…and this is a 
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy doesn't like me
Category:
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: 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: 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: 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 | July 30, 2008 10:27 AM
And by logical extension, Catholic priests are not allowed to discuss the weather, because they're not meteorologists.
On the flip side, they should be able to expound at length on the matter of proctology as it applies to young boys.
Posted by: shonny | July 30, 2008 10:27 AM
neg,
They don't just LOOK like old perverts, they ARE old perverts!
(No doubt they themselves consider pedophilia 'normal', which I guess it is for the cat'lickin' clergy)
Posted by: Chuck C | July 30, 2008 10:28 AM
@Benjamin Geiger, #25:
Well, the author could be both a priest and an educator, but I take your point. Meanwhile, I couldn't help picking out this quote:
Don't these blithering idiots ever bother to think about what they're writing before publishing it? What the hell does this brouhaha have to do with the classroom?
Posted by: Mr.Pendent | July 30, 2008 10:28 AM
Slightly OT, but that image at the end of the post reminds me of the TV show Scrubs, and JD's favorite game..."Hide the Saltine"
Sorry.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2008 10:29 AM
Spending time at Mixing Memory can be a frustrating experience.
Posted by: Scott | July 30, 2008 10:29 AM
I can't get over the fact that he's claiming a right for a religion.
Religions don't have rights. Humans have rights. Hell, he's even saying that religions have rights that humans do not. That's the dumbest damn thing I've read this month.
A person who belongs to a religion has rights, as does a person who does not belong to a religion. A religion can't have rights because a religion is not a person. It is, at best, an abstract concept. It's like saying an emotion has rights. Madness.
Posted by: Dunc | July 30, 2008 10:29 AM
Hank Fox
Not this again. If you think the Catholic Church was responsible for the Dark Ages, you do not know what the term "Dark Ages" means (in modern technical usage, anyway). If anybody is responsible for the Dark Ages, it's the Visigoths. Plus the Dark Ages were not nearly as bad as the Catholic Church subsequently made them out to be.
What the hell do they teach in history class over there? Everything you think you know about the Dark Ages is wrong.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 30, 2008 10:30 AM
Docwazoo@ #49
Pay over-retail price!
or more simply, buy from SkyMall
Posted by: Lago | July 30, 2008 10:31 AM
Anyone feel like eating some annelids right about now? I know I feel like switching to a Diet of Worms.
Posted by: DB | July 30, 2008 10:31 AM
These people defending this cracker like it is their life are about as ignorant as they come. Move on losers...its a frackin' cracker! If I was a religious person I would be embarrassed at the worship of a cracker.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 30, 2008 10:32 AM
Wasn't there one of the idiots in the cracker threads who spent all his time chortling about how the evidence the cracker was consecrated wouldn't pass peer review, and therefore you were going to lose your job? He seemed to have a similar idea to this bunch; apparently once you're a scientist then EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO must be research or teaching.
Posted by: Notkieran | July 30, 2008 10:33 AM
Totally off topic to Duvenoy:
I've not heard Blatherskite used since Ducktales and Gizmo Duck.
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing.
Posted by: Malocchio | July 30, 2008 10:33 AM
So a congregation of professional crossdressers is having a hissy fit on your behalf? Feel honored. I know I would.
Posted by: cbpooh | July 30, 2008 10:33 AM
I don't think they could have interpreted the First Amendment more shabbily if they had tried. Seriously, did they not consult an attorney before they used words like "unconstitutional" to describe the act of desecration? There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that limits the actions of individual citizens in the United States. The purpose of the Constitution was to provide a framework for a federal government and then limit the GOVERNMENT'S powers. I'm really finding it difficult to believe that this is a serious organization. Whether you like what PZ did or not, this statement displays almost breathtaking ignorance. My 13 year old daughter was able to find the giant flaw. Time to rethink that curriculum in the Catholic schools if this is what it eventually produces.
Posted by: Jeff | July 30, 2008 10:36 AM
Your actions are going to make for hungry Catholics everywhere. I'm impressed! :)
Seriously though... That's a really stupid press release. It would be nice if people would stop interpreting "Freedom of Religion" to mean "Freedom for me to impose MY Religion on whomever I chose".
Posted by: Cheezits | July 30, 2008 10:36 AM
According to my religious belief, not only are lying, covering up abuse, and promoting STUPID doctrines immoral, but failing to criticize the perpetrators and point out how STUPID their beliefs are is a sin.
Posted by: Jason | July 30, 2008 10:36 AM
Your actions have offended the sensitivities of millions of people. Should you not put on your bigboy pants and apologise? You act like a preadolesant who is spoiled as hell.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 30, 2008 10:37 AM
As an ex-Catholic, I can say that Catholicism wouldn't lend itself to criticism if it wasn't so stupid and, at times, cruel. So they started it.
Posted by: Tophe | July 30, 2008 10:37 AM
@ Woozle, #9
The Discordians already have this covered in their Pentabarf:
3. A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Roman Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).
Posted by: Docwazoo | July 30, 2008 10:37 AM
Ben Franklin #94:
Ouch! If I were still Jewish I'd call you an antisemite!
Seriously though, we already eat pork outdoors, defile the Sabbath, and sell leavened bread on passover. It still doesn't piss off the orthodox enough!
Posted by: SC | July 30, 2008 10:39 AM
Spending time at Mixing Memory can be a frustrating experience.
But everyone here has already heard my rants! :)
Posted by: craig | July 30, 2008 10:39 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.
By this logic, most of the sermons performed in the Catholic church are "unconstitutional."
Are they seriously trying to say that they never criticize non-Catholics in their sermons? They never say that atheists or others are immoral and bound for hell?
Morons.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2008 10:40 AM
Oh boo hooo Jason.
You offended us. We're going to cry.
You do not have the right to not be offended Jason.
Why don't all of you put on your big boy pants and stop believing in fairy tales?
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2008 10:41 AM
What right do old celibate male virgins have to tell people how to run their sex life and how many children they should have?
According to the RCC, they are supposedly the world experts and authorities on sex and children. According to their own members, none at all and they just ignore them.
And why is it that religions (not usually the Catholics in this case) proud of their ignorance and stupidity feel qualified to tell most scientists that they are completely wrong about just about everything. Fundie mythology contradicts most of physics, biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, archaeology, and history.
The Catholic confraternity has not made a case for anything except that they are homesick for the Dark Ages. They've been over for centuries, DEAL WITH IT.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 30, 2008 10:41 AM
Maybe every time a group of priests comes up with a press release like this suggesting that you don't have the right to do this and that, you should just go ahead and desecrate another cracker.
After a while, maybe they'll get the message and keep quiet.
Posted by: Richard Harris | July 30, 2008 10:42 AM
"...Flagrant irreverence towards a cracker..."
They're crackers. And can't their feckin' god-thing fight its own battles? No, because feckin' Jehova/Jesus/Ghost thing doesn't exist.
Posted by: ryanb | July 30, 2008 10:43 AM
I have to ask if:
1. They claim atheism is a religion.
2. They claim people who are not members of a religion cannot criticize it.
Doesn't that mean they shouldn't be allowed to bad mouth atheism, or even question it?
Even if you concede they believe this is how the system is supposed to work - doesn't seem to me they even follow their own ideas of how the system works.
aka - They are lying and they know it. They genuinely do not believe any of this, they just want to make some noise.
Posted by: Lago | July 30, 2008 10:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5P7QkHCfaI
Posted by: CSBSH | July 30, 2008 10:44 AM
Damn, that press release was almost dumber than those comming from Bill Donohue. What the writer has done is desecrating his own mind.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | July 30, 2008 10:45 AM
LOLzer! Sounds like their press release was written by someone with the same grasp of law as Fr. J, Pharyngula's favorite canon lawyer. Hey, J, did you write that?
Not to worry, PZ, it's just puffery to assuage their base.
Posted by: Matt | July 30, 2008 10:45 AM
#48:
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.
But the CCC did say: We ask all Catholics of Minnesota and of the entire nation to join in a day of prayer and fasting that such offenses never happen again. Isn't that the same thing as saying 'do nothing'?
Just sayin'.
- Matt
Posted by: Moggie | July 30, 2008 10:45 AM
# 99:
It's only serious if people take it seriously. That, in a way, is what this whole saga has been about.
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | July 30, 2008 10:47 AM
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.
I'm just repeating this again because it's so brilliant I want to burn it into my memory.
Posted by: Nino | July 30, 2008 10:47 AM
How can they expect anyone to take action against PZ?
There is no proof !
Even if they found the cracker in his bin. How can they proof that it is a cracker that was turned into Jesus by a priests magick ? Even if PZ believed that the cracker that was sent to him had been magicked. It might not have been. And then its just a nail in a cracker and can not be used for actions against him. Even if he admits to "killing" a cracker.
And without proof that the cracker was indeed consecrated, there is no crime.
So why do they continue with whitch hunt they cant win?
I suppose its tradition with them....
PS. If they can present scientific proof, if a random sample cracker is consecrated or not, I'll become a catholic immediately.
Posted by: Todd | July 30, 2008 10:47 AM
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.
Disingenuous? Really? These people not only need to read the Constitution, but they probably could use a dictionary, too.
Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2008 10:48 AM
Jason #102 wrote:
No. I think the point here is that the people with the "offended sensitivities" need to put on their big boy pants and get over it.
Posted by: jonathan | July 30, 2008 10:48 AM
This Confraternity is a group of 600 or so priests and deacons, not the Church itself, so take what they say with an appropriate grain of salt. The actual Church would never issue a statement that discussed America's Constitution - and if it did, it would certainly get right the completely established meaning of the "free exercise clause" of the 1st Amendment, that it prevents the Government from entangling itself with religion and prevents the Government from restricting the free exercise of religion.
Posted by: Aaron | July 30, 2008 10:49 AM
PZ -- I HAVE A REQUEST
ok, now that I have your attention --
how do I got about acquiring a Eucharist? Your point about exercising first amendment rights is a good one, and I think it's our responsibility to remind everyone (the Catholic League especially) what the 1st amendment allows us. Freedoms have an unfortunate "use em or lose em" property.
I'm not intending to suggest that you are somehow the ringleader in this affair, cajoling us into mass desecrations of religious icons -- but I am voluntarily wanting to make a statement of patriotism by exercising my free speech.
I've looked on ebay and had no luck. Suggestions? Perhaps an equal alternative? I really don't want to get into book-burning (there's enough CO2 and wasted dead-trees as it is) -- but I'm open to suggestions. A eucharist would be ideal since it's culturally relevant right now (and would have a clear message).
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 10:49 AM
Okay, two notes:
My favorite example for the "it ain't freedom FROM religion" canard is from the Good Ole Days (Roman Empire style). It's a nice poke in the eye:
In Roman days, some rulers insisted on being considered gods. You could still worship your own god, but you had to also worship Caesar as a god. Well, christers were KILLED for not worshipping El Jefe. Martyred, even. They had freedom OF religion, they just didn't have freedom FROM religion. Oh SNAP!
Second, I like the annual hollyday idea. My proposed name for it is "My Karma Runs Over Your Dogma Day".
Posted by: craig | July 30, 2008 10:50 AM
It's looking like this press release is so obviously stupid even the religious trolls don't dare try to defend it.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 30, 2008 10:51 AM
They're an inspiration. Next we'll have the mafia claiming that the freedom of assembly renders conspiracy charges unconstitutional.
Posted by: Jen | July 30, 2008 10:51 AM
The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy is a US institution with a mere 600 members or so. Their hobbies appear to include whinging about abortion and threatening to withhold their Jesus-crackers from any Catholic who doesn't agree with them.
Not exactly 'the Catholic hierarchy', really. I refuse to be impressed until you get a letter of condemnation from the Vatican, signed by one of those guys whose job it is to fake the Pope's signature all the time so it looks like he cares.
(I was baptised Catholic. It didn't take, but I'm wondering if I could still be excommunicated? Would I get a certificate, or at least a cookie?)
Posted by: scooter | July 30, 2008 10:51 AM
# 67
This already IS an episode of South Park. South Park is REAL, and we're living in it.
PZ has even killed Kenny a few times on Pharyngula.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 30, 2008 10:54 AM
Hmmm. Methinks this group should keep putting out these insane statements claiming acts that don't harm anybody are "unconstitutional", and that freedom of religion does not and cannot mean freedom from it. Could they possibly sound any dumber while blatantly painting a scenario in which they can never be criticized by anyone for anything?
This one is a rare gem that is so unmasked and uncoded in its ignorance and self-congratulatory logic.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 30, 2008 10:54 AM
Kseniya,
Well, I read all the comments on that thread and Chris's original post, and I almost forgot the big picture, but then there was this press release from the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and that rapidly brought me back to reality, and I said to myself, wooh hooo, these guys are nuts, why do we need to defend any of these cracker worshipping nuts ?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 30, 2008 10:54 AM
Woo! Woo! Woo! These cannibal cult clergy have judge envy. It must be the black robes that appeal to them.Maybe they could sell you some indulgences.
Posted by: Whateverman | July 30, 2008 10:54 AM
Wow...
I mostly supported PZ before reading this, although I expressed a bit of disappointment that he chose to poke Catholicism with a stick.
Now, however, I am in full agreement. The CCC are reacting in a way that's completely out of touch with reality. And despite being a cautious deist, I too am going to find myself a cracker and desecrate it. I wonder if I can gather enough to make a decent mock apple pie
To all of the Catholics who stayed out of this little debate or weren't taking part in the buffoonery, I apologize in advance.
Posted by: Chuck S. | July 30, 2008 10:54 AM
@Sastra # 121: AMEN!
Seriously, my Catholic friends, take it from an ex-Catholic. If your god is as great as you say he is, a nail through a cracker is not going to harm him in the slightest.
If your god wants to mete out punishment over the desecration of a cracker, he'll take care of it himself.
Move on, please.
Posted by: Nino | July 30, 2008 10:55 AM
Jason #102
"Your actions have offended the sensitivities of millions of people. Should you not put on your bigboy pants and apologise"
Jason, This might com as a shock to you.... but most of us who read this blog are VERY offended by the actions of the University and Catholic Church in Florida who started this mess. They should be the one apologising to the student !! They were the ones who started trampeling on others religiopus feelings (or lack ther of)
Posted by: anon | July 30, 2008 10:55 AM
Alloy (@75)
Some of the most interesting porn I found in a previous professional life was on a Babtist minister's computer.
Posted by: craig | July 30, 2008 10:55 AM
I'm a more petty and vindictive person than PZ is.
Because if it were me, I'd wait until they had their national "day of prayer and fasting so that it never happens again," and then do it again.
I'd post more pics and say "Oh gosh, your fasting and prayers didn't work! Maybe you should pray and fast for a whole week next time!" and then do it AGAIN.
Nice way to prove that prayer is bullshit.
Posted by: richard Eis | July 30, 2008 10:56 AM
Your actions have offended the sensitivities of millions of people. Should you not put on your bigboy pants and apologise? You act like a preadolesant who is spoiled as hell.
No, it didn't. A few bigots got on their high horse about it so they could squeal persecution (their favourite word at the moment)
Posted by: SteveM | July 30, 2008 10:56 AM
Aside from the ridiculous "unconstitutional" argument and all the rest, what the frak is the big deal? If Catholics see PZ's act as a desecration, then it is his "sin" alone. At most they should be sad that someone has chosen to damn himself to hell. What is the outrage for? [rhetorical qustion]
On a seperate note. Someone earlier said that by their logic only Catholics can criticize the Catholic church. This was actually a concept floating around back in the 80's when lots of people were identifying as ex-Catholics but still offended by non-Catholics criticizing the church; "only ex's can do that". Anyway, as a baptized, communed and confirmed Catholic, I believe the church still considers me Catholic even though I don't, I guess I can criticize the RCC all I want. And I just want to say that this "Confraternity" are fucking morons, the ignorance and intolerance displayed in that document is mind boggling.
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2008 10:57 AM
Going to give the RCC an F for crackergate. They would have been far better off just ignoring this and taking the high road with the death threaters and Donohue the loon and disavowing them.
Evreyone gets their 15 minutes of fame and these days it is more like 5 minutes and the world moves on. At the end of the day it was just a cracker.
Not sure what is going on here but the Catholic leadership doesn't seem very smart or media savvy. My guess, they haven't been attracting the brightest bulbs on the tree ever since celibacy went out of fashion. And most priests are probably pretty old and showing signs of age.
Posted by: SC | July 30, 2008 10:57 AM
Constitutions, Catholic style:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/621044.html
Posted by: jen | July 30, 2008 10:58 AM
So, only a follower of David Koresh has the right to critique his interpretation of the Bible? Only a Muslim can argue that martyrdom isn't a direct path to 72 virgins? Only an FLDS member in good standing can argue that isolating children from the world is a good way to make sure they never learn "extraneous" information like "sexual molestation of a child is against the law" and the legal age of consent?
Posted by: Scott | July 30, 2008 10:58 AM
Aaron, you can get communion wafers online at just about any church supplies website. You may even be able to get them at christian bookstores in your hometown, though I don't know if that's actually possible.
Of course, they have to be consecrated by a priest before they're considered officially Holy. But frankly, I think you should be able to get the same effect by just saying some nice words over it...
Posted by: Felicia | July 30, 2008 10:58 AM
They really missed the "nothing should be held sacred" part of your statement, didn't they? I mean, if you want to get overly sensitive over the whole thing, it was an equal opportunity offending act. You even included atheists in the bunch.
To be honest, the thing that I find the funniest, is that the Catholics, instead of the Muslims, are the ones having a collective childish temper tantrum over something so mundane. It's actually quite funny, really, considering how sensitive they are about their faith. I was half expecting a fatwā or a dozen when BD tried to get them involved.
Posted by: Ric | July 30, 2008 10:59 AM
Unconstitutional? Seriously? That's about the dumbest thing I've heard since... well, since the last time I read Uncommon Descent.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 30, 2008 11:01 AM
Jason @ #102
I'm wearing shorts, because it is 93 degrees today, but anyway, here goes:
I am very sorry that in the year 2008 you still think that a cracker can be magically, mysteriously, and divinely transubstantiated into the physical body of Jesus Christ, Saviour, Son of God.
I will pray for you, my son.
Posted by: Nicole | July 30, 2008 11:02 AM
You did a good job taking apart their press release. But go ahead and look at their website: http://www.catholic-clergy.org/
They just had a meeting where some resolutions were passed. Here's a sampling of my favorites:
Reproductive freedom goes out the window along with your free speech. Condoms are bad! Every sperm is sacred!!
You think you might have the freedom to marry the one you love? Only if you follow our bronze age morality.
See, that one at least makes sense. "You can't participate in our religious ceremonies because we don't like your moral stance." They can do that because they have freedom of religion!
Other resolutions involve practices of worship, all which stays within the confines of their churches. Once you reach outside that, yes, we're going to complain. Teach these things to your followers. Don't try and enforce it by law on the rest of us. THIS is at the heart of the separation between church and state.
Sorry, we don't want to be in your club, so we don't need to follow your rules.
/rant
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 30, 2008 11:03 AM
The Conflagration of Cannibal Cult Clergy should heed the words of Thomas Jefferson:
Cracker desecration neither picks their pockets* nor breaks their legs. They should buck up and take it like men in dresses.
* Do they have pockets in those dresses?
Posted by: Aegis | July 30, 2008 11:04 AM
Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, I was going to write a long missive about all the reasons your "article" was wrong. Then I just decided to say "fuck you all".
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 30, 2008 11:06 AM
Odd that they don't take the same stance against politicians who support the death penalty, which is also against current Catholic doctrine. I suppose that would remind too many people about the Inquisition.Posted by: Nicole | July 30, 2008 11:07 AM
Oh yeah, missed this part. The most blatant example of what I waas ratning about, in continuation of the part about "marriage between and man and a woman..."
GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
Posted by: SC | July 30, 2008 11:07 AM
Hey! I linked to it in a comment on that thread! Not a very close reading there, neg. ;)
Posted by: jagannath | July 30, 2008 11:08 AM
I have a dream...
of a flashmob gathering in front of a catholic church brandishing a cracker and chanting 'cracker' on top of their lungs then collecting them into a waste bin. Then the mob would recite 'mumbo jumbo' and then together yell 'jesus' while pointing at the waste bin. Then just scattering and repeating the process at different church at different day.
Posted by: george | July 30, 2008 11:09 AM
One of the MANY, many, many questions I have about transubstantiation relates to physical limits. Ok, let's assume that a communion wafer does, crazily, become the body of christ upon being blessed. All disgusting, cannibalistic thoughts aside, if that's the case, where does it go once you've eaten it?
I ask because I'm thinking mathematically, here. Let's assume Jesus weighed 160 pounds. It could have been less, but let's just give him that benefit of the doubt, ok? That's 2560 ounces. Let's assume, also, that a communion wafer is, what, .25 oz? That gives us, assuming we're doing Native American thing and using his whole body (not just flesh), 10,240 jesus-flesh crackers. Where, then, does the flesh come from after the first 10,240 communions were completed? Are we in a loaves and fishes situation here?
Posted by: SC | July 30, 2008 11:11 AM
Ah, but Glen D did post it here first. I need more sleep or something.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 30, 2008 11:12 AM
Docwazoo @ # 105
You want desecration? I got your desecration right here!
Mayonaise on a corned beef sandwich!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 30, 2008 11:13 AM
We ought to thank them for treating us to such a delicious smörgåsbord of irony, stupidity, and ignorance of history, law, logic, and grammar. Nothing feeds the appetite for rejecting religion so well as this written admission of turpitude, nescience, and hypocrisy by the Brotherhood of Befrocked Buffoons.
Posted by: Qwerty | July 30, 2008 11:13 AM
I went to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy's website to check them out. I found more amusement.
It seems they are also bitch slapping some nuns who want some language changes in the mass.
From the clergy's website: "The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy respectfully asks the Bishops of the United States (USCCB) to disregard the recent letter from the National Coalition of American Nuns on Liturgical Translations."
From the nuns letter:
"For example, why would the words 'consubstantial to the Father' be used in the Creed? What meaning do these words have for 21st century English speaking Catholics? Why use a medieval expression like, "We pray you bid" in the new Missal? This is not the way people speak today in the English-speaking world."
More from the letter:
"The proposed text, 'he who was born ineffably of the inviolate Virgin,' is not easily understandable to Christian people, much less to the youth who are leaving the Church because of its irrelevancy."
I am sure these nuns are too "liberal" for the clergy. After all, they also want George W. Bush and Dick Chaney impeached for lying to the American public.
Posted by: NickG | July 30, 2008 11:14 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."
Um, except that the existence of certain faiths does exactly that for other faiths.... see Islam and the Baha'i or Satanism and Catholicism. Baha'i grossly offend Islam by its existence and Satanism grossly offends Catholicism by its existence.
And if by their thinking a biologist does not possess the credentials to criticize theology, how do they possess the credentials to criticize a biologist?
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 30, 2008 11:15 AM
The brains of the members of this CCC are so fuckingly eaten up by their idiotic delusions, their sexual frustrations, their failures at touching their own penises, that they are so detached from reality that whatever they come up as reaction only serves as purpose to drive people away from their pathetic little cult.
They don't even realise that, but this press release is probably the best thing they can do to help the the cause of freethinkers.
Thank you morons.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 30, 2008 11:15 AM
I don't think I ever heard a sermon like that, but I may have just not been paying attention. From what I remember, sermons were a discussion of whatever part of the gospel was read; what does Jesus want you to do kind of stuff.
You are not alone.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2008 11:16 AM
The evils of contraception? Holy Ritz Bitz, Batman! These people have not sense of proportion or responsibility.
If only we could completely ignore these fools - but THEY WON'T SHUT UP.
He didn't exactly chose Catholicism. In a way, It chose him. Let's not forget that PZ didn't start all this. It was a response to the threats made against that college student who made off with a cracker. Gosh, what was his name again?
:-)
Posted by: SteveM | July 30, 2008 11:16 AM
No, don't you see? They think that "freedom of religion" means that only religions should be free of any government restrictions. So if you don't have a religion you don't have a right to any freedom. So religion has a right to free speech, atheists do not.
Indeed!
Posted by: G | July 30, 2008 11:17 AM
I must implore all of you to stop eating spaghetti. As a pastafarian of the Church of the FSM, the act of eating spaghetti comprises a sacrilegious act that pains me greatly -- especially when cheap bottled sauce is dumped on my creator's boiled physical manifestation.
FSM's noodly appendages are here to guide us, and to help us find our way to a higher state of being. If you cannot refrain from eating pasta at least confine your gastronomic selections to hollow tube pastas, such as penne, manicotti, etc., as these shapes are not filled with the wisdom of the FSM.
If you must continue eating the boiled body of my creator, at least have the courtesy to put virgin olive oil on him before consummating your irreverent act.
FSM Evangelical
Weed, California
Posted by: craig | July 30, 2008 11:18 AM
Also, don't assume that they know PZ didn't do this in class.
That's the one thing about the religious. They don't ever bother to investigate matters themselves, they don't look to see if what they've been told is true... so accounts of things "blasphemous" are like a game of telephone... these people likely were told and believe that PZ did this in a classroom as part of teaching. And being religious, they didn't bother to confirm it.
When "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out, the paper I worked at got paid to run ads from various churches telling people not to go see the film. The churches were saying it was blasphemous without ever having seen it. They just play their game of telephone.
The funny part? The ads all called the movie "The Temptation of Jesus," and we ran them uncorrected. Nice demonstration of them not having had a clue what the movie was that they were declaring scandalous.
Posted by: Joe Cracker | July 30, 2008 11:20 AM
Hilarious!
A clergyman has NO business in talking about:
1) physics
2) biology
3) meteorology
4) medicine
...
An they made some reaaaaaaly wacky assertions in all of those domains. Assertions with real-life consequences!
They are indeed digging their own hole.
Posted by: tsg | July 30, 2008 11:20 AM
Their entire complaint can be summed up thusly: "We won't tolerate your intolerance of our intolerance." Whatever.
*sigh* You can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. In order to be free to practice your religion, you have to be free from practicing mine. What part of that don't you understand?
Posted by: richard Eis | July 30, 2008 11:20 AM
-Then just scattering and repeating the process at different church at different day.-
Yes, but you see, we have lives...and proper work to do. Sounds like fun though.
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2008 11:20 AM
If they tossed out all their members who used contraception for family planning, 90% to 95% of them would be gone. The birth rate for Catholics in the USA is identical to the national average at 2+/family.
No members, no money every week. A recipe for cult suicide.
In practice it is don't ask, don't tell. And one of the problems of the RCC in Europe and the USA: because they have an old man celibate clergy, they have been diverging from their membership for many decades.
Posted by: AK47 | July 30, 2008 11:21 AM
PZ, on occasion in the past you have used profanity in situations where I thought it was gratuitous and really not necessary.
But in this instance you really should have told the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy to go fuck themselves.
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 11:22 AM
Alright Ben, that's just pure evil!
Posted by: me | July 30, 2008 11:22 AM
Maybe PZ should have nailed his cracker and pages to a nearby Catholic Church doors?Posted by: ar | July 30, 2008 11:23 AM
The Flying Spaghetti Monster should reveal to his/her/its devotees that all spaghetti is sacred, and all must say "ramen" before eating it. Any other use of spaghetti is a desecration.
Posted by: Jon | July 30, 2008 11:23 AM
If only the religious community would take their own advice in this matter...How quick they are to bring up the separation of religion and science when it applies to their argument.
Posted by: The Chemist | July 30, 2008 11:25 AM
Am I the only one that sees an appallingly ironic double standard?
How many Catholics not only advocated the desecration of the Koran, but went the extra step of actually sending PZ one?
So let me get this straight... the limits to free speech (assuming that 'fire' in a crowded theater isn't the only one) apply abundantly to their religion, but really if another religion gets bashed in the process, it somehow evens things out?
It would appear to me that they really aren't in a position to be sanctimonious about offending a religion since they're perfectly willing to do it so long as it isn't their own.
Posted by: John Robie | July 30, 2008 11:25 AM
Ouch, their law is as weak as their philosophy. As a big city attorney, I would point out to the Catholic leaders the first clause of that amendment they're parsing so closely: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is interpreted as Freedom of Religion. PZ is not the United States Congress so the amendment does not apply to him. The Bill of Rights does not place restrictions on the actions of individuals only on the power of the Federal government.
Of course under the 14th amendment the incorporation doctrine extends the core rights of the Bill of Rights to state governments, meaning the State of Minnesota can not take action respecting the establishment of a state religion (despite the capital's name).
Thus the very closest one could get to the Bill of Rights applying to PZ is in his professional capacity. The University of Minnesota is, I believe, an organ of the state and so neither it nor PZ could, for instance, require a student to pray in class (or I think, desecrate a cracker in class). PZ can nevertheless do whatever he likes as a private citizen.
Silly Catholics.
Posted by: Joel | July 30, 2008 11:26 AM
I would be OK with a compromise -- here, Catholics, how about this: I'll go along with respecting your "right" to not to be offended, so long as you respect my "right" to be free from all consequences of Catholic beliefs penetrating the public sphere. So if you stop voting, I'll stop offending you. Deal?
Posted by: SteveM | July 30, 2008 11:27 AM
All disgusting, cannibalistic thoughts aside, if that's the case, where does it go once you've eaten it?
That was answered several thousand comments ago in one of the other 12 threads about cracker-gate. Once the wafer has been dissolved to the point of no longer being "bread", i.e. dissolved to simple sugars and amino acids, it is no longer considered the "body of Christ". So, when Christ said "take this bread it is my body", he was not saying the bread becomes flesh, but instead that he was really bread.
Posted by: Snitzels | July 30, 2008 11:27 AM
No no no, you see, this doesn't apply to THEM, only everyone else. Silly...
Posted by: karen | July 30, 2008 11:29 AM
Hey, at least they spelled Minnesota correctly!
I'm with craig:
I'd wait until they had their national "day of prayer and fasting so that it never happens again," and then do it again.
But then, I'm a bit of a vindictive bitch.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | July 30, 2008 11:29 AM
By their logic, since they aren't politicians, shouldn't they stay out of politics?
They couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag with a rip in it. I just couldn't believe that press release, since the Catholic clergy is supposed to be well educated.
Posted by: megan | July 30, 2008 11:30 AM
Re #127 - for further comparison, this group has about 600 members (priests AND deacons), and there are about 46,000 Catholic priests in the USA according to allaboutreligion.org , so we're talking less than 1%.
Posted by: qbsmd | July 30, 2008 11:30 AM
For anyone who hasn't looked at http://www.catholic-clergy.org/ yet, it strikingly resembles the 100 page email PZ received a few months ago in terms of rainbow coloring, randoms size and font changes, and even has highlighting. It also has a total of 12 "donate" buttons in various colors and styles.
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 11:31 AM
Confraternity = Convicted fraternity?
Posted by: ngong | July 30, 2008 11:32 AM
As a practising Hindu, I consider cows to be sacred.
I hereby demand all Catholics stop killing and eating cattle.
It gets worse. After all, don't some Satanists make a practice of doing exactly the opposite of what Christianity dictates? Their "faith" demands precisely that they desecrate certain symbols.
Posted by: Bob L | July 30, 2008 11:32 AM
So the Catholic Conservatives find PZ Meyers politically incorrect?
Lines like "You don't have freedom from religion" are about what you would expect from a organization that was one of the biggest supporters of the fascists dictators like Mussolini and Franco.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 30, 2008 11:33 AM
@177: have you just defined Jesus as a bread golem?
Posted by: SplendidMonkey | July 30, 2008 11:34 AM
And the dude authored Catholicism For Dummies too...
Here's a funny picture for you.
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 11:35 AM
confraternity = against brotherhood
Posted by: craig | July 30, 2008 11:36 AM
"Confraternity = Convicted fraternity?"
Fraternity of con-men.
Posted by: scooter | July 30, 2008 11:37 AM
# 124 Most of the Aarons I know are Jewish fellows. If you are of Jewish descent, this might not be a REAL good idea.
a. Some of these people are actually crazy
b. There's a frightening history to consider
c. PZ has the protection of being somewhat hi-profile
d. You might get the ADL and JDL pissed off at you as well
I'm sure there's other reasons, but personal safety is a high consideration, especially with kids and all.
If I'm mistaken about your ethnic backqground or the name Aaron, ignore this post.
Posted by: megan | July 30, 2008 11:38 AM
Ack! Just OVER 1%. I know, I know. I haven't had my coffee yet. I can haz slide rule?
Also, a google search for the CCC has this blog come up #5, looks like you've gotten some unknowns some nice press here.
Posted by: Vic | July 30, 2008 11:40 AM
Two bits of idiocy in the CCC statement that I noticed:
1) They mention 'academic freedom' (as have many other detractors in this case). Since this was done on one's own time and NOT as part of Dr. Myers' job duties, how can 'academic freedom' even be an issue? This is PURELY a free speech issue - which is why I guess they don't want to mention that, because, well, then they'd sound like the fascists they are.
2) "Freedom of religion>freedom from religion" - this is one of the most obviously ridiculous tropes out there. For one to be free to practice their own religion REQUIRES that one be free from the religious strictures of other faiths. Otherwise, christians must observe the sabbath on Saturday as well like jewish people, pray five times a day facing toward Mecca like muslims, eat babies like atheists (just kidding), etc....
Like most religious-apologist pap, it's designed to SOUND good to the point that the pretty appearance hides its complete lack of content.
Posted by: Qwerty | July 30, 2008 11:41 AM
It is funny. It is such a poorly thought out and written piece of Catholic crap! (I was raised Catholic. So, I feel liberated to say "Catholic crap!") This is a group of VERY orthodox old men who support a VERY orthodox old man in Rome.
Anyhow, your "dissing" led to their "hissing."
If this is the best they can do, then their belief system seems to be nothing more than a house of cards.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 30, 2008 11:43 AM
So because of their tirade, your site is coming up if people look for them?
Oh deary me...
Can we get it above their own do you think?
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 11:45 AM
raven @ 168,
The rest would have to leave because of the prohibitions on gayness and abortion (I've known 2 grown up catholic schoolgirls - both had abortions).
Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | July 30, 2008 11:45 AM
Wow, the absurdity just never ends, does it?
On the topic of Catholic lunacy...Robert Spencer would have us believe that the Crusades were entirely justified. The interview (hosted by mainstream catholic broadcasting network EWTN) concludes:
Posted by: kermit | July 30, 2008 11:45 AM
PZ, I am not as confrontational as you, and cringed when you first took action, altho I have been following subsequent events with interest. I just want to say that I have joined the many atheists who have come around to your way of thinking on this issue. The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy has convinced me that we have a moral obligation to confront people with the superstitious and savage beliefs they would impose on others, given a chance. It's not enough that these pedophile hiders would "convert" us by force if possible, and that they value crackers over human lives and the reputation of their peers over the sanity and innocence of children, but their bizarre blindness even extends to the reading of a simple document and its interpretation over the history of the US. The devout loons are enemies of civilization, joy, morality, and knowledge, and I will call them out on it when I see it. The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy has produced another convert.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA | July 30, 2008 11:46 AM
I was baptized a Catholic; I have not been excommunicated; Therefore: I am a Catholic and will exercise my right to attack (only verbally), malign AND grossly offend your faith tradition.Dear Confraternity of Catholic Clergy,
Your tradition of faith is utterly, completely, and devastatingly bat-shit insane. I find your attempt to suppress dissent to be odious and beneath contempt. Grow up, ass-hats.
There.
P.S.: Your Pope dresses funny.
Posted by: SteveM | July 30, 2008 11:46 AM
@177: have you just defined Jesus as a bread golem?
Yes, I guess I did, (LOL) but more like a Matzoh Golem actually (since it was the Passover meal).
Posted by: The Chemist | July 30, 2008 11:47 AM
@Daedalus2u,
Just kind of an FYI: The fact that the Qur'an wasn't in Arabic does not mean it was not a real Qur'an. Muslims, like Jews, dispose of sacred texts in a certain way. Muslims either burn or bury them, and will do this for transliterations, translations, and any other incarnation of the Qur'an. Arabic script has changed sufficiently that one could honestly say that the current Qur'ans are not written in "real" Arabic. They are all held in relatively equal regard as sacred texts.
Actually, if you want to get really technical, the Qur'an can only exist in verbal form. The word Qur'an in its context means "that which is recited", and so the physical book is just a recitation guide. That doesn't stop it from being sacred to Muslims whatever form it happens to take.
Posted by: JStein | July 30, 2008 11:48 AM
PZ, I'm pretty sure your safely within the first amendment on this one. I don't think that it says: "You have the right to free speech, unless it makes religious people angry."
The Catholic Church, as always, are whining about not being seen favorably, but if they want some good press, maybe they should stop being complicit in the spread of AIDS in Africa and covering up the molestation of little boys.
Posted by: Blaise Pascal | July 30, 2008 11:49 AM
I looked into the "Confraternity of Catholic Clergy". Their web-site says they are an association of 600 Catholic Priests and Deacons in the US. As near as I can tell, they don't claim endorsement of or official recognition from the Holy See, and don't represent the official views of the Church any more than the Catholic League.
I also looked into the number of Catholic clergy in the US. I got a figure of 46,000 priests, and about 14,000 deacons. So the CCC represents about 1% of the Catholic priesthood and deaconship.
Based on the content of the web-site (basically a collection of press releases) it is probably the most conservative and orthodox of the clergy at that. At least one press release listed the Catholic League as other organizations working on the same issue as the press release, so there is some interaction between the two organizations.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 30, 2008 11:54 AM
Prof. Myers, now all can see that you made a serious mistake in driving a rusty nail through that Christ Crispy™ and dumping it out with the household trash.
Obviously, you should have used a wooden stake, as is traditional.
Now, the damn cookie has demonstrated the immortal truth of Catholic doctrine, proving that it is Jesus Christ by returning among us. It simply cannot be killed!
Remember for the next time: use a wooden stake, and bury it at a crossroads, at midnight, with lots of garlic. If you insist on including supplemental materials, use the mil-spec versions: pages from an Arabic Qu'ran and The Origin of Species might work better at holding the beast down.
Posted by: Chip | July 30, 2008 12:00 PM
PZ did the cracker return after three days or not? If it did then I think we could get Bush to declare another holiday - Good Thursday - I am all in favor of another day off from work. I know this has nothing to do with the post but I was curious and the lunatic ravings have been address so well by others. How about selling the trash can on e-bay...like the James ossuary only it's THE "cracker trash can."
Posted by: BMcP | July 30, 2008 12:00 PM
Wow.. unconstitutional, that's a new angle to attempt to play. To say desecrating religious symbols is unconstitutional is the same as saying an individual not believing in a religion is unconstitutional.
Sorry, there is no freedom from being offended.
Posted by: CrypticLife | July 30, 2008 12:01 PM
"Catholic Clergy Call for Reparation in Response to Communion Desecration"
Well, it seems only fair since someone presumably breached the implied contract of eating the cracker. Crackers are worth what, 2 cents each? Give them a nickel and tell them to keep the change...
Posted by: Hoosier X | July 30, 2008 12:02 PM
Anyone know how to contact Trey Parker and Matt Stone? This WOULD make a great epidsode.
I doubt it.
They would include their lame "caricatures" of Al Gore and Bono and ruin it.
South Park jumped the shark long ago.
(Although I did recently watch the episode where they decide Butters is bi-curious and send him off to anti-gay camp to cure his confusion. Hilarious.)
Posted by: Carl Caster | July 30, 2008 12:04 PM
Prof. Myers, little did you realize I followed the trash truck that picked up your trash to the landfill and rummaged through its output until I FOUND THE BODY OF CHRIST!!! He he he.... I now have the little sucker all trussed up on a little Cracker Cross ™ where it belongs and I will soon auction the little guy on eBay.
If those barking mad wackos can believe their incredibly stupid religion, then they can believe this. Screw 'em.
Now that I think about it, I think I will toss the little Cracker Guy ™ in the fireplace.
Posted by: Scrofulum | July 30, 2008 12:07 PM
In the spirit of piss-taking solidarity, I'm hoping to kidnap a whole load of transubstantiated magic sky-genie flesh, but I don't fancy them crackers. They look a tad bland.
Anyone know if I can get a tube of Pringles blessed?
Posted by: Rosie Redfield | July 30, 2008 12:08 PM
Bottom line: All religions are free to criticize (and ridicule) our science, but we're not allowed to reciprocate.
Posted by: CrypticLife | July 30, 2008 12:09 PM
They're claiming unconstitutionality because Myers teaches at a public school. They fail to note that he did not do this in class, but outside of it. If they really want to hold to this kind of a standard, we'd have to fire plenty of public school teachers who advocate religion on their own time. One internet board I frequent for ps teachers even has a "prayer request forum" section.
Ironic that these are the same people who will argue that a teacher can post the Ten Commandos on their wall and keep a Bible displayed on their desk at a high school.
Posted by: Jon W | July 30, 2008 12:12 PM
Thanks for posting my silly cartoon, PZ. I was afraid the cracker theme was becoming too dated to warrant it... (thanks CCC?)
Posted by: SASnSA | July 30, 2008 12:12 PM
The Constitution on Freedom of Religion:
PZ, I didn't realize you were in Congress! Why this just states that government can't say what people have to believe in or can't believe in. That seems to include believing in nothing.
These fools really need to check their references before using them to support the condemnation of others.
Posted by: paul lurquin | July 30, 2008 12:12 PM
On the other hand, PZ desecrates the Koran.... and the Muslim world yawns.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 12:15 PM
I think PZ's desecration was essentially a stunt designed to piss people off, and so I think it was a jerky thing for him to have done. BUT, having said that, at least it proved that all this "PZ would be fired for trashing a Koran" stuff false.
But anyhoo, I wanted to comment mostly to note that I saw this press release yesterday. I noted that the man who wrote it is an Opus Dei priest. Veddy interesting I think he's also one of the Catholic "Q & A" experts on EWTN's website.
Posted by: HostHostage | July 30, 2008 12:16 PM
I was the guy who provided PZ with the cracker that he used in the photo. I also made a video of the event at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHPZFsGrt-Y
The video has received lots of comments but you're only allowed 500 characters to make responses. I hope PZ won't mind if I use this thread to outline my answer to the numerous objections I got from Catholics. Here goes:
Many opinions have been expressed by Catholics and their sympathisers on the subject of 'host desecration' as an unacceptable form of protest against the activities of the Church. I would like to attempt to sort the wood from the trees and provide my justifications for my action.
Firstly, let's establish the irrelevance of the law to this question. It is a moral issue, not a legal one. Whether or not 'host desecration' should be made illegal in a particular legal jurisdiction is beyond my scope here. If you find yourself using the word 'law' in any response to me then your point probably belongs in a separate discussion.
Let us also agree that there is little point in even having a discussion on this subject if one party expects the other to accord respect to a set of moral values handed to them on a plate from a third party. If you choose to do that, then I'd be best advised to have my discussion with that third party, not you. Specifically, if you choose to quote moral principles that derive from Scripture or the Church's teaching, then be prepared to justify that morality using rational/secular arguments that have relevance to those who don't share your religious belief.
Let's us also agree on the moral right of every citizen to protest in a 'free country'. That surely is not a bone of contention between us. Our differences derive from our differing perspectives on what kind of protests are morally acceptable. In order to establish any worthwhile moral principles here, it may help if I pose an evolving, hypothetical scenario:
Is it morally acceptable that I should take up a placard bearing some written criticism of the government, and walk down the street holding it aloft? Some people might say that it depends on the nature of the criticism. Let's say the placard simply read "The governments position on infanticide is wrong". I'm sure 99% of people would have no moral objection.
Lets say I changed the wording to "The Prime Minister's position on infanticide is wrong". Again, despite the attack on on individual's ideas, I suspect there'd be no moral problem for most people. What about "The Prime Minister's ideas on infanticide are stupid". It's now a personal attack but if you draw the line here then I think we have little room for further discussion. At least if you do draw the line here then our standards of morality differ on a far deeper level than that of 'desecration of the host.
What about if my placard involved Bunga Bunga (a religion set up last week, with two members and a stray dog) and read "Bunga Bunga's teaching on infanticide is stupid". If you waited this long to draw the line then you accord religion a status for which I have difficulty seeing any moral justification. You need to ask yourself questions about the rights of religious organisations and/or what constitutes a religion. Surely, the logical conclusion of your position is that you make it possible to morally justify the proscription of any criticism of virtually any idea or icon, if proponents of that idea/icon declare themselves, and it, to be part of a religion. Mind you, you're not alone. The Western press already started the rot on that score when they refused to publish the cartoons of Muhammad some time ago.
For those of you who have yet to draw the moral line, let me now make clear that Bunga Bunga's specific policy on infanticide is that the law of the land should be changed to make the killing of second-born girls mandatory and that in countries where it's not mandatory, uneducated and simple-minded parents are encouraged to kill their second-born girls. Let us also say that Bunga Bunga has churches in which it carries out ceremonies that involve the worship of Bunglips (a tulip-like flower that they 'consecrate' using coal tar and turkey semen) which are then handed out to the congregation to be eaten on the spot in honour of their murdered children. What if my placard was having little effect outside on the street. What if I put it down and entered their church and accepted a Bunglip from the high priest, removed it from the church and then treated it with a level of disrespect that outraged the Bunga Bunga church into making a response? Let's say that as a result of putting my video of the 'desecration' of the Bunglip on YouTube, more than 5000 people viewed it, members of Bunga Bunga said lots of Bunga Bunga prayers for me; others suggested that I would rot in Bunga Hell; but a small few understood my objections to infanticide. Did I do a good thing or an evil thing?
If you don't draw the moral line at this point then I fail to understand your moral outrage at the 'desecration' of crackers. If you do draw the line at this point then I find the nature of your morality depressing; and your willingness to put respect for inanimate objects above that of the lives of your fellow human beings, truly terrifying.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 12:18 PM
I think PZ's desecration was essentially a stunt designed to piss people off, and so I think it was a jerky thing for him to have done. BUT, having said that, at least it proved that all this "PZ would be fired for trashing a Koran" stuff false.
But anyhoo, I wanted to comment mostly to note that I saw this press release yesterday. I noted that the man who wrote it is an Opus Dei priest: John Trigilio, Jr. Veddy interesting I think he's also one of the Catholic "Q & A" experts on EWTN's website.
Posted by: Docwazoo | July 30, 2008 12:19 PM
Mayonaise on a corned beef sandwich!
Ashamed to say I don't get it, not being American.
LOL, got any better ideas?
Posted by: AlanWCan | July 30, 2008 12:20 PM
THis is actually pretty good. This means that, if biologists aren't allowed to criticise religion because they're not theologians, then fair turnabout all these ridiculous religious morons (and dentists and engineers) aren't allowed to criticise biology, so can they please leave us alone about the theory of evolution.
"One fails to see the relevance of uninformed of criticism a major cornerstone of modern science to the wooly wonders of theology. Were a Professor of Biology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express scientific opinions in a classroom. Yet, for a religious nutbar to ridicule and show utter contempt for the theory underpinning a major scientific discipline, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous."
What do you think? Will they abide by their own rules?
Nahh didn't think so.
I'd still love to see this level of outrage from the catholics over their priests' transgressions against choirboys or their military arm in the goings on of Sinn Fein and the IRA wouldn't you?
Posted by: arensb | July 30, 2008 12:22 PM
Following some of the links from the press announcement led me to Church Security Solutions, LLC (whose logo looks like a mogen David stamped with a cross).
I don't see anything on their site about monitoring congregants to make sure they eat baby Jesus in a timely manner, though.
Posted by: SteveM | July 30, 2008 12:24 PM
211:
They're claiming unconstitutionality because Myers teaches at a public school. They fail to note that he did not do this in class, but outside of it.
Even if he did it in class, it would not be unconstitutional, possibly unlawful, but not unconstitutional. Only laws can be unconstitutional, not individual actions. The CCC is wrong on so many levels it approaches "fractal wrongness"
Posted by: BobC | July 30, 2008 12:24 PM
Repent means 'ask god for forgiveness or else go to hell'.
The most moderate Catholics in the world believe atheists go to hell and deserve to go there. Therefore there is no such thing as a moderate Catholic. They're all assholes, every single one of them.
Also, all Catholics (and other Christians) believe in the Resurrection, also known as the 'Jebus was a zombie' belief. Therefore all Catholics and Christians, no matter how moderate they think they are, are batshit crazy.
Also, all religious people, no matter how moderate they think they are, brainwash their children with magic man woo-woo. This is the worst kind of child abuse. This kind of lying can permanently ruin a child's life. There is nothing moderate about mentally abusing children. Therefore every single religious person in the world is an asshole.
Religious people disgust me. A sky fairy hiding in the clouds? A person has to be insane to believe that. What disgusts me even more than the god nuts are the atheists who think religious insanity should be respected. To be religious is worse than being a racist. I will never respect any of it. I don't care how pro-science they are. If they believe there's an invisible man hiding in the clouds, they're nuts and they need to be told they're nuts.
Posted by: Rayven Alandria | July 30, 2008 12:28 PM
It looks to me as though the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy hasn't a clue about what actually transpired. They seem to think you did the deed while in class. I guess they didn't bother to take five minutes to come read your blog. That right there tells me the issue really isn't all that important to them.
They are just blustering about and trying to use this as a way to manipulate people into going back to church. (Which means more money in their pockets) It's nothing but a publicity stunt.
Posted by: mothwentbad | July 30, 2008 12:28 PM
Religion is WAY TOTALLY THE REALM OF BIOLOGY. Psychology is just one link down the chain of interdependence from biology, and religion is a psychological phenomenon of homo sapiens. You could take one more link and say it's largely and anthropology thing, but either way, it's not that far.
And they're going to keep pretending that they can't see this anyway.
Posted by: The 502 | July 30, 2008 12:29 PM
We ask all Catholics of Minnesota and of the entire nation to join in a day of prayer and fasting that such offenses never happen again.
I found this funny. They would starve themselves because you threw away a cracker? That's awesome! If you don't change, do they refrain from eating for the rest of their (short) lives?
But, I was disappointed when I looked up exactly what fasting meant to Catholics...
For Roman Catholics, fasting is the reduction of one's intake of food to one full meal (which may not contain meat during Fridays in Lent) and two small meals (known liturgically as collations, taken in the morning and the evening).
Three meals a day! Shit, that's more than I eat on any given day. That's not fasting... it's eating properly.
Posted by: Jason | July 30, 2008 12:30 PM
Oh... my... goodness.
I still get over how brutally pathetic they are for trying to get you fired. PROFACT: nothing says you are a bully more than trying to beat somebody up and take away their lunch money.
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2008 12:31 PM
The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor.
I don't see the irony in that. Who wrote this article, some kind of an idiot or something?
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.
What kind of a lame committee wrote this article, and how long did it take them to write it? That's freakin hilarious.
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 12:35 PM
but The 502 @ 225
What about second breakfasts? Won't someone please think of the hobbitses?
Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 12:36 PM
Cue the Courtier's Reply. Not to mention that PZ didn't do the stunt in the classroom, but at home.
Posted by: Randomfactor | July 30, 2008 12:41 PM
Hey, guys, if you can spare a moment for a local idiocy, here's a poll for ya.
http://www.bakersfield.com
Should atheists be barred from public office?
Yes. 59 29%
No. 145 71%
------------------------------------------------
Total 204
(Background: local high school trustee (fundie) has been pushing all sorts of ID/"In Go D Wet Rust"/fascist nonsense, and is running for re-election, having stated that his higher obligations supercede his oath as a trustee, and atheists can't uphold that oath anyway, so there.)
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 12:42 PM
Professor of Theology = Professor of Invisible Pink Unicornology
At least a Professor of Pastafarianism can cook (else they'd be a student).
Posted by: arensb | July 30, 2008 12:42 PM
Hank Fox @ #23:
I can transubstantiate Jesus' holy blood into urine. Does that count?
Posted by: Galapagos | July 30, 2008 12:44 PM
Yo Ho!
Posted by: Randomfactor | July 30, 2008 12:44 PM
Hey, guys, if you can spare a moment for a local idiocy, here's a poll for ya.
http://www.bakersfield.com
Should atheists be barred from public office?
Yes. 59 29%
No. 145 71%
------------------------------------------------
Total 204
(Background: local high school trustee (fundie) has been pushing all sorts of ID/"In Go D Wet Rust"/fascist nonsense, and is running for re-election, having stated that his higher obligations supercede his oath as a trustee, and atheists can't uphold that oath anyway, so there.)
Posted by: Hockey Bob | July 30, 2008 12:45 PM
From the CCC website;
CCC supports all bishops who ban Communion to Catholic politicians and voters who publicly and obstinately promote or support abortion. The CCC also supports legislation to protect and defend sanctity of human life (from conception to natural death), of traditional marriage (between a man & a woman), and of the family (mother & father who are also husband & wife, with their children)
So, let me get this straight... they're against abortion, euthanasia, and birth control, but state-sponsored murder (capital punishment) is okay? WTF?
I think we'd all be better off with the FSM; hell, at least you could have a decent meal for communion - I'll bring the garlic cheese bread, even.
(Recovering Minnesotan catholic here, btw...)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbCHimp | July 30, 2008 12:48 PM
Wow that is one dumb poll. Why would they even entertain .. oh never mind. I know why.
Me thinks they need to reference Article VI section 3 of that little thing we like to call the Constitution.
Posted by: scooter | July 30, 2008 12:48 PM
Will Eucharist farts ignite?
Supercalifragilistic-transubstantiation
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | July 30, 2008 12:50 PM
@Randomfactor
Thanks! I've been missing the daily stupid polls 'round here.
Posted by: Sarcastro | July 30, 2008 12:50 PM
Man, if 'clergy' were only spelled with a leading K this organization would be the CoCK.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 30, 2008 12:51 PM
#222:
This is just plain untrue. I mean to the extent where almost every Catholic I know is a counter-example. Even the church hierarchy has a concept of "natural goodness" amongst the non-believers. And at least in a Catholic majority country membership sticks with regardless of beliefs so there are plenty of atheist Catholics (cf Dara O'Brein's bit about "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" - "I'm pretty sure I could join Al Queda and I'd only be considered a bad Catholic")
Posted by: Caveat | July 30, 2008 12:53 PM
Don't they know you're going to publish their prattle and give us all a good laugh about it?
And this:
what, I can't have a hobby?
is why you Da Man.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 12:54 PM
The official Catholic teaching is that nobody knows the state of anyone else's soul (and thus can say for sure who's going to hell/heaven/purgatory).
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 30, 2008 12:54 PM
Dunc @ # 92: If anybody is responsible for the Dark Ages, it's the Visigoths.
Didn't the Goths in general adopt Christianism along with most of the other forms of the Empire they conquered but failed to maintain?
You might want to read Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason before you exculpate the library-burning, intellectual-persecuting crackerolaters entirely...
Posted by: Lynnai | July 30, 2008 12:55 PM
I never read that as people intend me to.
I DO have the right not to be offended, if I don't want to be offended I have every right NOT to be offened! See if I don't! Nobody can force me to be offended! So there!
But I know that's not what's ment, I know it was ment as you do not have the right to protection from offence.... I just felt like being silly and getting that off my chest I feel better now, please carry on.
Posted by: Pablo | July 30, 2008 1:03 PM
I will tell you that even from a Catholic religion perspective, there is a problem with this stance.
Even if we grant that promoting or supporting abortion is a mortal sin which makes a catholic unworthy of receiving communion, the bishop in question does not know that the politician has been to confession since the last time their position was made public, and has been absolved of the sin. Moreover, given the sanctity of the confessional, it's not like the priest can call the bishop and say, "I just heard John Kerry's confession - he's ok."
In the end, the decision about who is worthy to receive communion has to be made by the recipient, who is the only one who knows whether he/she is in the sufficient state to receive it. The church can only provide the guidelines by which the recipient should evaluate themselves, but given their rules on confession and absolution, they can't enforse it (unless they have witnessed the act occuring and can ensure that the person in question has not been in contact with a priest (as I said, no priest can comment confirm or deny that they heard a confession from anyone)
Posted by: Logicel | July 30, 2008 1:05 PM
Mystery is the Catholic Church's calling card; it is the aspect that draws and keeps believers mumbling, genuflecting, tithing away, confessing, etc. PZ calling attention to the fact that their mystery card is the joker's card is not sitting well with these intellectually and emotionally stunted creeps who desperately need the Catholic Ponzi scheme to continue, at least in their lifetimes.
Posted by: me | July 30, 2008 1:05 PM
Huh? Just because you don't have the right to not be offended, doesn't mean you are obliged to be.Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 30, 2008 1:05 PM
Maybe it's just that Father John Trigilio has his cilice a bit too tight.
Posted by: Hockey Bob | July 30, 2008 1:07 PM
@ #102 - Jason
"...bigboy pants..."
You know, even with all of the fancy dresses the clergy wears, you Catholics sure do have a strange attraction towards OTHER PEOPLES' PANTS. Keep your hands to yourself, pal.
By the way, did you ever work in Minneapolis? I might know you!
Posted by: Hap | July 30, 2008 1:12 PM
1) I thought press releases were supposed to advance a cause, not hinder it. Putting your misunderstanding of the Constitution and law and your hypocrisy on parade wouldn't exactly count as advancing your cause, unless that is your cause...
2) As said before, if you have to compel respect from others, then you can't earn it, and if the others are smart, you will not get it (at least until you can earn it). Attempting to do so only underlines the reasons why you are unworthy of respect, and makes it harder for you to obtain it by any method other than force. (Although that would explain why the CCC so misunderstands the 1st Amendment - they might like to go back to the days when they could enforce respect. Add history to the list of things they don't know.)
3) The right not to be offended is inconsistent with existence - people get sick, commit violence, etc., and the only way to avoid offensive and hurtful things is not to exist. I know in the past, people have decided that the right not to be offended gives them licence to end the lives of those offending them, but that doesn't work out so well - after getting rid of the offensive others, fake piety won't be an effective defense when other people decide to return the favor.
Hey, CCC - the first rule of holes is stop digging. You might consider giving up now before you make your stupidity impossible for more people to ignore.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 30, 2008 1:13 PM
I'm prepared to bet that you have. Although it's damn-near impossible to get a ferendæ sententiæ excommunication these days (formal sentence of an ecclesiastical court), it's pretty hard not to do something that incurs a latæ sententiæ (automatic) excommunication under Canon Law, such as heresy or apostasy, unless you're batshit insane.Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 1:16 PM
Aha, Fr. Trigilio is indeed an EWTN "expert": http://www.ewtn.com/faith/QA/expertslist.htm
Posted by: Dahan | July 30, 2008 1:18 PM
Well, MY religion "Dahanism" states that all Catholics have to give me all their money and can never have children, otherwise it's an affront to the great god Dahan. (Hey! That's me!) To do otherwise is to mock my religion and smacks of bigotry of the highest order! I'd rather be gunned down in the street than to watch such an ugly thing as them not giving me all their money. If any of them decide to not give me all their money and are currently working in any state or government position. I demand they be fired and jailed immediately for their hate crimes!
BTW, if you join Dahanism today, you can et a cut of the profits. Those converting first will see the largest percentages.
Posted by: chancelikely | July 30, 2008 1:20 PM
SteveM #199: If Jesus is a Matzo Golem, does that explain where Matzo Balls come from?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 30, 2008 1:22 PM
Ooh, ooh, count me in! Do I need to sell vitamins and shampoo, or is it one of those religions where I get to lounge around having sex with acolytes?
Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 30, 2008 1:22 PM
Dunc #92 is wrong, Pierce #243 is correct, the Visigoths were indeed "Christians." However, they subscribed to heresy - the Arian Christianity and so were not Roman Catholics.
The Dark Ages existed because the vikings burned everything, and so removed from our vision the documents that would "enlighten" us as to the goings on of the time between 800 - 1000 CE. That is not to say the Vikings were without value. They redistributed wealth that was being locked up in these castle keeps.
The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox church arguably retarded social progress for 500 plus years. BUt they are not solely to blame. The Romans weren't going anywhere fast by 378 CE, the Sasanians weren't doing much either, and of all people the Visigoths were making the strides in technology. (Did they invent the stirrup?) The RCC and EOC were more concerned with looming escathological debate then improving the here and now. It wasn't until the Islamic traders reopened the trade routes east that any new ideas (zero anyone?) were introduced to the European continent, and those were confined to Spain.
Posted by: Lynnai | July 30, 2008 1:24 PM
Yeah it kinda does. We know that isn't what is ment becuase common sense over rides but on a straight lingual logical level that sentance says I am obligated to be offended. Double negatives do create a positive but they also more often then not create a very specific set of peramiters.
I do not have the right to kill people.
I do not have the right to steal things.
I do not have the right to rape, pillage or burn fedreal propery.
I do not have the right not to be offended.
It doesn't quite follow does it? It doesn't say that other people don't have the right to offend me, it says I have the obligation be in a state of general offendedness becuase I do not have the right to NOT be in that state.
But as I said I know what was actually ment, I just found the idea of forced offence amusing.
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2008 1:25 PM
Hey, CCC - the first rule of holes is stop digging. You might consider giving up now before you make your stupidity impossible for more people to ignore.
They don't have much choice if they really believe all that stuff. They think God will get mad at everybody if they don't pray and speak out and hold ritual "cleansing" and "forgiveness" ceremonies and whatnot.
Posted by: Kate | July 30, 2008 1:30 PM
You are a sad, sad soul! I will pray for you and for others like you who find it pleasing to make a mockery of a core belief of Catholic Christians. May God Bless you (despite your complete and dispicable irreverence for Him).
Posted by: DaveG | July 30, 2008 1:31 PM
Is that the Mighty Lord Cthulhu coming down the stairs for you?
Posted by: Sean D. | July 30, 2008 1:31 PM
"We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional."
Unconstitutional?
Clearly these asshats are getting access to some really killer BC Buds(tm), when do the rest of us get some?
Posted by: Susannah | July 30, 2008 1:31 PM
Re the cartoon: He's got his foot on the Bible! The horror! Desecration! Disrespect!!eleven!!
Should have been a LOLcat, though. Change the spelling and punctuation a bit: "YUR CRACKERS! R NOT SAFE"
YUR stands in for both "Your" and "You're" that way.
:)
Posted by: megan | July 30, 2008 1:32 PM
@ BF 105: For lunch I'm eating Corned Beef and Swiss with Basil Sauce on Asiago Bread. It's Michigan, unless you're at Zingerman's they don't know any better (but it IS delicious sacrelige)
Posted by: 386sx (='.'=) | July 30, 2008 1:32 PM
See what I mean. QED.
Posted by: Jay | July 30, 2008 1:40 PM
PZ, I demand you make available t-shirts with that image!
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 1:40 PM
AFAIK, in christerology, there is only one thing that is actually inexcusable, and that it is to "blaspheme" the "Holy Spirit". May the STDs of every afflicted resident on Africa take up residence in his filthy Satan-inviting bunghole.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 1:41 PM
Hmm, interesting. Father Trigilio saw this post on Pharyngula and commented on it on what is apparently his own blog: http://blackbiretta.blogspot.com/2008/07/biologist-will-not-balk.html.
Not much interesting reading there, though. To wit:
So I wonder, did the guy actually *weep* at what PZ did?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2008 1:42 PM
Yes please pray for us all. As much as you can. Every day, all day.
The more time you spend praying and wasting your time the less time you'll be bothering us and wasting ours.
Posted by: DaveG | July 30, 2008 1:42 PM
Ask the Squealots to post their evidence for transubstatiation on Arxiv... Is the cracker the body of Jesus the Man or Jesus the God? I'm curious how Divinity can be described in material terms. If something is Supernatural, how can its presence be verified in the Natural realm? My head's getting light...
Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 1:43 PM
Oh sorry, messed up the URL for Trigilio's response in my earlier comment. It's this: http://blackbiretta.blogspot.com/2008/07/biologist-will-not-balk.html
Posted by: SteveM | July 30, 2008 1:46 PM
I'd rather you knit yourself a pair of socks or something, you know, actually do something productive rather than muttering to yourself while fingering a set beads.
Posted by: Lee Picton | July 30, 2008 1:47 PM
I googled Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and PZ, your blog entry was on the same page. Now if a whole lot of people did the same, your blog entry could be bumped up closer to the top. Clickety-click anyone?
Posted by: Jing-reed | July 30, 2008 1:50 PM
Somewhat related.
PBS will air 'The Bible's Buried Secrets' on Nov. 18. A two hour special based on archaeological and historical research which debunks the Old Testament. Shows that most of its stories were lifted from surrounding cultures or just invented and did not represent real historical events. Evidently even mentions Yahweh's wife Asherah - a goddess borrowed from Mesopotamia, but was rubbed out somewhere along the way. Martial problems perhaps, and that might explain why he was always so pissed off.
Producer Paula Apsell said: "...It's designed for intelligent people who are willing to change their mind.
The Catholics, and naturally the Fundies, are already clogging the internet forums raising hell about PBS and in some cases demanding that it not be aired.
Posted by: me | July 30, 2008 1:53 PM
I'm no linguist, but I think this is misuse of the word "right". Try this, "You don't have the right to beat the shit out of someone." This is true, but if you are boxer in a boxing ring, you have that privilege. In other words, just because you don't have the right to do something doesn't mean you can't do it.Posted by: FollowTheGourd | July 30, 2008 1:55 PM
@272
I googled "Confraternity of Catholic Clergy" and hit 6 might well reveal the identity of one of everybody's favourite crackerphiles!
Posted by: Cheezits | July 30, 2008 1:55 PM
PRAY FOR PROFESSOR MYERS
He ought to be praying for forgiveness for idolatry. And calling a cracker Jesus should be condemned as blasphemy.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 30, 2008 1:56 PM
If you believe in souls, you're a moron.
If you don't like your beliefs being ridiculed, you should avoid believing ridiculous things.
No thanks. Your petty, evil, genocidal, homophobic, misogynist God can stuff his blessings up his supernatural cornhole; the Pope and all of the other child-rape enablers who claim to be his servants can kiss my shiny white ass.Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2008 1:56 PM
tsg #166 wrote:
Not bad. A good part of this entire debate hinges on what it means to be "intolerant."
It's not just the Catholics. The followers of religion in general have tried to carve out a special niche where criticism, dissent, mockery, and rudeness towards specific faith beliefs is automatically classified as "intolerant." If you say that the Catholics (or the Muslims or the Wiccans) are wrong, then you're being intolerant. You're attacking people in their private sanctuary and trampling on their "right to believe whatever they want."
In other words, those who dissent are BULLIES, attacking the weak. They violate the necessary civility of a civil society, and break the harmony. Civil = polite. Respecting others means no arguing with them. No trying to persuade them to change. Accept and honor them as is.
We, of course, see "harmony" as another word for "consensus," and all forms of dissent as necessary to a civil society. Civil = befitting a citizen in a free and open society. Respecting others means considering them as equals, as the precursor to argument. You cannot bully your equals.
And there is no genuine "respect" in separating the religious from the common ground of reason by patting them on the head and putting them in a little glass box marked "sacred."
It sometimes seems like we're using different dictionaries.
Posted by: Lee Picton | July 30, 2008 1:57 PM
I went over to Fr. What-is-name's blog and noticed that not a single comment has been printed. I left him a message, and don't see it, either. Why is that, do you suppose?
Posted by: megan | July 30, 2008 1:57 PM
@ Adrianne - tee hee, if you look at the Father's blogger identity, he includes his horoscope sign. ! oh giggle i do.
Posted by: VWXYNot? | July 30, 2008 1:58 PM
OT, but what do vegetarian and vegan Catholics make of the whole transubstantiation thing?
Posted by: Kevin Klein | July 30, 2008 1:59 PM
People who don't want their beliefs to be laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
Posted by: Alex Ess | July 30, 2008 2:00 PM
Well, that press release convinced me
...to start using communion wafers instead of toilet paper, that is.
Posted by: robotaholic | July 30, 2008 2:01 PM
Thats it! - I'm going out of my way to be offensive to religious people like this! Fuck catholacism, fuck Donahue, fuck the pope, fuck baptists, fuck jehovah's witnesses, fuck all religions, fuck fortune tellers, fuck astrology, fuck islam, fuck terrorists, fuck suicide bombers, fuck every stupid big fat dress wearing preaching molesting priest and fuck people who think it's ok to worship something that is supposed to send me or anyone i know or anyone at all to buring hell fire torture, fuck brain washing zombie religious nuts ruining the peace and scientific progress of the human race- fuck black screaming psychopathic preachers who spout racisim, fuck McDonald's boycotting right wing homosexual hating biggots!
/rant
Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 30, 2008 2:02 PM
You are a sad, sad soul! I will pray for you and for others like you who find it pleasing to make a mockery of a core belief of Catholic Christians. May God Bless you (despite your complete and dispicable irreverence for Him).
Everyone, I should chime in with some support for Kate @ 259 here - her pitiful comment and bad spelling are at least partly my fault. You see, we used to be sexually involved a few years ago (like many Catholic girls, she's uptight in public but a rabid pagan slut in bed) and I broke up with her because I got tired of having her condemn me for being an atheist - especially right after she swallowed my load (and did so ironically, I might add!). She didn't take well, and become a lonely bitter young woman locked in her room at her computer, scouring the intertoobs looking for semi-random targets for badly-written religiously motivated scorn.
Kate, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean for you to turn out this way.
By the way, do you still swallow?
Posted by: megan | July 30, 2008 2:04 PM
holy crap someone needs to write a piece on the Padre. He wrote all these books like 'John Paul II for Dummies' and has links to them on his website, what a money grubber. AND he has cartoons and commentary that make fun of liberal catholics and nuns who don't wear a habit 'he calls them 'LPNs - Likes to Play Nun'. I guess he's 'allowed' to do that, according to the CCC since he's Catholic, but what a judgemental prick.
Posted by: Rev. Jihad Frenzy | July 30, 2008 2:05 PM
Scrofulum, as a fully paid up and ordained minister in the Church of The SubGenius, I hereby declare that from this point on, any can of Pringles you choose is hereby consecrated in the faith of (Religion Name Here) as the (fill in the blank) of (fill in the blank) for any purpose whatsoever the owner of said can of Pringles deems fit and proper!
According to Church doctrine, ANYTHING a SubGenius says is automatically scripturally correct Church doctrine, ergo, the next can of Pringles you buy is therefore actually a can full of tasty Catholic hosts.
Posted by: me | July 30, 2008 2:05 PM
@284
"They told me nothing
Nothing but lies!
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!
Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!
Fuck me! Fuck me!
Fuck you! Fuck you!
Fuck everyone! Fuck the church!
Fuck Jesus! Fuck Mary!
Fuck the Jews! Fuck the Bhuddists!
Fuck the Hindus! Fuck George Bush!
Fuck his ugly wife! Fuck Tipper Gore!
Fuck everyone! Fuck Gorbachev!
Fuck Noriega! Fuck all these assholes!
Fuck you! Fuck me! Fuck all of you!
Stigmata! Stigmata! Stigmata! Stigmata!
They told me nothing but lies!
Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies! "
Ministry - Stigmata
Posted by: Dahan | July 30, 2008 2:05 PM
Brownian @ 255,
"Ooh, ooh, count me in! Do I need to sell vitamins and shampoo, or is it one of those religions where I get to lounge around having sex with acolytes?"
Well, it's kinda complicated, but I think we're going for the "sex with acolytes who sell vitamins and shampoo for us"" theme in general.
Posted by: robotaholic | July 30, 2008 2:09 PM
I totally have the entire ministry discography lol - i like thier 80's industrial music the best lol
Posted by: arensb | July 30, 2008 2:10 PM
After following a few more links, I stumbled upon this letter, in which the Catholic Confraternity denounces a proposal to make priests' celibacy optional.
Please note the word "realistic", and switch off all irony-sensitive devices before proceeding to the next few paragraphs.
You may now point and laugh, and thank you for flying What The Hell Are They Smoking Airlines.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 30, 2008 2:10 PM
Megan @ # 264
That sounds pretty sacredelicious. But as I posted yesterday in the pork v beef bbq debate, I'm an 'eat and let eat' kinda guy.
Posted by: James | July 30, 2008 2:13 PM
#273 Nothing new, that is what they teach in Catholic Biblical Studies for over a 100 years. Hence why the Catholic Church does not follow Sola Scripture (Bible alone theology) nor does it supports Creationism. For Catholics, scripture is meant to be read prayerfully (called Lectio Divina) and not as a science book (this was a major arguement by members of the Magesterium during Galileo--they were right!). Yes, for Catholics Scripture is the word of God, written by man but Tradition does not allow literally meanings, it goes by the original intent of the author, to the audience of the time, and by the original language it was written (Greek and Hebrew). The few that is taken literally is just the portions where the Hebrew or Greek syntax requires it. So, in short, the PBS special will probably drive the fundies crazy (which is fun). Those claiming to be Catholic need to realize the the P.B.C. contributed, probably the charsmatic catholic groups, they hate tradition, historical critical, and non-literal interpretation.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | July 30, 2008 2:17 PM
Sounds to me like the Catholic church is trying to incite hatred against atheistic, cephalopod loving biologists.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 30, 2008 2:17 PM
Adrienne @ #267
Only crocodile tears, which gives him only 20% binocularity, better for on-line ambushing. See what you learn from the History Channel?
Posted by: Jon W | July 30, 2008 2:18 PM
RE #285
That's disgusting. Don't be a scumbag.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 2:20 PM
Hey, I'm going to do a minor threadjack here to do a public service announcement. For those of you who want to oppose and even royally piss off Catholics/Fundies *while supporting a very good cause*, forget the Eucharistic desecrations and try volunteering some time at your local women's clinic that does abortions instead. I do this every fourth or fifth Saturday morning, helping to escort scared patients past a small but ridiculously vocal group of screaming meemies (mostly Catholics, of course) who try to deceive or intimidate patients into going to the local Catholic-run "crisis pregnancy center" instead.
Posted by: Hockey Bob | July 30, 2008 2:22 PM
@ 198
P.S.: Your Pope dresses funny.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
;-)
Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 30, 2008 2:24 PM
Jon W @296
That's disgusting. Don't be a scumbag.
Faux outrage from a concern troll. How original.
Posted by: megan | July 30, 2008 2:26 PM
@ BF #292: Wow, SacreDElicious is my new favorite word. Sold!
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 30, 2008 2:27 PM
#296
+1
Just say no scumbagary.
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 2:28 PM
#296,
See definition 2.
Now who's disgusting?
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 30, 2008 2:29 PM
Supporting a local women's medical clinic is an excellent idea! One problem: there is no local clinic that does abortions. There is apparently only one place in all of Minnesota where you can get them done; one of the doctors in Minneapolis flies in to South Dakota regularly to do them, and otherwise, South Dakota would be completely lacking in that service.
People have no idea of the magnitude of the suppression of basic health services around here, all caused by religious nuts.
Posted by: mikeg | July 30, 2008 2:29 PM
huh? (+)... is this the transubstantiated butthole of jesus... really? no, really?
Posted by: oriole | July 30, 2008 2:29 PM
Hey, outraged Catholics, maybe you could work out a deal with PZ. If you could get your priests to stop sexually abusing their altar boys, you could probably get PZ to stop abusing your stupid crackers.
Great priorities you've got there on your outrage meters, Catholics.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2008 2:42 PM
@ 285
WTF, really? WTF?
Posted by: CaryT | July 30, 2008 2:46 PM
Unconstitutional? wtf? It's been awhile since my constitutional history coursework but I seem to remember the purpose of the bill of rights being to protect the people from the government. Individual citizens can be very prejudiced for or against any religion at any time. The First Amendment prohibits government from doing this.
If the Cathtards are arguing that PZ is a public employee then sure, he's a public employee when in a classroom or speaking for the university. What he does on his own time, be it cracker malediction, biological ejaculations, or octopus molestation, that's his own business and not relevant to the U.S. Constitution or any of its amendments.
Posted by: cicely | July 30, 2008 2:50 PM
Emmet @ 156, I am indebted to you for introducing me to a fun new word...nescience. I like it!
And, everybody...Etha's back!
Posted by: fireant451 | July 30, 2008 2:50 PM
That's a fine catch, that catch-22.
It's the best there is.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 30, 2008 2:51 PM
WTF, really? WTF?
A bit over the top?
Posted by: Raiko | July 30, 2008 2:51 PM
I see the point. Really.
In my religion, we habitually take little round crackers, dip them in blood (well, ketchup), walk across them with dirty sneakers and then rub them against an old banana peel. According to my religion, these crackers are the embodiment of Ghangjlick's soul, the master of evil who beheaded our prophet, Lord Inklunx. We perform this ritual regularly every Wednesday to ensure our safety from Ghangjlick and Those He Poisoned through the power of Lord Inklunx' (intelligently designed) banana, the symbol of his natural purity and endless power.
I feel greatly offended that some cult out there would ridicule our ritual by EATING the cracker and thus smearing themselves with the evil of Ghangjlick and the blood of our Lord Inklunx the Great! These heathens don't know what they're doing!
But alas. Freedom of religion means I have to let them --- ew ---- eat Ghangjilick's incarnation.
May Inklunx have mercy on them. I pray for them.
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2008 2:57 PM
Huh!!! What!!! This makes no sense.
The Jesus in the cracker is the all powerful, omniscient creator of the universe. The last time he and his father who are the same being got irritated with humans, they flooded the earth with 10 miles of water and killed all but 8 people.
Seems to me that such a powerful entity could get out of a cracker before it hits the trash can. And turn PZ into a frog without breathing hard.
The priests have some explaining to do. Why is god/Jesus so feeble these days that he can't even call 911? Everyone has a cell phone.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 30, 2008 3:02 PM
Oh hey, there is a critical comment showing up at Trigilio's blog. Let's see how long it stays there....
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2008 3:07 PM
A bit.
I'm all for poking fun at the religious whiners that show up here but I try to stick to things we know about them. Like their religion and all the dumb things that surround it.
Posted by: mathyoo | July 30, 2008 3:07 PM
If you put limits on academic freedom and free speech, they aren't free any more. Moron.
Posted by: Maxime | July 30, 2008 3:15 PM
Yeh, mister jew, the french catholics doesn't like you too!
Posted by: akshelby | July 30, 2008 3:18 PM
Rev.BigDumbChimp @314 regarding #285
Thank you. I've been following Crackergate quite closely and I'm all for knocking the godbots and trolls around based on the things they say and believe. But #285 was knocking her about based on her being a woman and sexually denigrating her. Totally uncalled for.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 30, 2008 3:22 PM
A bit.
I'm all for poking fun at the religious whiners that show up here but I try to stick to things we know about them. Like their religion and all the dumb things that surround it.
Respectfully noted. And thank you.
For what it's worth, I was having a snarky moment and felt like plucking one of the random drive-by troll grenades out of the air and just casually chucking it right back in the the thrower's lap so that hilarity might ensue. And I hope everyone realizes that I truly have no idea who this Kate person is, nor do I have any reason to think that she even stuck around after lifting her nose and clicking the "post" button.
Posted by: Austin | July 30, 2008 3:24 PM
Since their sacrament claims that their magical spell turns the cracker into the literal--and therefore BIOLOGICAL--flesh of Jesus, then who better than a biologist to point out that, actually, it's still a frakkin' cracker?
...well, okay, the FDA, maybe. The crackers might be okay, but I bet Jesus is WAY past his 'Sell By' date.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | July 30, 2008 3:30 PM
#212 jon w Cartoon
Thanks.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 30, 2008 3:34 PM
With regard to my "for what it's worth" comment, let me be the first to flatly say that it ain't worth squat. Everyone who jumped on my ass about it was right, I was wrong, I apologize, and I will not go that sort of off-color route again.
Posted by: Jon W | July 30, 2008 3:38 PM
RE #299
I may be a part-time "concern troll," but I contribute other stuff too (the cartoon in PZ's post, for example).
Posted by: Sean D. | July 30, 2008 3:38 PM
#321
I thought it was funny Eric, but then I've been accused of being a dirty bastard.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 30, 2008 3:42 PM
So, over 300 comments and only two trolls? So much for the whole "the storm is just beginning" thing.
Although, to be honest, one of the reasons the cracker threads were so crazy is that PZ was busy jetting around the country at the time, and didn't have time to do his usual half-dozen posts per day, thus everything got concentrated on the one big topic of the moment.
Meanwhile, I am TOTALLY in favor of the idea of PZ paying a "reparation" by sending the CCC a nickel in an envelope. It would serve to more fully illustrate how crazy they are, and the difference between host desecration and the acts of actual vandalism that populate all the BS "analogies" made by the bed-wetting set.
This already IS an episode of South Park. South Park is REAL, and we're living in it.
PZ has even killed Kenny a few times on Pharyngula.
And if PZ had ever inflicted widespread disemvowelment on Kenny, then the analogy would be perfect.
"Y cn't gnr NDs. Mllns f ppl hv ywtnss tstmny f grt lght nd flng f vrwhlmng lv."
"Ha ha ha ha! Kenny, you're so dirty!"
Wow, SacreDElicious is my new favorite word. Sold!
No no no no no. It's sacreLICious.
Do I need to sell vitamins and shampoo, or is it one of those religions where I get to lounge around having sex with acolytes?
No, only the high priests get to do that. As a regular religious peon, you get to toil in the fields all day in the hopes of being rewarded in the afterlife. Don't you know how these things work?
Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 30, 2008 3:44 PM
I may be a part-time "concern troll," but I contribute other stuff too (the cartoon in PZ's post, for example).
Jon W, please let me follow up my #321 by apologizing in particular to you. I so totally deserved to get metaphorically smacked upside the head, as you were quick to do.
Posted by: DjtHeutii | July 30, 2008 3:45 PM
The "unconstitutional" part is hilarious. Is PZ now the government or something? These guys have no idea how that "Constitution" thing works at all do they?
Posted by: Eupraxsopher | July 30, 2008 3:48 PM
It's amazing that presumably high-echelon religious organizations use logic and fallacy that an average nine year-old could spot.
Posted by: les | July 30, 2008 3:50 PM
"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."
I assume this means we can continue to tastefully offend their faith tradition, as we are all wont to do.
Posted by: IceFarmer | July 30, 2008 3:53 PM
PZ,
You should ask for them for another Eucharist directly from these guys. Since it was Jebus himself that was wounded directly, you wish to discuss the afore mentioned actions, apologies and terms of reparations that Jebus wants. If you come to a mutual understanding with the cracker... Jebus... then you will consider apologizing to the cracker and the cracker alone. All the other Catholics can go F themselves accordingly. If you & Jebus disagree, or worse ye, the discussion doesn't go anywhere, then you'll the Eucharist to piss off and send him back via ground mail from whence he/it came.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 30, 2008 3:56 PM
#321,
For your penance, say three Hail Marys.
:o)
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 30, 2008 3:57 PM
So much to read from charming and intelligent people, so much stupidity still to experience from the credulous. Alas, time has passed and I wave goodbye to all. Have enjoyed most of my time here, especially now that I installed killfile (smile).
I suggest SC, of the sexy mind, and Wowbagger for the next Molly awards as both had insightful comments during crackerpazoola.
PZ, thank you for this blog, it has been a source of both education and joy.
Ciao all.
Posted by: Lynnai | July 30, 2008 4:01 PM
either you are letting your common sense take over and are going back to what was clearly implied in context (which I did say I understood and that I was just being silly pointing out what was actually logically read into the statement); or you are missing the point. It is actually a very fine and sticky piece of logic which results in some very silly thoughts.
It isn't about talking about rights in negatives, it is about talking about rights in double negatives.
example: You have the right to free speach. This means you can speak and express your self freely.
Step two: You do not have the right to free speach. This means you don't get to say what you want all the time and some of your actions might be cutrailed.
Step three: You do not have the right not to free speach. Which means you must speak freely.... how much of the day and to how to judge whether or not you are speaking freely is of course impossible to judge and creates a totaly conundrum as maybe not speaking is your choice of expression = total silliness. Please note, although in the end the practical result is the right to free speach it does so by setting up an obligation to speak freely.
Not having the right not to be offended of course leaves me still with the ability to not be offended, just not the constitutional right to do so. That boxer has set themselves up an exception to not having the right to beat the shit out of someone but he still has the right to not beat the shit out of them, it's not unconstitutional to be a bad boxer. But if it was set up that boxers did not have the right not to beat the shit out of someone, then they would constitutionally HAVE to beat the shit out of someone. Although it doesn't stipulate when or how much. This is my point, you can not speak of rights in double negatives wihtout getting silly.
How about a non constitutional example, here's a sextuple negative for you: "I don't not know nobody who doesn't not want no nine inch nails" = everybody I know wants nine inch nails, not just some people but everybody. (It's not true, some people I know never do heavy carpentry and think Trent Resnor is a wanker.)
Remember I'm primarilly talking about the logical form of the sentance.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2008 4:02 PM
*blinks*
I thot I thaw an Etha!
Ethaethaethaethaetha!!!
:-)
Posted by: Jon W | July 30, 2008 4:07 PM
RE #321 and #325
Whoops, I should read ahead before I comment. No apology necessary (to me, anyway).
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2008 4:11 PM
JeffreyD: Stop in when you get a chance. Til then, be well, and stay safe. xo
Posted by: Gridman | July 30, 2008 4:15 PM
Maybe we should write to the pope and ask his opinion on all this?
We've got all these speaking supposedly on behalf of the Catholics, perhaps Benny could deign to weigh in on this?
Posted by: John Hamilton | July 30, 2008 4:19 PM
Could this press release just be a Confraternity prank?
Posted by: Patricia | July 30, 2008 4:22 PM
Goodbye JefferyD!!! Have fun, but please come back. I send you a big *SMOOCH* Don't forget to twirl! ;)
Posted by: hf | July 30, 2008 4:23 PM
I was surprised to see the CCC calling itself a national (American) group. But maybe their right-wing views could explain their ignorance of the Constitution and/or the facts of this case.
Posted by: raven | July 30, 2008 4:24 PM
That was my thought. There is a huge gap in priest recruitment and they must be getting old.
They need to drop the celibate priest thing and quickly. There is no scriptural basis for it anyway. Otherwise they will end up with a very small group of very old men running the church and most of them will have alzheimers.
Posted by: Blondin | July 30, 2008 4:28 PM
"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."
-- Carl Sagan
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | July 30, 2008 4:33 PM
Reading the CCC site, they really are completely divorced from reality. Total nutters. There also appears to be an error on their logo: the ribbon should read "ani puerorum in aeternum" not "tu es sacerdos in aeternum".
Posted by: crossbuck | July 30, 2008 4:38 PM
When the Catholic crazies came out of the woodwork when the first of these posts went up, one thing came into my mind. All of them, clergy and laity alike reminded me of an episode of Married With Children, where they were all threatened by a fortune teller. Kelly (the dumb blonde) was sitting on the couch, rubbing a box of Lucky Charms and chanting, "They're magically delicious" over and over. She seemed no sillier than the cracker-worshipers.
Posted by: mk | July 30, 2008 4:39 PM
Darn! Doesn't look like this one's going to make it a thousand!
C'mon you jesus freaks! Lost your will to annoy or something?
Posted by: Geoff Schroeder | July 30, 2008 4:39 PM
The declaration, incredibly, is phrased very similarly to the sentence passed by the Inquisition upon Galileo. The full test can be found in Bertrand Russell's The Scientific Outlook. The cadence and lofty language thus:
Invoking then the Most Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of His most glorious Mother Mary, ever Virgin, for this Our definite sentence, the which sitting pro tribunali, by the counsel and opinion of the Reverent Masters of theology and doctors of both laws, Our Counsellors, we present in these writings, in the cause and causes currently before Us, between the magnificent Carlo Sinceri, doctor of both laws, procurator fiscal of this Holy Office on the one part, and thou Galileo Galilei, guilty, here present, confessed and judged, on the other part:
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture; and in consequence thou hast incurred all the censures and penalties of the Sacred Canons, and other Decrees both general and particular, against such offenders imposed and promulgated. From the which We are content that thou shouldst be absolved, if, first of all, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, thou dost before Us abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies and any other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, after the manner that We shall require of thee.
"And to the end that this thy grave error and transgression remain not entirely unpunished, and that thou mayst be more cautious in the future, and an example to others to abstain from and avoid similar offences,
Posted by: Hockey Bob | July 30, 2008 4:52 PM
Totally off-topic, but check out what happens when you do wheelies in church...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=39589604
Oops! That would even hurt a fracken' cracker!
Posted by: Blondin | July 30, 2008 4:54 PM
#345
Still, it moves.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 30, 2008 5:05 PM
The idea that the University should scrutinize the private life of its professors and fire them when they say something inappropriate outside of their working time is a repulsive and totalitarian one.
"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."
OK guys! From now on, you'll treat other religions with due respect. No more mocking the human sacrifices to Quetzalcoatl, the Egyptian gods with animal heads, the silly adultery stories of the Olympian gods. No more bad words about the Wiccans, the worshippers of Odin or the various heretics of the past. Of course, no more caricatures of Muhammad. And please, treat with respect the various mutilations (genital or otherwise) performed in the name of a religious tradition. Understood?
Posted by: Lois Carneiro | July 30, 2008 5:07 PM
You know, if you hadn't thrown out that cracker, you could have sprayed some Cheez Whiz on it and had a delicious snack.
In my youth I was forced to partake of many a communion wafer. The Nuns told us that we weren't allowed to chew it. Indeed, if our teeth even touched it, it would be a sin. It seems you're not supposed to bite the body of Christ, you're supposed to let him melt in your mouth like M&Ms. Sadly they were made of some sticky, styrofoam-like substance that simply wouldn't dissolve. You don't know how many times I had to pry the body of Christ off the roof of my mouth with my finger!
- Maggie
Posted by: JHJEFFERY | July 30, 2008 5:08 PM
OK, Here's the letter I wrote to Father Trigilio's organization. The best defense is a good offense. Let's see if we can get the asshole fired.
Just in case he does not share my response with you, I provide you with a summary of my letter to Father Trigilio.
First, I was perturbed to find two grammatical and one spelling error in a post from the editor of your newsletter.
More importantly, Father Trigilio may or may not know scripture, but his understanding of the U.S. Constitution is at a grade school level, if that. I am, humbly, an expert on the First Amendment, particularly on the first clause thereof and I have practiced law for thirty-three years. Freedom of religion does not resemble the concept of your priest. Instead, it means that each of us has the right to practice his or her own religion in the manner in which we see fit. No one can be compelled to practice, or respect, any other religion. The idea that Father Trigilio wants to silence someone who has contempt for his particular religion might be treated with nothing but derision if it did not come from a platform such as your organization. But it did. It is blatantly unAmerican, subversive of the principles upon which this country was founded, and generally authoritarian and reprehensible. I suggest that Father Trigilio be required to memorize the First Amendment (or at least read it) before opining again.
Oddly enough, Father Trigilio then proceeds to say that Professor Myers cannot have an opinion on theological matters. This is in the paragraph after the good Father has given us his legal opinion.
In short, I am outraged by the fascist and tyrannical rant of Father Trigilio. Please let me know if you have in place any type of disciplinary board or procedure of which I might have access in order to seek the dismissal, or at least the discipline of this most unAmerican person.
I will await your response.
Jerry H. Jeffery
(telephone number here)
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2008 5:14 PM
...that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, blah blah blah...
So let me see if I have this right: They were the bleepin apostolic successors ordainerd by the one and only Jesus Frakin H. Christ His Holy Bleepin Self, and they got the scriptures completely bassed baskwards. Correct me if I'm wrong!
Posted by: Tom Coward | July 30, 2008 5:14 PM
My apologies if this point has been made before (this is a long thread that I have not had a chance to read entirely):
The constitutional thesis put out by these Catholics is so bad it is "not even wrong." The Constitution protects the peolple from the Government, not from each other. The First Amendment restrains the Government from establishing a religion, prohibiting the free excersise of a religion, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, and so on. The Constitution doesn't stop a private person from doing anything. The First Amenedment is what keeps the Catholics (for example) from getting the Government to stop PZ from desecrating their biscuit. The First Amendment in fact is what gurantees PZ's right to do this, and to insult their religion in any other way he wants.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 30, 2008 5:15 PM
Oh, and this :
"Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom."
So, that's what it is? Theology is just "expressing religious opinions"? An opinion is merely "that's what I think, and I stick to it". I don't see how it could form the base of anything ending in -logy. Politology is not just a professor stating in front of his students: "I'll vote for X, whether you like it or not". Oenology is not just saying: "I really, really like this wine here". Why would theology be any different?
(Except, of course, that politicians and wines do exist)
Posted by: Cerebelle | July 30, 2008 5:16 PM
Eric Saveau, thanks for the apology in regards to your snark about Kate. You demonstrated what the hardcore catholics hounding PZ haven't: understanding criticism, realizing you went too far, and then apologizing for it. So many fundies and conservatives believe "staying the course" and not "flip-flopping" is better than admitting their own mistakes.
That said, the stupid from this press release hurts my brain. I just bought a brand-new irony meter after the whole crackergate deal, too--and now I have to shop around for another one.
Posted by: SEF | July 30, 2008 5:19 PM
@ #330
Because that's definitely how you summon evil aliens to incarnate themselves.Posted by: Ian | July 30, 2008 5:20 PM
PZ - Here's something to blog about: if the cracker evolves into Jesus, then why are there still crackers?
Posted by: VoteNader2008 | July 30, 2008 5:21 PM
.... but noooooobody has a problem with corporations having human rights.... and would rather vote for a corporate candidate then someone that would stand up for the American "people", like Ralph Nader.
Posted by: Cubist | July 30, 2008 5:25 PM
sez raven @ 340: "[Catholics] need to drop the celibate priest thing and quickly. There is no scriptural basis for it anyway. Otherwise they will end up with a very small group of very old men running the church and most of them will have alzheimers."
Hmmm. "will end up with"? Are you sure that's the right tense for that sentence..?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 30, 2008 5:27 PM
They need to drop the celibate priest thing and quickly. There is no scriptural basis for it anyway. Otherwise they will end up with a very small group of very old men running the church and most of them will have alzheimers. - raven
Cloning?
Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2008 5:34 PM
Tom Coward #352 wrote:
As much as they disparage the idea of "Big Brother," a lot of Americans seem to want the government to turn into "Big Mommy." It's as if our society is a great big birthday party, and it's Big Mommy's job to make sure all the little tykes feel good about themselves, and there are no fights or hurt feelings.
Harmony above all. This is the United States, and religious belief is supposed to be a HAPPY occasion. Let's not have all this bickering and arguing.
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 5:35 PM
VoteNader, I have a huge problem with corporations having human rights (and benefiting from the BoR). I also have a huge problem with declaring war on pastimes (drugs), economic conditions (poverty and more secretively, anyone not quite upper class), and a tactic (terrrrrrrrrrrrsm).
Unfortunately, I don't think Ralphy is really in a place to make a difference in any of that, and his timing is oh so suspect (where was he in 2004?). I DO think almost everyone at a national political level has been compromised. Not that any of that helps me sleep at night.
Posted by: Stark | July 30, 2008 5:36 PM
Does anybody have contact info for JeffreyD?
I don't know the man personally but I am worried for him. I have been occasionally reading his blog (as I do for most of those I see posted here - just to get a sense of who people are) and he has been dealing with some rough stuff. Suicide of a loved one, declining health, etc...
The wording of that last post is somewhat disturbing to somebody who has seen too many last notes from suicide victims.
It could just be that his health issues are precluding him from spending much time on the PC...but please, if anybody has contact info give him a ring and see if he's OK.
Posted by: SC | July 30, 2008 5:39 PM
The Goys from Brazil?
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 5:41 PM
Au contraire, I find you to be quite the cunning linguist.
Posted by: True Bob | July 30, 2008 5:45 PM
Hey CCC,
I hope you respect this.
Posted by: The Chemist | July 30, 2008 5:50 PM
@ Pierce R. Butler #243
The book you recommended is trash.
There is so much bollocks flying around regarding the Dark Ages and who caused them.
First of all, there is no "dark ages". There was a medieval period certainly, but there is no clear dividing line: Here be dark ages, there be wisdom, and the people/things responsible are x,y, and z.
You could blame anyone and anything you want for it precisely because it is a nebulous concept describing a fairly short period of time.
Indian Ocean trade continued long after the rise of the Roman successor states and the Romans weren't super amazing scientists and rationalists in the first place. That's not to say they didn't contribute, but much of what they had they took from the Greeks and Egyptians along the Nile, the Ionian colonies, and Athens. Other things they picked up through Silk Road trade. This idea that Europe (if there is such a thing) was plunged into a clearly defined age of particular hardship and cruelty because of clearly a few defined causes is utter bullshit.
You want uncivilized hardship and persecution? Look up the Assyrians.
Posted by: Benji | July 30, 2008 5:50 PM
Long live the iconoclast.
Well reasoned response, too.
Posted by: John Marshall | July 30, 2008 5:54 PM
So they're praying and fasting that this won't happen again. Guess that means if PZ doesn't repeat his stunt their praying works... Tricky Cathylicks.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 30, 2008 5:55 PM
Stark he's here in Charleston but I don't have his contact info. I haven't been to his blog in the last week I may have to check in.
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 30, 2008 5:58 PM
Anyone voting for Nader deserves to be ridiculed just as much as these Catholic Priests.
That is all.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 30, 2008 6:04 PM
Nice analysis there, Nanu. There are actually excellent rational reasons one might choose to cast a vote for Ralph Nader. Why the ridicule? Because Nader might siphon votes from your preferred Korporate Kandidate?
That said, I now live in a potential swing state, so I don't plan to vote for him either. This time.
Posted by: Stark | July 30, 2008 6:05 PM
Rev. BDC - No new posts over there since the 11th and the last one seemed reasonably up-tempo (for posts there anyhow) but that wording in his last post here has me concerened. Nothing much I can do about it though- too many Jeff* D's in Charleston and I'm on the wrong coast anyhow.
Posted by: SC | July 30, 2008 6:13 PM
NO!!! How did I miss JeffreyD?! Why is he leaving?
Well, JeffreyD, if by chance you're still reading: Thank you for the nomination - I couldn't be more flattered and touched. You're by far one of my favorite people here, and I always look forward to your comments (still laughing about the "in his cracker form" post from the "FYI" thread). I hope you stay well and safe. I'll continue to check your blog, and perhaps even leave a comment someday... Please take good care, and I wish you all the best. In blog-friendship,
SC
Posted by: rebelest | July 30, 2008 6:18 PM
I find the common and familiar practice of a large majority of Christians who find offence in criticism and ridicule of their faith and beliefs to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy while their "holy book" condemns atheists as fools who are corrupt and do NO good.
Psalm 14:1 KJV
So let us reserve the right and obligation to criticize, mock and laugh at their religion, faith and beliefs, until they cease to have any power over the credulous.
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 30, 2008 6:24 PM
I didn't mean to be a dick but It just seems to me that the type of people that vote for Nader are typically more liberal minded and would otherwise vote for Obama more than Mccain. Considering that a Mccain presidency would be disastrous I don't think we can AFFORD to have a "conscience vote". Public support for a third party candidate is not enough and realistically in this election we cant go voting for which ever candidate we think supports all our views but rather the one that is most close to our views while having a chance of winning. And though there is an argument that if everyone voted for who they wanted the most we could shunt off the 2 party system I think that it is most likely not that there are millions of people who WOULD vote for Nader but don't, but rather that the moderate base of people who vote within their party bounds far outweighs those that would embrace a independent candidate. It's just that, in this political climate, in this election with these stakes voting for Nader or someone else who won't win is siphoning off votes that could be putting a large lead in front of Mccain.
I'm sorry if that came off as incoherent.
Posted by: Neil B. | July 30, 2008 6:24 PM
There's a bit of irony here - liberal factions have promoted and passed "hate speech" laws or similar, in which one can be punished for distressing someone over their race, etc. Wikipedia FWIW has the following elaborate definition:
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
Note that religion is included. Well, if you can accept that psychological distress is a valid "tort" then the concept of the hate speech (or "expression" by extension) should be valid and remediable by law, at least the civil kind. In any case it certainly would also be a basis for condemnation (and our system actually already did accept mental distress before hate-speech/crime laws entered the more modern phase, which I admit I don't know much about since I'm making a general point. But certainly "physical harm" was not a necessary threshold - sadly it isn't a sufficient one to the current administration ...)
Hence, can those of you who accept the other kinds and enforcement of "hate speech" and hate crimes (in principle, not about matter of degree) explain why the "crackergate" episode just shouldn't count as a matter of principle? Perhaps it's a matter of "whose ox is being gored," as Hentoff has explained in ref. below. Of course, in the vein Hentoff describes, conservatives could be asked the same question in reverse: if you think crackergate was horrible, then you shouldn't be so hard on liberal versions of "hate crime" complaints, etc.
Now, maybe someone can actually come up with good answers here, it's just a Socratic challenge with no insinuation that you can't succeed.
(BTW I count in net as liberal from liking the environment, the working class, politically wary of religion and independent in thinking about it, usually voting Democratic and being a Unitarian Universalist, visceral revulsion to the right-wing "culture", having a rational basis for ethics etc.)
Nat Hentoff:
Free Speech for Me -- But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1993)
ISBN 0-06-099510-6
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 30, 2008 6:30 PM
I don't think many here are pro-hate speech laws. Also, in order for something to be a hate crime a crime has to be committed in the first place.
Just my 2 cents, I know I'm likely not part of the targeted group for the challenge.
Posted by: Sastra | July 30, 2008 6:49 PM
Neil B #376 wrote:
I agree -- you would think it wouldn't be considered "liberal" to quash dissent.
At any rate, your question isn't aimed at me either, because I'm firmly against "hate speech" laws, and a fan of Hentoff's argument here (which he also made in the Council for Secular Humanism's magazine Free Inquiry.) I suspect PZ and Ed Brayton both agree on this one.
Posted by: Patricia | July 30, 2008 6:54 PM
Just for fun - deaths in the bible due to gawd from floods, fiery serpents, famines, war, etc - 2,270,365. Deaths due to Satan - 10. Thanks to Richard Dawkins web site.
Yep, boys and girls, gawd is love.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | July 30, 2008 6:55 PM
Here kitty kitty, here kitty kitty.
I'd like to find out how many ways there are to skin this little kitten so I could sell it's holy pelt on ebay.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2008/07/30/stang.holy.cat.wndu
Holy LOL cats anyone?
Posted by: Rich Hudson | July 30, 2008 7:00 PM
It's time to turn the tables on the Christofascists and ask, "Why are you so sensitive about any statement that could even be construed as hinting that your god doesn't exist?" I mean, in many cultures, saying "Your mother's a whore!" is a surefire way to make someone angry, but "Your mother doesn't exist!" would be greeted with quizzical looks. If these religious folks are so secure in their god's existence, then they should simply shrug their shoulders and shake their heads at we poor nonbelievers. That's how emotionally secure people react to those who deny the obvious.
Posted by: George G. (also known as Cafeeine) | July 30, 2008 7:02 PM
I just posted this in Trigilio's blog
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 30, 2008 7:04 PM
I'm getting sick and tired of these constant accusations of priests raping altarboys. A lot of girls have been raped by those motherfuckers, too.
Posted by: Angie | July 30, 2008 7:05 PM
They can evoke the Founding Fathers as much as they like though it's pointless because this issue is a Catholic one, therefore it's international. Outside of the U.S. the Constitution, Bill of Rights, [any U.S. document] is irrelevant. The sentiments and ideas may be universal and reasonable (when interpreted correctly) but they need a better argument to back up their warped views. It won't wash elsewhere. What do I care what the FF intended? Here in Australia I've just put up with World Youth Day bullshit and attempted censorship of any protests. How would they try to stop me calling their rituals ridiculous without using the Bill of Rights argument? Call me a big meanie??
I know that in this case they are talking about a U.S. citizen in America, but their arguments should have enough depth to apply to anyone who attacks their (worldwide) faith. This doesn't.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 30, 2008 7:11 PM
I'm firmly opposed to hate-speech laws. However, I favor a variety of other speech-restriction laws, such as mildly-offensive-to-Swedish/Italian-people-of-a-certain-age-speech laws, door-to-door-proselytization-in-my-neighboorhood-speech laws, and yet-another-mention-of-Cheez-Whiz-in-Ineffable-Magical-Baked-Goods-related-blog-comment-
thread-speech laws. To name just a few.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2008 7:17 PM
Ralph Nader has no chance of winning, ever. Protest votes are a waste.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 30, 2008 7:20 PM
Wow, that was some fantastic dinner time comedy. Frigging hilarious, and also very disturbing.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 30, 2008 7:26 PM
? But, of course, protest votes have little or nothing to do with trying to help determine the winner. Protest voters are playing a different game, and in their game it's not a waste. I voted for Nader twice, but it's because I lived in Oklahoma at the time and I knew damn well that a vote for Gore or Kerry would be a "waste." So I thought I'd send a message to anybody looking at the detailed results. That message being, I guess, that there were a few people in Oklahoma that agreed with Nader's basic message. I still agree with it--I hope to be proven wrong, but I fear that Obama is already too Establishment-bound to effect any truly meaningful "change"--but I now live in a state where my vote might mean something, and in this new circumstance I pl,an to cast a cautiously optimnistic vote for O.Posted by: VoteNader2008 | July 30, 2008 7:28 PM
Oh, he was there running for president, but you wouldnt have noticed then, like in 2000 or now because of the black out from the MSM AND because of Bonusgate, thats right the democratic party used our tax dollars to keep Nader off the ballot. Where was he? You know how hard it is for an independent candidate to get on all the ballots? Its an obstacle course devised to keep it a two party system. Even if he wasnt on the ballot in my state(he will be) I'd write in his name and Matt Gonzalezs'.
Posted by: fatherdaddy | July 30, 2008 7:35 PM
I am imagining a milk carton with a picture of a cracker, "Have you seen me?"
Now, someone with a picture of a cracker, a picture of a milk carton, and Photoshop needs to get to work.
Posted by: valor | July 30, 2008 7:37 PM
Slightly off topic, but I am reminded of an old George Carlin (sob) saying "I have just as much authority as the Pope, it's just that fewer people believe it".
As much as I dislike this clusterf*ck that all started, essentially, with a kid actually trying to educate a friend about his religion, I must speak in defense of some Catholics. Jesuits are still pretty smart; I'm sure they had nothing to do with this poorly written and poorly thought out press release.
I find it a bit silly that they keep bringing up PZ's position at a state run university as an excuse to consider his actions unconstitutional. Personal time, people, personal time. I know you're priests all the time, but PZ wears many hats.
Posted by: DLC | July 30, 2008 7:45 PM
I'd like to think that no group of catholic priests is that ignorant. Yet they offer proof with press releases like that.
Perhaps I should fee comforted that the witch-doctors are that clueless.
Posted by: Moggie |