…and this is a 
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy doesn't like me
Category: Chatter
Posted on: July 30, 2008 9:16 AM, by PZ Myers
An organization of the Catholic leadership has now condemned my actions. This is sad news: it's clear that at least this tier of the Catholic hierarchy is as deranged as the wackaloons flooding my mailbox.
We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.
Hmmm. Who is the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy to decide the limits of freedom? Flagrant irreverence towards a cracker ought to be fair game, I should think…and that's all this action was: irreverence. You cannot demand that all members of a pluralist society be reverent towards any random humdrum article that a guy in a dress declares holy.
The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation's constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few.
Man, that is a tired old argument — usually you see that fine-grained parsing of the words of the bill of rights from right-wing sources, trying to distort the meaning. Do they really think a bunch of high-minded Enlightenment dudes dedicated to the principle of liberty were thinking, "We need a clause here that could be used to compel people to be a member of a church—we'll just give them the freedom to choose which church they'll be forced to join"? That's insane. I am free of religion. I am free to make that choice, just as everyone is free to choose to be Catholic.
And my personal choice not to believe in the silliness of religion is not an infringement on the rights of any religion.
The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.
This is the funniest statement in the whole declaration.
Freedom of speech means I do have the right to malign and make fun of any religion I want. I can't interfere with your right to practice your religion, but that hasn't happened — all I've done is laugh at you.
That last clause, though…do they seriously believe that only Catholics are allowed to criticize Catholics, and that this restriction is enshrined in the constitution? That's a fine catch, that catch-22. So only Catholics can malign the faith, but if they do, then they can be kicked out of the faith, which means they can't criticize it anymore. That sounds like a ripe piece of theological logic to me.
The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor. One fails to see the relevance of the desecration of a Catholic sacrament to the science of Biology. Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom. Yet, for a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.
Ummm, I don't discuss religion in the classroom. I teach biology. My 'desecration' was performed at home, on my own time. There's nothing ironic about the fact that I'm a biologist, nor did I claim my profession gave me special qualifications to see through the foolishness of faith. Go ahead, any of you can do it — you don't need to be a theologian to see that it is just a cracker.
A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach. Tolerating such behavior by university officials is equally repugnant as it lends credibility to the act of religious hatred. We also pray that Professor Myers contritely repent and apologize.
Wait, what? This is another attempt to shield a ridiculous religion, by declaring that members of certain professions are not allowed to criticize — that only Catholic theologians are permitted to rebuke the absurdities in their faith.
As for the idea that I'm supposed to be teaching biology 24-7…what, I can't have a hobby? I can tell you that when I try to tell my wife late evening on Wednesday night that I can't take out the trash because I'm too busy teaching biology, well, that excuse won't fly very far.
I am not contrite, I will not repent, and I'm certainly not going to apologize for tossing a cracker in the garbage. All the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy will get from me is laughter.
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2008 9:25 AM
You do not have the right to not be offended.
This is one of the dumber press releases I've ever read from anyone.
I'm including Britney Spears and her ilk as well.
Posted by: Alex | July 30, 2008 9:29 AM
But... but we feel stupid when you laugh at us! :(
Posted by: Chuck C | July 30, 2008 9:29 AM
And by logical extension, Catholic priests are not allowed to discuss the weather, because they're not meteorologists.
Posted by: Renee | July 30, 2008 9:30 AM
When people demand apologies for something stupid, I like to respond 'All right, I'm sorry that you're an idiot.'
What, that's not what they meant?
Posted by: Shaden Freud | July 30, 2008 9:31 AM
A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion....
CCC up in this mothafucka!
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 30, 2008 9:32 AM
Browbeating for dummies. Funny. I tell my students to get Human Anatomy & Physiology for Dummies before taking the entrance exam to my programs. Maybe we could have a Press Release for Dummies and have Amazon give the Catholics 25% off.
Posted by: Rev. BigDUmbCHimp | July 30, 2008 9:32 AM
PZ is Scienceblogs having server issues this morning?
Posted by: Kel | July 30, 2008 9:32 AM
You didn't even need to provide them with a shovel. They are digging a hole with the hands faster than a burrowing wombat!
Posted by: Woozle | July 30, 2008 9:34 AM
Right. They've fired the opening shot; I propose that our response should be to make this an annual event, tentatively entitled International Dogma Rejection Day (or International Symbolism Repudiation Day, or...).
On that day, all participants will perform some act which demonstrates their rejection of the value of some symbol, dogma, or article of faith -- perhaps while affirming the importance of the thing it is supposed to represent (in some cases, you may have to stretch quite a bit to find something).
Basic ground rules: nothing illegal or dangerous; common sense should be followed. The target is rules that are solely based on dogma, because they are obviously in desperate need of some smackdown.
Using wafer destruction as the example (and it need not be religious; stomping on flags or the sacred images of our cephalopod overlords would be fine too -- whatever sacred cows have ticked you off lately), the participant would then go and write a blog entry celebrating whatever it is that the wafers stand for, which would be... uhh.... well, they're supposed to be Jesus's body turned into bread, so... fast food? Cannibalism? Self-sacrifice? The fact that the answer to this question isn't more obvious just shows how meaningless and pointless the symbolism is.
By this act of senseless destruction plus writing, we would actually be making a contribution to understanding the meaning behind the symbol -- much more of a contribution to understanding than mindless following of a ritual could ever be.
Posted by: Lee Picton | July 30, 2008 9:34 AM
Logic is not their strong suit, is it?
Posted by: clinteas | July 30, 2008 9:34 AM
"Confraternity of Catholic Clergy"
Invokes images of juicy altarboys being fair game,that name does,not that I had ever heard of them before....
But here's the good stuff:
//A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach. Tolerating such behavior by university officials is equally repugnant as it lends credibility to the act of religious hatred. We also pray that Professor Myers contritely repent and apologize.//
As in,a cricket player/novelist/teacher/plumber/waiter has no business dissing any religion?
This so nicely shows their understanding of freedom of speech,doesnt it !
Oh,PZ,dont ever delete any of the cracker threads,they are evidence for all eternity of catholic bigotry and dumbassness.
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 30, 2008 9:35 AM
Much like the creationist arguments we are all far more familiar with, the enraged Catholics are beginning to fall into the fine art of repeating refuted points, but louder:
A biology professor shouldn't do this! It's unprofessional!
It was on his personal blog on his personal time.
A biology professor shouldn't do this!!! It's unprofessional!!!
The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion!
No, here are some links to what the founding fathers actually wrote. Freedom of religion is worthless without freedom from religion.
The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion!!!
The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition!
No, it means we can't physically interfere with your own religious choices. We can make fun all we want. Freedom of speech, beeyatches.
The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition!!!
And so on.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | July 30, 2008 9:36 AM
The tired rantings of Catholics aside (Rreally, can they still truly be going on about this?) I really want that picture on a shirt. I will buy it and wear it proudly.
As for the rantings...
It seems to have become common place in this country for the Christian conservative side of American politics to both wave the flag of free speech while at the same time shitting on it. They must have all the free speech they can get to keep from being persecuted for their beliefs, but the moment someone doesn't agree, then there need to be limits. Of course these limits must be one sided, the religious can still cross them, just not the godless heathens.
Posted by: Thethyme | July 30, 2008 9:37 AM
I hope at some point the Vatican will comment on this BS. You certainly attracked the Catholic flea organizations... You're really on to something here with all this hysteria of a bland ritz.
Posted by: Robert | July 30, 2008 9:37 AM
Ok, before this, I kinda thought the whole cracker desecration thing was just a bit too far. I thought that it was mean to intentionally desecrate something someone holds so sacred regardless of how utterly retarded those reasons were (well kinda, I guess I really just don't like rilling people up). But declaring that freedom of religion means no one has the right ot attack them? Now I am fucking pissed. This makes me completly support everything you have done, and makes me want to stage some kind of desecration of my own.
I am not beholden to their goddamn lunacy, and I certainly don't have to respect and tolerate idiocy and stupidity.
Posted by: another | July 30, 2008 9:38 AM
What's a Con Fraternity to do once people start seeing through the con?
Posted by: cls | July 30, 2008 9:38 AM
I needed a good giggle, I've been doing the graphic design for the annual financial report for a certain mega church all week.
Don't worry, they will stop praying for you soon, the new trailer for the next Harry Potter film just got released and they have bigger fish to fry.
Posted by: Zeno | July 30, 2008 9:39 AM
Well, at least they put "dissing" in quotes. I have to give them points for that.
As for the rest ... if biologists shouldn't talk about religion, should priests be trying their hands at marriage counseling? They have no personal experience of the marital state, except in the rare cases where clerics are widowers who went into the priesthood after losing their spouses (e.g., England's Cardinal Manning, who considered his wife's death "God's special mercy," since it allowed him to become a priest).
Posted by: mk | July 30, 2008 9:39 AM
And just when you thought the thousand comments per thread days were over! Heh-heh. ;^}
Posted by: MaryLupin | July 30, 2008 9:40 AM
Citing the idea of freedom of religion notions of the American founding fathers was pretty funny since, in part, it was envisaged as freedom from the oppression of high Anglicans and Catholics.
Posted by: daedalus2u | July 30, 2008 9:40 AM
Boy, they sure have a lot of gall, criticizing an atheist when they are not atheists themselves.
Another thing, that Koran you desecrated wasn't a "real" Koran. Only a Koran that is written in Arabic is "real". Everything else is just some translator's interpretation.
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 30, 2008 9:44 AM
"Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper."
ohhhhhh, they do not want to go there.
Both of their analogies depend upon truth-claims, and if the truth-claim of "this cracker is the transubstantiated flesh of out messiah" ever has to go head to head with "It's just a fracking cracker", say in a court of law, well, guess which truth-claim will come out looking like a fraud?
Posted by: Hank Fox | July 30, 2008 9:46 AM
PZ, their site calls for "reparation." I'm guessing you're expected either to send them a nickel for the cracker you desecrated, or else bring a tenth of an ounce of Jesus back to life.
Speaking of reparations, I'd like the Catholic Church to pony up too. I want the Dark Ages fixed. Maybe they can also do something about Pat Robertson.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | July 30, 2008 9:46 AM
As a practising Hindu, I consider cows to be sacred.
I hereby demand all Catholics stop killing and eating cattle.
For you see, the establishment clause provided freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion...
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | July 30, 2008 9:46 AM
Chuck @ #3:
More to the point, doesn't that mean that the spokespeople for the CCC aren't allowed to comment on PZ's teaching style, since they're not educators?
Posted by: Lago | July 30, 2008 9:47 AM
This is all Canada's fault
Posted by: Interrobang | July 30, 2008 9:47 AM
I thought that it was mean to intentionally desecrate something someone holds so sacred regardless of how utterly retarded those reasons were
You mean, more mean than issuing death threats after PZ's hyperbolic threat to do it? Keep in mind, Cook had also gotten death threats for (apparently) unintentionally desecrating a Communion wafer.
I agree with PZ in this case. When bullies try to shut you up, the worst thing you can do is shut up; then they feel like they've won and they double and redouble their efforts to make your life miserable. When it comes to the sorts of bullies I'm used to dealing with, getting louder is the least powerful of the effective responses...
Posted by: Platypus | July 30, 2008 9:48 AM
Speaking of clergy...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/29/brazil.flying.priest.ap/index.html
Looks like Father Darwin called him home...
Posted by: Greg | July 30, 2008 9:48 AM
"We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional."
I don't know, PZ. The Unconstitutional part, for me, was the funniest thing I read from the whole thing. Mainly because it set up what was idea a hilarious read.
Posted by: C R Stamey | July 30, 2008 9:48 AM
I have to agree with MaryLupin @ #20.
The fact they used the "freedom of religion" argument while ignoring why it was implemented in the first place is priceless. My irony meter had a meltdown.
Whatever reservations I had about Crackergate are gone. The point PZ has made is long overdue and the press release confirms that.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | July 30, 2008 9:49 AM
Unconstitutional? I know what that word means. I don't think it means what they think it means.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 30, 2008 9:49 AM
'K, I 've read that 5 times now, and it's not only Stoo-oo-oopid, but it's illiteate as well, no? Isn't there a missing "to which" or "in which" or something?One wonders (does one not?) how much of this ridiculous over-reaction is traceable to the small, silent fear deep within their lizardbrains that the whole profitable, self-serving, silly shebang is on the cusp of crashing down around them if their "sheep" start to think about stuff a little bit.
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 30, 2008 9:49 AM
Umm... "dissing?"
Yo! DJ PZ is gettin' all up in thems Catlick grillz, and he be bustin' it old-school like crazy Lutha with no need for their ills.
Instead of nailin some rag to the Wittenberg door, DJ PZ spiked a wafer and shouted "no fucking more!"
Posted by: watercat | July 30, 2008 9:49 AM
If they want respect they can earn it. Until then they can STFU. This is my letter to the Catholic League:
If I should come to possess a consecrated host, I swear to treat it in the most disrespectful, sacrilegious manner possible. It's just a symbol, but what if Bill Donohue was right?
If there really is a Jesus Christ, and he really does transform himself at the priest's bidding, then he is there as an active participant in satisfying the priest's desires during mass. He is also there as an active participant in satisfying the priest's desires during what went on downstairs with that same priest. He was right there as an active participant in taking away my childhood and leaving me with nightmares for forty years. Instead of transforming those nightmares or preserving that child, his only interest was in transforming hosts for the child's tormentor.
And he demands my respect? No. He gets the contempt he has earned through his own actions. His accomplices and enablers in the church needn't fear I will lower myself to his level by seeking out new victims to abuse, however if Jesus Christ is in some sense present in the host, and if I should ever come again find myself with one, the very least I could do is perform a cathartic healing and act of symbolic justice by utterly desecrating and destroying it.
Posted by: Wodwose | July 30, 2008 9:50 AM
In knitting one must learn to "cast off" so that scarves and such do not go on forever. Catholics should learn this technique for use in their pointless bitching and complaining.
I am wondering tho', if the National Committee on What You Can't Talk About has placed an injunction against biologists talking about religion, is there something that we chemical engineers are forbidden to talk about? I missed the memo.
Posted by: Michelle | July 30, 2008 9:50 AM
I think the greatest part is the picture at the end of your post! Who made it? :)
Posted by: Nuno | July 30, 2008 9:51 AM
After reading all this BS and nonsense from this silly people that do not tolerate whoever thinks different from them, I really feel compeled by, all the catholics that I read here, to go to a mess and take the cracker home.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 30, 2008 9:52 AM
Sorry, I just can't scrape together any sympathy for an organization with a history of protecting child molesters from prosecution.
To any catholic priests who may be reading this: we're not playing along with your pretentious nonsense. Grow up and get a real job. A cracker is a cracker, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue about it.
-jcr
Posted by: Andrew | July 30, 2008 9:53 AM
PZ - your post was worth reading for this one sentence alone:
"You cannot demand that all members of a pluralist society be reverent towards any random humdrum article that a guy in a dress declares holy."
A trifecta! Making a good point with adroit prose while executing a well-aimed kick in the balls.
Keep it up.
Posted by: Boosterz | July 30, 2008 9:54 AM
Theists are always making the false claim that atheism is a form of religion. Does this press release mean that theists aren't allowed to criticize atheism now since they aren't atheists?
They must not have though about the crap in that press release for more then 3 or 4 seconds before publishing it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 30, 2008 9:56 AM
One quick look at their website (geebus what a mess !), shows that this is yet another group of conservative fundamentalists :
Their plea can gladly be ignored, anyway, what do they know about all these things, this bunch of old frustrated men completely detached from reality with all their delusions, what a joke !
Do they realise that they really look like old perverts on those pictures ?
Posted by: Robert in NYC | July 30, 2008 9:57 AM
The Confraternity's grasp of Constitutional law is poor. Almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are binding on government, and not on individuals. (Slaveholding is an exception -- individuals are not allowed to own slaves.) The First Amendment limits the goverment's power to impose restrictions on the press and and speech and establish a state religion. But it imposes no restrictions on individuals. There must be "state action" for the Bill of Rights to be involved in most cirucmstances. State action is absent here. Other laws, of course, may apply.
Posted by: kid bitzer | July 30, 2008 9:57 AM
okay, they just flunked their con law exam.
that is the *saddest* exposition of the establishment clause i have *ever* read.
as well as being utterly illiterate, as sven in #32 notes.
man, at least the calflicks i knew 50 years ago were well-educated--say what you like about jesuits, at least they knew how to write a grammatical sentence, and in several different languages.
these guys are just stoopid.
Posted by: Jams | July 30, 2008 9:58 AM
I hear - as a first step toward this new understanding of freedom of religion and speech - Catholics are removing from their sermons and texts all references to non-Catholics as well as all comments on subjects other than Catholicism. Rumour has it that their new Bible makes for a refreshingly hate-free read, loaded with... oh wait, this just in... my apologies: The catholic church will continue to embrace unrestrained authority over all matters, reserving the additional right to vilify, slander, libel, mislead and condemn as they see fit.
Posted by: NC Paul | July 30, 2008 9:58 AM
Catholic priests using their divine connection to Jesus as a bully pulpit to tell people what to do with their life?
Say it ain't so!
This is why you have separation of church and state. Given an inch, these whackaloons will be in your bedroom telling you what you can and can't do, should and shouldn't think. It's what they did in Ireland till we got wise to the scam (and even still, we have a legacy of illiberal laws on the statue books and in our constitution from that time).
Thank you Confraternity of Catholic Clergy for amply demonstrating that religion is the enemy of personal freedom.
Posted by: Lee Salisbury | July 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Wait, this has a bright side. If you can't criticse Catholicism unless you're a catholic...
Then priests can't criticize any sexual behaviors of any kind, they're not having sex.
The Catholic Clergy can't criticize gay people, they're not gay.
The Catholic Clergy can't criticize marriage in any form, they can't get married.
I mean, think about it, if they want to use THAT logic, then we have a shot to get them to STFU about anything that isn't a direct part of Catholicism.
Posted by: llewelly | July 30, 2008 10:01 AM
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy had their chance. They could have repudiated all of the death and violence threats emerging from Bill Donahue's flying monkeys. But no.
Posted by: Docwazoo | July 30, 2008 10:02 AM
Re Woozle #9: I think we should write up a checklist of possible desecrations for all relevant religious symbols - I'm having trouble thinking up good Jewish desecrations to perform in Israel (granted, we don't have the same kind of constitutional freedom you guys have).
Posted by: Bodach | July 30, 2008 10:03 AM
"The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion!"
Well, okay then; they've convinced me with their blinding logic. From this day forward I will no longer be an atheist but will become a member of the null set religion. I don't feel any different, still want to laugh at and berate those dress wearing pedophiles...
And Dan @ 33? I feel you, aight?
Posted by: Cheezits | July 30, 2008 10:03 AM
And by logical extension, Catholic priests are not allowed to discuss the weather, because they're not meteorologists.
They're not allowed to discuss birth control either.
Posted by: Mumon | July 30, 2008 10:03 AM
Keep up the good work!
I would like those clowns to find where in the constitution it's prohibited to abuse crackers...
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 30, 2008 10:04 AM
PZ, their own "logic",
Priests are humans.
Humans are biological.
You are a biologist.
Therefore, you can critique them all you want.
You are an atheist.
Atheists are not Catholics.
Priests are Catholics.
Therefore, they can't say anything about you at all.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 30, 2008 10:04 AM
So now no one can say that it's just Bill Donahue, who isn't part of the Catholic hierarchy.
Their theology sounds like no one thought it over either, even though we know people have. I think it's just the quality of the minds involved.
Posted by: Wicked Lad | July 30, 2008 10:04 AM
The Confraternity ("Confraternity"? Really?) of Catholic Clergy wrote:
As Noam Chomsky has written, though:
Posted by: Umilik | July 30, 2008 10:05 AM
Nearly 500 years after Galileo and Bruno the medieval hatemongering idiotic mindset seems alive and well.
Well, it's obviously off to the stake with you, my good man. Best invest in some asbestos underwear.
Man, somebody get me off this planet....
Posted by: wookerist | July 30, 2008 10:05 AM
(+)
Posted by: JHJEFFERY | July 30, 2008 10:07 AM
PZ
Greeting:
As a lawyer of some 33 years, and a bit of an expert on the First Amendment, I have a suggestion for the Catholics who wrote this:
"The same Bill of Rights which protect (sic) freedom of speech also protect(sic)freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation's constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few. Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper."
The suggestion is that they should actually READ the First Amendment before they opine on it, or call me and I will tell them what it means for an entirely reasonable fee. The Amendment reads, in pari materia: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . "
This does not, in any sense, prohibit you from descrating a cracker. However, I do not think that Congress could pass a law requiring that you do so. You may belittle and descrate all you want. You may also paint swasticas all over a church, subject to other penal code provisions--such actions are not unconstitutional. The clause following the above-quoted protects your right of free speech, including content-laden actions such as the desecration of a cracker. Maybe they were unaware of this little clause.
I will drop them a nice note to the above effect.
As to their comment about you not being a theologian (ironic from theologians giving legal opinions--without a license), I, like Prof. Dawkins, am not a fairiologist and take no position on the issue.
Cheers,
JHJEFFERY
Posted by: No One of Consequence | July 30, 2008 10:08 AM
Posted by: Mena | July 30, 2008 10:09 AM
It needs to be said, this being an internet forum and all:
"I'm in ur churches killin ur crackers."
Or something like that.
Posted by: DuckPhup | July 30, 2008 10:10 AM
Irreverence is unconstitutional? OK... I'm screwed.
(Dang... I must have been absent that day...)
Posted by: Thoracantha | July 30, 2008 10:10 AM
So, by Confraternity of Catholic Clergy understandings, they can not criticize Wiccans, Muslims, Satanist, or even the most evil of evils atheist, because they don't belong to that group?
Wait,.. Wouldn't one of the most important doctrines of the Catholic Church, that it, and it alone, is the one truth faith, and therefor all other religions are false, be considered criticism of these other religious view points? By their logic would Catholicism be unconstitutional? Therefor, criticism of Catholic would be constitutional because the view point espoused by Catholics is unconstitutional, and there can be no constitutional protection for unconstitutional action.... (Head explodes at this point.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2008 10:11 AM
That press release is a fine example of why there should be (and is) a clearly-defined and constitutionally-guaranteed separation of church and state. The fact that the authors characterize PZ's actions and words as "unconstitutional" demonstrates that those fools don't know the meaning of the word. Let us keep as much political power out of their hands as possible.
Posted by: Allytude | July 30, 2008 10:12 AM
Well considering that they are defining what people of certain disciplines should do, lets define their duties too..
A religious person, who easily offends has no business reading a science blog or discussing a biology professor. Lets do that
Posted by: SEF | July 30, 2008 10:12 AM
It makes me think of those road markings (in the UK anyway) with a solid line next to a dashed line along the centre to indicate that only one of the two flows of traffic is allowed to encroach upon the other's territory. That, with no changeover for the return of the privilege, is what the dishonest religious people want "free" speech etc to be like.Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2008 10:13 AM
"Lies and hate speech which incite contempt or violence are not protected under the law. Hence, inscribing Swastikas on Jewish synagogues or publicly burning copies of the Christian Bible or the Muslim Koran, especially by a faculty member of a public university, are just as heinous and just as unconstitutional."
Burning a Bible is against the law? Really? Where? Since when does inciting "contempt" become equivalent to inciting violence? Do these people have no brakes? Or do they just assume other people shouldn't be expected to?
I think PZ owes The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy a debt of gratitude. Their arguments are making the rationale for your actions explicit and clear. No, you did not desecrate the cracker to upset individual Catholics. You did so to make a larger point.
Statements like "The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance" and "Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper" need to be refuted in the strongest terms possible.
They're making your case for you. When it comes down to it, it's not really about the Catholics themselves. If a "Flag Desecration" Amendment criminalizing the "rude" treatment of the American flag were to pass through Congress, a lot of Americans who have no particular grievance against the government would burn flags in protest. We should not hold either symbols -- or people's sensitive "feelings" -- sacred.
And religion gets no pass on this. The real reason they want no criticism in this area is because "faith" arguments are weak, and can't stand up to ridicule. They depend on everyone playing along, and agreeing that having faith is a wonderful characteristic requiring strength and depth. Thus, religion is a sanctuary where nobody is allowed to question or be rude.
They can mandate that in their churches, among their followers. Only.
By the way, I love the way they gratuitously threw in the Courtier's Reply, just for the heck of it ("Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom.") How ironic.
Posted by: Chem Geek | July 30, 2008 10:14 AM
Re: #26
"This is all Canada's fault
Posted by: Lago | July 30, 2008 9:47 AM
Anyone know how to contact Trey Parker and Matt Stone? This WOULD make a great epidsode.
Tonight on Southpark...
Posted by: 43Alley | July 30, 2008 10:16 AM
"The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor."
That's not irony. These Catholics are worse than play-by-play sportscasters.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2008 10:17 AM
|===(+)===>
Digital desecration if a host. I like it.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 30, 2008 10:19 AM
New Revolutionary CHRISTOCRACKERS
- Freedom of crackers is not freedom from crackers
...
..
.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 30, 2008 10:20 AM
So far so good, catholics have not dissapointed !
Posted by: Randy | July 30, 2008 10:20 AM
"The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance"
Man, get rid of that and homosexuality and they wouldn't have anything to talk/screech about on Sunday.
Posted by: Lago | July 30, 2008 10:20 AM
The Lutheran Church was founded on the criticism of the Catholic Church. Does the Lutheran Church have a Constitutional right to exist according to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 30, 2008 10:22 AM
Sastra (#66):
Hell, I'd pull a William Lloyd Garrison for good measure and burn copies of the Constitution, too.
Don't you mean the Responsum Aucili? ;-)
(By the way, do you have the photos from wandering around the last day of TAM 6?)
Posted by: alloy | July 30, 2008 10:22 AM
By this logic, any and all attempts at evangelism should cease forthwith.
Catholic priests should not (in theory at least) have any comment to make on fornication. (or marriage gay or otherwise)
Babtist ministers should refrain from talking about booze, gambling and pornography.
Etc Etc.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 30, 2008 10:22 AM
-For a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.-
That implies that it is most sacred...considering only a tiny subset of people actually cared (and their sock puppets) and since that subset generally are following a different version of said religion than most christians I fail too see their point.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2008 10:22 AM
This typo neatly reveals their desire and agenda.
Posted by: LMR | July 30, 2008 10:22 AM
I think they are correct on one point, people should stick to their discipline.
Therefore, they should reject all religious teaching from a CARPENTER of all people. They can close their doors now.
Posted by: Vince | July 30, 2008 10:23 AM
"And by logical extension, Catholic priests are not allowed to discuss the weather, because they're not meteorologists."
Remembering when the American Council of Bishops urged Catholics to vote for "W", lets take the logic one more step and say they're not qualified to discuss politics either.
Posted by: Duvenoy | July 30, 2008 10:24 AM
Being from an agnostic/atheist family, I have been religion-FREE for some 68 years, now. As nothing has come along to convince me that any sort of Big Juju has ever existed, I rather doubt that I will change my mind.
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy is merely another group of blatherskites in funny cloths with a little authority over some portion of the world's deluded, said authority granted them by those same deluded. The Klan might be seen as similar, but they haven't done as many lynchings as the Church. Happily, the Klan is waining and, if what I've read is correct, the Church's recruitment is down a bit. May the ascent into reason continue......
doov
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 30, 2008 10:25 AM
Woozle@9,
International Irreverence Day?
Posted by: JFK | July 30, 2008 10:25 AM
Nice illustration!
Thanks, my new favorite blog.
Posted by: SC | July 30, 2008 10:25 AM
I just wanted to say that I'm enjoying the increased use (revival?) of this particular line, and loved this link that someone posted the other day:
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/6079/128320993454987500dudewdl1.jpg
(I hope I haven't killed it by pointing to it.)
That's all. Still tired from mixing it up over at Mixing Memory. Nothing more of substance to add since yesterday.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | July 30, 2008 10:26 AM
One of their popes declared in all seriousness that roman catholics should support freedom of religion anywhere that rc's were in a minority and nowhere that rc's were in a majority.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 30, 2008 10:27 AM
Blake, I don't have the photos -- somebody needs to pester Ben Goldacre to free the documentation!
Posted by: Evolving Squid |