of the individual taking communion. Catholics may rail on and on about how only those Catholics that are "in good standing" may take communion, but the simple truth is that once you take your first communion, and you continue going to Mass, there is no questionnaire at the door to the services to weed out the ones not in good standing. Like so many of the other rituals in Catholicism, it is expected of Catholics to rise and take communion, and I did so many times without actually believing that I was consuming the flesh and blood of Jesus. I took a more rational, symbolic approach to it, and viewed the ceremony of a recreation of the Last Supper, and held it with reverence and respect. But Catholic doctrine clearly states that if the person handling the host does not have true faith that it has transubstantiated following the priest's consecration, then the "presence of God" is not there. A very well respected priest in my church in Jackson, TN counseled me on my doubts about faith, of which transubstantiation was a major aspect. I, at 15 years of age, was worried that if I consumed the wafer without believing it was actually the body of Jesus then I was committing a grave sin. He assured me, citing the same source as was cited in an earlier post here, that the key element is faith in the process, and absent that, whomever is handling the wafer, consecrated or not, is not in the presence of God.

So, to me, this boils down to two possibilities:

1) The Catholics calling for harsh action to be taken against Mr. Cook and PZ are doing so out of a critical misunderstanding of their own doctrine, OR

2) They are doing so in full knowledge of their doctrine in order to manufacture a situation in which they are the ones being persecuted. And they will inevitably use that contrived persecution as a platform to inject their own specific religious agenda into the framework of our government.

In the first case, they are grossly misinformed, which wouldn't be bad except for the fact that their misinformation in this case has led to their commission of criminal acts (death threats) in defense of a doctrine they do not understand.

In the second case, they are simply acting along with the institutional status quo of the Catholic Church. Exaggerated indignation is a useful tool for guilting society into unduly respecting your assertions - a tool perfected over the last 2000 years by that very same church.

So whether the wafers were consecrated or not, it shouldn't matter to a Catholic truly versed in their own church's teachings on the sppecific subject of transubstantiation. And besides, if it is such an offense to God, let him deal with it if that time ever comes.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 16, 2008 1:03 AM

Wait. Isn't that what I inferred with a long, drawn-out, logical syllogism, only to be told that it was "flawed"?

It indeed is, and yours was the comment I was referencing by mentioning the prior comment that made the same point, and more thoroughly. It was well stated one, though in retrospect I probably should have at least thrown your name and the comment number in there.

And as to the "flawed" remark, I translated it from fundie-speak into english, and it reads:

Fundie:
"Your argument is flawed, and it would be a waste of time to try to explain to you"

Translation:
"You have left me with no rational basis for my arguments, so therefore I'm feigning both intelligence and understanding, coupled with a oh-so-typical smattering of condescension to hide the fact that I cannot admit I may be wrong."

Posted by: Joe Max | July 16, 2008 2:39 AM

I don't know if it's been mentioned on any of the previous threads, but PC World reports that Melenie Kroll has been fired.

Posted by: Uriel | July 16, 2008 3:44 AM

I don't know if it's been mentioned on any of the previous threads, but PC World reports that Melenie Kroll has been fired.

Thank PZ that there is absolutely no question about the righteousness of this action! Clearly, the path of progress is now that much clearer without the dastardly influence of mkroll's taint on the domain of 1800flowers!At last, children can breath free, lovers can dream, and the elderly can rest assured that the future they pass on is clean and pure...

And hey, even if it was a mistake- NO BIG DEAL!!! Because she probably deserved it anyways! And PZ posted a disclaimer! So, even if it turns out melanie was nothing more than the victim of sloppy work habbits and the blind idolatry of an internet mob... It's not PZ's fault! In fact, it's a grand victory for one and all!

Cause he washed his hands!!!!! And there's lots of disagreement here! And in the end, the important thing is PZ kept _his_ job! Huzzah! And presumption of innocence be damned!

Everyone involved should be very, very proud! Especially PZ! Righteousness is ours!!!

Now give me a couple of seconds to unroll my eyes- they seem to become unavoidably stuck due to excessive involuntary activity...

Posted by: uriel | July 16, 2008 3:58 AM

Wait- screwed that up- I read misread your second sentence as a mirror of your first. For the record, the question I thought I was responding to was:

Do you think that assigning a cracker more value than a guy is also a faith-based position?

The way you phrased it seems like a fairly reasonable conclusion.

Posted by: reuben | July 16, 2008 4:08 AM

Posted by: Uriel | July 16, 2008 3:44 AM
Well, let's all raise our glasses in a toast to the rise of rationality and free-thinking!! Kuddos one and all!... and on and on etc etc etc ...Everyone involved should be very, very proud! Especially PZ! Righteousness is ours!!!

Well, thanks for the lovely sentiments Uriel, but I don't see anyone here rejoicing in the fact that Ms. Kroll lost her job.

Posted by: Damian | July 16, 2008 4:27 AM

Just in case others miss this, and as an opportunity to test out my new HTML skills:

Woman Fired Over Death Threat Sent From Work E-mail

"An employee of 1-800-Flowers.com has been fired after an e-mailed death threat was linked to her account.

The crudely worded e-mail was sent Sunday to Paul "PZ" Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris, who is known for his criticism of religion and creationism. It was one of several hostile messages he had received following a controversial July 8 blog posting. The address on the e-mail showed that it came from Melanie Kroll at 1-800-Flowers.com, an online floral delivery service.

The note gave Myers until the first of the month to resign from his position at the University. "You have two choices," the e-mail read. "[Y]ou can quit your job for the good of the children. Or you can get your brains beat in."

On Monday, Kroll send Myers a confusing e-mail, explaining that while the threat was sent from her computer, but that she didn't write it. "It seems an e-mail went out from my work account," she wrote in an e-mail message obtained by IDG News. "I apologize and will look into the issue."

She said that her work e-mail was set as the default address on her computer and that is why the it appeared to come from her, adding that the threat was "empty" because "the people who could have used my PC are harmless."

After an internal investigation, the Internet retailer decided to terminate Kroll's position, according to Steven Jarmon, the company's vice president of brand communications. "All 1-800-Flowers.com associates are instructed that any misuse of company systems or equipment for personal purposes is potential grounds for dismissal," he wrote in an e-mail.

Kroll did not respond to an e-mailed request seeking comment for this story.

Myers, a self-described "rabid new atheist," had been getting hate mail after blogging in support of University of Central Florida student Webster Cook, [cq] who is facing suspension after removing a communion wafer from a Mass held on-campus. Once blessed, these Eucharist wafers must be consumed immediately and Church leaders have said that Cook's actions were offensive.

In the post, Myers wrote that the Eucharist wafer, which for Catholics is the transubstantiated body of Christ, was "just a cracker."

After being inundated with threatening e-mail, he decided to start posting full technical details of the messages, including the IP addresses of the mail servers involved. Although the sender address in e-mail messages can be spoofed, the IP address showed that Kroll's mail came from a mail server on 1-800-Flowers.com's network.

Myers did not take any satisfaction in Kroll's dismissal. "This was not my intent to get somebody fired," he said. "She apparently did something stupid which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message."

Posted by: uriel | July 16, 2008 4:39 AM

Well, thanks for the lovely sentiments Uriel, but I don't see anyone here rejoicing in the fact that Ms. Kroll lost her job.

Of course not, now that it actually happened. Now that it's actually real.

Now look up thread, and in the previous one, and tell me how many people felt fully justified in engaging in all sorts of crrrraaaazzzy behaviors. Try searching for "gay porn."

Or don't. It's human nature not to be particularly fond of self examination....

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 4:48 AM

Won't let that go, will you? But I remember the speech.

Typical J(eremy?) dishonesty. Here was the context:

J(eremy?): The only reason he seems to disagree with the consensus is that he's an extremely unpleasant person.

TM: I suppose that my taking PZ to task ... was only a matter of being unpleasant.

Obama's speech wasn't the subject, J(eremy?)'s claim was.

That's why people here dislike you J(eremy?); it's not because of some secular dogma they all share, but because you're a fundamentally dishonest person.

Posted by: uriel | July 16, 2008 4:50 AM

Did it occur to you to simply write "I think PZ is to blame for everything"?

It's every bit as stupid, but much shorter and pithier.

Sure, it occurred to me. But why leave out the efforts of all the multitudes of supporters/enablers? Why slight the cheerleaders and the chorus? Not to mention the tireless efforts of the apologists?

Come on, man- it was a group effort! Everyone involved deserves equal credit!

I mean, you don't really think she got fired over _one_ email do you?

BTW- since you're so smart, just thought I'd ask- how would you pick up the pieces if you were mkroll? I'm sure she's in the market for pithy and short bits of advice.... And since she actually happens to be a _real_human_being_, as opposed to some internet abstraction, its the least she deserves. Think of it as a community project- kinda like getting her fired was.

Posted by: uriel | July 16, 2008 4:55 AM

Sorry about the botched tags, TM. For the record, My responce was:

And what would those be, TM? Since you seem to speak so authoritatively on the subject?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 5:01 AM

And what would those be, TM?

They would be any of the other facts, just as I said, moron. My statement wasn't addressed to you, it was to John Morales and others who aren't so stupid and blind.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 5:07 AM

Everyone involved deserves equal credit!

I never sent any emails or made any phone calls, nor encouraged anyone else to do so, and the same is true of the majority of posters here, many of whom actively discouraged such actions, contrary to your "In fact, it's a grand victory for one and all!" So, you're a stupid fucking piece of shit lying asshole troll, and are achieving nothing other than to make that view universal.

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 16, 2008 5:11 AM

Uriel said:

I mean, you don't really think she got fired over _one_ email do you?

Well, I don't know how they do things at your place of work Uriel, but if it was brought to my employers attention that a death threat had been sent via my work email address from someone sitting at my workstation they might well take a pretty dim view of my continued employment with them. As, frankly, would any responsible company who wished to retain a decent corporate reputation.

Ms Kroll got fired because 1-800-Flowers did not want an employee whose negligence allowed a death threat to be sent via the company email system (if she is telling the truth and didn't send the email) or because they did not want an employee who sends death threats on company time (if she is lying). The pharyngulites did not send that email, nor are they responsible for 1-800-Flowers decision, taken as it was after an internal investigation of this matter, therefore they are not responsible for her getting fired.