Pharyngula

Posted by: CrypticLife | July 14, 2008 4:13 PM

"It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power. This cracker is nothing."

Oh, it will be tasteless. But I guess you've already said you're not going to eat it.

But the question is, will it rise to the level of offense that Webster Cook gave, and involve simply not eating it and keeping it safe in a plastic baggie? Oh, the horror!

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 14, 2008 4:15 PM

You're kind of stuck, aren't you? What you wrote was obviously satirical hyperbole, but then you asked for the crackers. And no doubt they were sent.

You'll look petty if you stomp it, or smear it with something horrible. And you'll look weak if you do nothing.

Well, do something that shows it to be the meaningless wheat product that it is, but make it into art (or cartoon, maybe) of some kind. Let it be the weak insipid thing that it is, and keep your dignity.

Which, I presume, is your plan.

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

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2636111822344880682

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

Oh brother, you've fallen from grace, at least in the eyes of some catholics and the conservative catholic league? You know what they can do with their ghostly grace and concern. As far as I'm concerned, you won't lose support from rational fellow atheists who do not give a crap what religious morons pander about on these matters. I don't give a rat's ass on any concern of theirs whether it applies to insane needs or concern over our rational lives. Grace? Spare us the demented wording for your need to save our shoe soles. Morons.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 14, 2008 4:26 PM

A little something to snack on ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRMT7p9fyIQ

Posted by: wistah | July 14, 2008 4:31 PM

Check out the first comment over there, from ol' Swiftee. What a jackass.

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that Swiftee went to "collage."

Posted by: Sili | July 14, 2008 4:35 PM

Well ... technically isn't the IDiots who're science-heathen?

PeeZed is more of a heathen scientist.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | July 14, 2008 4:38 PM

Good article. I'm looking forward to the impending cracker desecration.
BTW, shouldn't the article have said "desperate ploy" instead of "disparate ploy"?

Posted by: Vaal | July 14, 2008 4:39 PM

Maybe you should have the crackers with cheese. After all, didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the cheesemakers"

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 4:41 PM

"One of the more prominent atheist voices in America"

PZ is the MOST prominent atheist voice in America. Nobody else comes close.

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

I suggest putting the wafer in a jam jar. With holes punched in the lid, of course, so Jesus can breathe. And a lettuce leaf.

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

Sorry for the double cross posting, but I think this belongs in here:

(quoted material was written by Blake Stacey)

One of the many, many weird things about this Eucharist business is that people seem to think Jesus couldn't absent himself from a compromising situation. Why can't the Creator of the Universe do what any hack writer for a supermarket tabloid can do: you know, "Our reporter made his excuses and left"? This whole affair implies that once a human being has said the proper mumbo-jumbo, the Creator of the Universe is trapped, trapped, inside a bit of snack food.

This is pretty much my own argument that the desecration of the host is impossible. Or more formally:

1 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that God exists
1a) God is defined as being perfect
1b) God is defined as being omnipotent
1c) God is defined as being omniscient
1d) God is defined as being benevolent (note: Catholicism apparently does not consider God to be omnibenevolent, from what I can recall on the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Hell)

2 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that Catholicism is true.
2a) Catholicism is the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

3 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, the the Eucharist is real
3a) The ritual of the Eucharist is that a priest consecrates the wafers and wine and God transubstantiates into them.

4 ) Now, what is a priest? A priest is a man; a weak, imperfect, sinner like all men, who has been ordained by the Church, which was established by God. Thus, the priest receives any authority he has from God, ultimately.

5 ) Given that the priest receives his authority from God, and is clearly far weaker than God anyway, it cannot be the case that the priest can in any way compel God to do anything. The inferior cannot give orders to the superior, nor can the weaker compel the stronger.

6 ) Therefore, the ritual of consecration cannot be compelling God to transubstantiate, but must rather be inviting God to transubstantiate.

7 ) Any invitation can, of course, be refused, if acceding to the invitation would be improper.

8 ) It is a tenet of Catholicism that it is improper for those who do not have faith in Catholicism should not partake of the host. This includes the point that the host should be consumed immediately.

9 ) God, being omniscient, knows all things, including the hearts of humans.

10 ) Therefore, God knows who does and does not have faith in Catholicism.

11 ) God, being omniscient, knows all things, including the future and the past

12 ) Therefore, God knows exactly who will receive which wafer that is has the ritual of consecration performed over it.

13 ) God, being perfect and benevolent, would never do anything that is improper.

14 ) Therefore, since it would be improper to transubstantiate into a wafer which God knows will be received by someone who does not have faith in Catholicism, God can, and indeed, must, refuse to transubstantiate into those wafers which will be received by those who do not have faith in Catholicism.

15 ) Therefore, it is impossible to desecrate a host, since all wafers that will be taken with the intent to desecrate will not have had God transubstantiate into them, and therefore will not be hosts.

16 ) Therefore, Cook did not receive a wafer into which God had transubstantiated. God simply refused to do so, since God, being omniscient, knew of Cook's intent to not consume the host immediately.

17 ) Therefore, should someone sneak a wafer from out of a communion ceremony, and convey it to PZ Myers (atheist), God will know of the intent to begin with, and will not transubstantiate into that wafer.

18 ) Therefore, PZ Myers, according to plain and obvious theologic, will not be desecrating the host, but will instead be simply abusing a goddamn fracking cracker.

QED.

Mmm. Syllogilicious. I coulda been a theologian...

Posted by: Dustin is an unrepentant science heathen. | July 14, 2008 4:50 PM

If they're attempting to engage in polemics they should take more care to ensure that they aren't paying you a compliment.

Also, post #21 can be reduced to pure win.

Posted by: bunnycatch3r | July 14, 2008 4:50 PM

PZ is like a modern day Martin Luther.

Posted by: JimS | July 14, 2008 4:51 PM

Per Jeph at #14, but going beyond it a bit:
Get samples of different strains of E. coli and test how they do on the crackers. Maybe Lenksi can loan you some.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 4:53 PM

Owlmirror (#23):

Excellent theologic. Truly art thou versed in the ways of the platosphere.

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 14, 2008 4:56 PM

Thou shall toast the face of Jesus unto it.

Posted by: rob | July 14, 2008 5:00 PM

you should take all the wafers you get and create a piece of art, like kids do with macaroni. cracker art!

i think the Darwin fish would be a great subject for the cracker art.

Posted by: Todd | July 14, 2008 5:01 PM

PZ is the MOST prominent atheist voice in America. Nobody else comes close.

Christopher Hitchens is now an American citizen, so I'd suggest he's the most prominent one. Not necessarily the best one, but certainly the most prominent. PZ doesn't make me grimace as much.

My vote for cracker desecration would be to eat it with a slice of beef carpaccio on a Friday during Lent. If we're going to desecrate it, might as well throw in a few more blasphemies. Also, it would be cool if a few volunteers could get excommunicated during the "ceremony" in question.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 14, 2008 5:02 PM

PZ is like a modern day Martin Luther. - bunnycatch3r

OK, we're used to insults and obscenities being thrown around here on Pharyngula, and PZ has a pretty thick skin, but this is just going too far!

Posted by: Frank Mitchell | July 14, 2008 5:08 PM

Here's an idea:

1. Take a consecrated host and two unconsecrated hosts.

2. Put Dixie cups or something similar on top of the hosts, and mix them up as if you were running a shell game. Cut away so that nobody will have a clue as to which cup has the consecrated host.

3. Select one host, and do something "sacreligious" to it, e.g. stab a knife into it, dissolve it in a glass of water and pour it down the drain, etc.

4. Ask the viewer whether you've actually committed sacrilege or not.

Posted by: Tim H | July 14, 2008 5:13 PM

I've looked some of this stuff up, (yes, it's made my brain hurt to do it), but I think I understand why the RCC would say #23 above doesn't work. Basically, god is working through the priest to do the change. In fact, since Jesus did the original change, the priest is (in some way I don't follow)Jesus for the duration of the ceremony. Since the priest really can't tell the difference between a changed and an unchanged cracker, you can't have selective change. (The real reason for the doctrine is that since the priest would be clueless, selective change would undermine the authority of the priesthood, which is the real purpose for the existance of the RCC.)
The ironic part of the whole mess is that there's a 95% chance the whole thing never happened in the first place. Blood and human flesh are as un-kosher as you can get. Jesus and his disciples would never have even conceived of doing this, even symbolically. It was, however, a common part of both the Dionysus cult and Mithraism, both of which pre-dated Christianity and were popular 2000 years ago. The ceremony was probably imported by Paul (who was the greatist heretic in the history of Christianity.)

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 14, 2008 5:14 PM

'Unrepentant science heathen' strikes me as being most button-worthy. It'll prolly need to be a biggish button, tho'. Or small type.

Re the thelogic in 23, while it strikes me as sound, let us also recall that this is a deity with some... err.. quirks. We must also, therefore, account for the possibility the god may intend to be hilariously mistreated at the hands of a heathen just so the cracker can raise itself from the dead three days later... Or, possibly, there are additional exceptions to this whole omniscience/omnipotence thing--and the cracker is actually just mostly omnipotent (see also The Princess Bride, re 'mostly dead, various sources re 'a little pregnant')... As in, possibly, if PZ secures his cracker while in an iron chariot, for example, the otherwise all-knowing cracker will be unaware of his intentions and unable to stop him... Tho' I've no idea where you rent an iron chariot near Morris, and riding one into a church is decidely not subtle... so it may be moot.

Yeah, now regarding this former case, this whole bein' mocked for the sake of the world as a necessary thing to have done, I know, it seems... odd. But if we're to believe the accounts we're given, deities are weird that way.

Anyway, in that scenario, we should still rebuke these overly zealous types who are trying to prevent this necessary sacrifice to redeem all of humankind from the sin of excessive consumption of baked, starchy footstuffs. There all freakin' out, trying to cut folks' ears off, and the cracker's just sitting there thinkin': oh, c'mon, ya losers, stop standing in the way of this thing, let's get on with it... gotta get down to hell and back by Tuesday, at least... I've plans for the weekend.'

Posted by: JoJo | July 14, 2008 5:16 PM

I coulda been a theologian...

For a mere $29.99, you can get a degree from the Universal Life Church as a Doctor of Divinity. Post #23 easily qualifies as your dissertation.

Posted by: E.V. | July 14, 2008 5:20 PM

For the headline to be any more priceless, "heathen" needs an r. The Southern epithet of "heathern" sounds so much more enlightened.
The Minnesota Independent can't be accused of blatant bias, they're not "liberal media". Think the headline editor is a woo monger?

Posted by: Kenny P | July 14, 2008 5:21 PM

PZ, you're a scientist. I think you should feed the consecrated cracker to some lab rats.

OR - Feed the consecrated cracker to a parrot, but first teach the parrot to say, "Bless me father, for I have sinned" or "Polly wants a consecrated cracker!"

I do think it is amazing that so many people are going crackers over your cracker comments, but at the same time they want you to disrespect the Muslim faith.

Posted by: RAM | July 14, 2008 5:22 PM

I applaud PZ in hi-lighting these and other silly beliefs.
These type questions threaten the power structure of those who depend on the donations of the flock they fleece. To maintain their power base, religious leaders keep people worrying about their eternal sins, and continue making earthly joy and happiness of life a sin, requiring them to pray for forgiveness, and of course, pay into the chuch fund to maintain their lifestyles.
I couldn't say it better than the great Robert G. Ingersoll, Myth and Miracle., 1885,

"Happiness is the result of all that is really right and sane.
But there are many people who regard the desire to he happy as a very low and degrading ambition. These people call themselves spiritual. They pretend to care nothing for the pleasures of "sense." They hold this world, this life, in contempt. They do not want happiness in this world -- but in another. Here, happiness degrades -- there, it purifies and ennobles.
These spiritual people have been known as prophets, apostles, augurs, hermits, monks, priests, popes, bishops and parsons. They are devout and useless. They do not cultivate the soil. They produce nothing. They live on the labor of others. They are pious and parasitic. They pray for others, if the others will work for them. They claim to have been selected by the Infinite to instruct and govern mankind. They are "meek" and arrogant, "long-suffering" and revengeful.
They ever have been, now are, and always will be the enemies of liberty, of investigation and science. They are believers in the supernatural, the miraculous and the absurd. They have filled the world with hatred, bigotry and fear. In defence of their creeds they have committed every crime and practiced every cruelty."

Posted by: Shaden Freud | July 14, 2008 5:25 PM

Vaal @ 17 wrote:

Maybe you should have the crackers with cheese. After all, didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the cheesemakers"

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 14, 2008 5:27 PM

No, I am not "stuck". I've been intending something along these lines for a few months now. This was actually a good opportunity for something that is already written.

Posted by: PZ Myers

I'll buy you a bottle of something if you can drive your "hostage" into Stockholm Syndrome. And don't go half-way, man. I want to see this cracker wearing an SLA t-shirt and using an AK-47 to hold up a bank.

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

I leave for a week to go to the beach and come back to find out that the entire Catholic world is planning on burning PZ at the stake because of a cracker? Why isn't this on Fox news? Has the Catholic league seen this video: "Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church." NSFW, especially if you teach in a Catholic school.

Posted by: mayhempix | July 14, 2008 5:36 PM

Repent PZ! Repent!

Repent before the Flying Spaghetti Monster douses you in cheap canned sauce and commits you to an eternity of mushy tasteless meatballs and stale communion crackers!

Posted by: John Robie | July 14, 2008 5:37 PM

I know PZ promised to do something sacrilicious with the jesus cracker (maple syrup, perhaps), but assuming he gets more than one, I think at least one should be plasticized and carried in his pocket at all times so that when Christians ask him about finding Jesus, he show them that he already has.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 14, 2008 5:40 PM

John Robie (#63):

But then he runs the risk of losing his faith in between the couch cushions.

Posted by: Jeff Schmidt | July 14, 2008 5:43 PM

As already pointed out, ANYTHING PZ did to the wafer would be, by the Catholic Church's definition, sacrilege. He could merely waggle it around in front of a camera and these nutters would equate it to kidnapping and molestation.

PZ's got access to a biology lab. With a "consecrated" cracker, he has access to (allegedly) Jesus' flesh. Do the math. Research opportunities abound.

Posted by: Ron Hager | July 14, 2008 5:44 PM

I would like to apply for the title of Apprentice Science Heathen.

Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 5:49 PM

Wolfhound @ 62 My apologies. I only read the first post by "tjswift" and not the following ones. I almost succumbed to parodied parody! Carry on!

Posted by: E.V. | July 14, 2008 5:51 PM

Blake:
"John Robie (#63):
But then he runs the risk of losing his faith in between the couch cushions."
But think how effortless it will be to regain his faith. And a little loose change too.

Posted by: thalarctos | July 14, 2008 5:52 PM

I mean, what would a priest do if he accidentally dropped a cup of them while walking across the stable?

Five-second rule?

Posted by: Ernst Hot | July 14, 2008 5:53 PM

Hihi.

tjswift
Posted jul 14 2008 03:01pm with -NaN votes

tjswift is so unpopular that numbers fail to describe it!

Posted by: foxfire | July 14, 2008 6:00 PM

Well, PZ, since you are not planning on doing anything disgusting...: if you had 2 crackers, you could dress them up as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Posted by: E.V. | July 14, 2008 6:09 PM

"It probably won't soothe the inflamed mob."

Perhaps you should send cases of Preparation H to all the Parishes...

Posted by: Jonathan Rothwell | July 14, 2008 6:18 PM

Whoops... didn't check my HTML properly there...

The image was claimed by Captain Birdseye to be of one of PZ's peers reviewing his work. Yeah, right. Is he part of the Disney Channel's target audience (flatulent schoolchildren between the ages of five and eight)?

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

Oooo! Can We Haz 'Unrepent Scienz-hethen' t-shirtz plez?!

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 14, 2008 6:34 PM

Suggestion: Refuse to eat it, store it prominantly, and draw a picture of mohammed on it. Stick figure preferred.

Posted by: Sean

Yowza! I suppose you could feed it to a dog then and really watch the fur fly.

Posted by: Judi | July 14, 2008 6:37 PM

I am one of those stupid Catholics who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I understand you think we are stupid. I understand you think. . .well. . .you just think we are stupid, period. That's it really, in a nutshell, as far as I can tell. It wouldn't be the first time an athiest thought a Christian was stupid. This happens a lot. It also wouldn't be the first time Jesus was treated badly by unbelievers. So this is really very predictable actually. Since I know I can't sound any more empty-headed to you than I already do, I'll go ahead and tell you that a lot of people are praying for you. Can you just let that roll off your shoulders like water off a duck's back please? What do you expect Christian's to do. . .praying for lost souls is our business. I'm sure I'll get some response about the Iquisition, the Crusades, or the priest scandal now. . .

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 14, 2008 6:42 PM

Glen, honey, all your efforts at stage-managing this might go better if you noted that if PZ did eat the cracker, that would be sacrilege.

Ron, dumbass, I have already noted that. But you're busy being stupid and self-righteous.

If he snapped it in two on-mike to see whether it cracks--which I'd take as pretty much the first criterion for crackeriness--that would be sacrilege. If he dissected it, that would be sacrilege. If he licked it and stuck it on his forehead, that would be sacrilege. (Why yes, I've seen it done. By an altarboy. Evidently it's not that hard to palm he leftovers.) If he dunked it in Nutella, etc.

Yeah, whatever, prattle on with your inanities. You're too stupid to recognize what the issue is.

For the unretarded, this by PZ is what concerned anyone who wants atheism not to look puerile and tasteless:

but will instead treat it with profound disrespect

If it's satirical hyperbole, fine. Except that PZ didn't disavow or refine the statement until this refinement:

It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power.

Which is why I said that it was presumably his plan to exhibit its meaningless and insipidity. I did mean to try to reinforce the later refinement, and only a tard would see that as "stage-managing".

But you're intent on attacking a strawman, so enough said.

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

Posted by: Anonymous | July 14, 2008 6:43 PM

Au contraire, Judi. Being religious doesn't necessarily mean that you're stupid. Thank you for praying for my lost soul... I seem to have misplaced it...

Posted by: Bobber | July 14, 2008 6:45 PM

Judi, Judi, Judi (said with Cary Grant flair):

Please stop with the martyrdom. And how have we "treated Jesus badly"? Non-existent, fantastical creatures can hardly be hurt by anything someone would say, much less do - they don't exist!

I'll go ahead and tell you that a lot of people are praying for you. Can you just let that roll off your shoulders like water off a duck's back please?

Whatever floats yer boat. Pray all you like, I'm sure it will be as effective as prayer has been shown to be in all other cases - that is to say, not effective at all. I'm sure you think you're doing we non-believers a kindness, but remember that somewhere in the world, a Muslim is praying for you, too, so that your soul doesn't end up spending an eternity in hell - you know, that place where a "loving God" puts non-believers?

How do you keep your head from exploding with all these contradictions?

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 6:48 PM

YAY! Fatwa Envy!

Posted by: Patricia | July 14, 2008 6:52 PM

Windy - OK, read the comments...call me Mrs. Thickey brain, what is a Che?

Posted by: Shadow | July 14, 2008 6:55 PM

Unrepentant science heathen

I want that on a shirt. -Eyes the magic printer paper-

Posted by: Lord Zero | July 14, 2008 7:00 PM

I hope your right PZ and the church its weakening.
They ignorance, hatred and bigotry seems to
fuel them so strongly, even today. Im scared,
i doubt of their sanity, what about your personal
security ? They are crazy, they could become
violent any moment.

Well, anyway we support you here. Go and dessecrate
the damn cracker loudly once for all!!

Posted by: Jim | July 14, 2008 7:08 PM

"PZ Myers: ...
So [religious people are] worried. I think they've got reason to be worried. We're going to see an increasing weakness of the church. This is them lashing out. It's a disparate ploy to be relevant and to be important again... They're looking for somebody to take their ire out on."

Pay no attention to 2,000 years of history. Clearly the Catholics' respect for the Eucharist started only when PZ posted to a blog.

Again, how about a little honesty? It would be refreshing.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 7:17 PM

And here I thought we were all Stalinists.

Off to Chek my bootie.

Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 7:23 PM

Judi @ 89 Holy crap, if only you knew what you sounded like to a rational mind! Let me put it this way. If you were locked in a mental institution for the delusional insane, then I would comprehend your demented statement as that of mind which has ceased to function in the rational mode, made all the more degenerated by the cancer of religion. Maybe you are not aware of the puke you are spewing forth, for after all, the insane do not know that they are insane. And religion is the most pernicious of all insanities. Now lie down; here is a cracker.

Posted by: Noadi | July 14, 2008 7:30 PM

I've been looking for an excuse to play with screen printing again. I think I'm going to have to make myself an Unrepentant Science Heathen tshirt, and throw in a cephalopod for good measure.

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 7:36 PM

#89: "I am one of those stupid Catholics who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I understand you think we are stupid."

Yeah, of course you're stupid, everyone knows that. But that's not your only problem.

Your other problem is your insanity. Jesus in a cracker? It's not possible to be more insane.

A 3rd problem you have is you don't even realize what an asshole you are when you say "a lot of people are praying for you."

Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 14, 2008 7:45 PM

It struck me today that I am ignorant of the means by which the first members of the Christian religion who instituted the ritual of the Eucharist were able to discern whether they had succeeded in accomplishing the actual transubstantiation effect if ,being human, they are not able to detect a difference in the "substance" but only in the "accidents" of material things.

After all, one should be certain of such a thing before invoking the obedience of one's flock to partake of this ritual wouldn't you think?

Any believers out there with some insight to this situation?

Posted by: JimNorth | July 14, 2008 7:52 PM

I've got some Serratia marcescans lying around the lab. Perhaps PeZed could culture some of jesus's blood on the consecrated host. It's worthy of a miracle in some circles.

Why do they keep mispelling "it's just a Frackin' cracker"?

Posted by: J | July 14, 2008 7:59 PM

I'm loving this, PZ. During the Muhammad cartoon incident, there were a lot of right-wingers claiming Christianity never does stuff like that. You're proving them wrong.
Just a little correction here. 100 people died as a result of the cartoon controversy, whereas no-one has died here. There have been no enraged crowds in the streets, and UMM buildings have not been set alight, as were several Danish embassies. No death threats have been issued by Catholic leaders.

It's appalling that they would kick up such a furore over a cracker, but this incident is nowhere near the level of the cartoon controversy yet.

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 8:06 PM

Catholics don't burn down buildings, cut off people's heads, fly airplanes into buildings, and whatever else Muslims enjoy doing, but Christians are more of a threat to America than Muslims. I noticed it's Christians, not Muslims, who are trying to suppress the teaching of biology. It's Christians, not Muslims, who are trying to stick their religion into our schools and governments.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 14, 2008 8:15 PM

Some, I'm sure, are certain PeeZee
Will do something rather cheesy--
It is, after all, a cracker, and would serve a bit of Brie--
Others think there's something missing
If there isn't any pissing
On the cracker that is Jeebus, but among them is not me.
There's no fire in my belly
To consume the Host with Jelly
Or with peanut butter, sausage, or a smoky salmon meat;
Me? Without a bit of jesting,
I'd suggest genetic testing
To confirm the Lord and Savior is predominately wheat.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 8:19 PM

I noticed it's Christians, not Muslims, who are trying to suppress the teaching of biology.
Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 8:06 PM

That is laughable. Christians trying to suppress the teaching of biology? How ridiculous.

Posted by: chaos_engineer | July 14, 2008 8:21 PM

I am one of those stupid Catholics who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I understand you think we are stupid.

You sound bitter. But nobody thinks that all Catholics are stupid. The general consensus is that some parts of Catholic doctrine are good and noble, but that other parts are ill-advised or fanciful. People are concerned because some Catholics focus too much on obeying the "bad" doctrine and not enough on the "good" doctrine. That doesn't mean they're stupid; it just means that they need to think things through.

One of the fanciful parts is the belief that there exists a being (called "God") who is: (1) All-knowing. (2) All-powerful. (3) Doesn't want Dr. Myers to insult cookies. Obviously, if such a being existed, then it would be willing and able to persuade Dr. Myers to stop insulting cookies. Since this hasn't happened, it's safe to assume that no such being exists.

(One possible objection is that this being is trying to communicate with Dr. Myers, but he doesn't want to listen to it for some reason. But that's pretty silly. I'm sure that Dr. Myers doesn't want to pay taxes, and I'm equally sure that the government has convinced him that taxes exist and that he has to pay them. Surely if "God" existed, it would be more powerful than the government!)

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

windy, a Che whore at #26 - that does have a nice ring, classy and trendy. (smile) Wear it with pride!!!!

I finally caught up on the Jolene thread. Afraid I posted rudely, but one does get tired of fools and liars.

Pax Nabisco

Wikipedia JeffreyD

Posted by: Shirtless Joe | July 14, 2008 8:27 PM

I can't figure out this desecration thing either, the logic doesn't add up:

1. Jesus is magic, omnipotent.
   
2. The cracker is Jesus through the miracle of transubstantiation.
   
3. Therefore the cracker is omnipotent and all powerful.
   
4. Therefore it would not submit to desecration, unless it wished to be desecrated for our sins, much like Jesus (in human form) sacrificed himself on the cross for our sins.
   
5. Therefore PZ would be doing Jesus a favor, basically no matter what.
   
6. Therefore Catholics should be thanking PZ.
   

As for what to do with a cracker, there are a couple of possibilities.

1. Do NOT consume it. Since the cracker is Jesus's flesh, you would be killing life, and all life is sacred. You think taking the unborn is bad, how about killing the lord? Maybe there is some sort of cracker life support system?
   
2. Auction it off on Ebay, with proceeds going to a fine areligious charity (something like a Freedom From Religion). If the devout are willing to put their money where their mouths are, they should certainly be able to put up more money than the richest athiest donor would. If they don't outbid the athiests, it makes a statement about how much their outrage is really bluster. If they do outbid the athiests, they can sleep well at night knowing their large contributions will help a good cause.
   

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 8:28 PM

Salt, I'm hoping your last name is Poe.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 8:30 PM

Oh prayer, Salt is really a fundament.

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 8:33 PM

Jim asked "Why is any of this necessary???"

It's because Catholics are stupid insane assholes and they deserve to be ridiculed.

Any other questions?

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 8:34 PM

Dammit Jim, there goes another irony meter.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Civilized human beings believe in being nice to people. Why did those catholics at UCF rile us all up with their provocative assault on anoher catholic?

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 8:39 PM

#136: "It's childish behavior that accomplishes nothing."

As if there's nothing wrong with asshole Catholics going batshit crazy because one person didn't want to eat a tasteless cracker.

Anything that pisses off Catholic morons is worthwhile. The Catholics made complete fools out of themselves. For one cracker they have tried to get a student expelled, a professor fired, and the death threats are still coming in. Catholics must never be allowed to forget they are no better than Muslim terrorists.

Posted by: Tulse | July 14, 2008 8:40 PM

PZ. As it is Darwin's 150th anniversary since he produced the origin of species, how about a cracker collage of Darwin.

In deference to all the Catholics saying PZ should try insulting Islam, I'd suggest instead that he go for a two-fer, and make a cracker collage of Mohammed.

Heck, maybe the cracker Prophet could be wearing a Star of David, to really round things out. (I'm sure with a bit of cleverness even more blasphemies could be packed into one piece of art.)

Posted by: Goldfishflakes | July 14, 2008 8:42 PM

Good interview PZ.

Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 14, 2008 8:43 PM

Jim writes in #136

"I've read it and it's flawed. But it's pointless to discuss if you don't even believe in God. There's far too many errors to try to correct in this particular method of communication. But your underlying principle is that it's okay to desecrate because you don't believe in transubstantiation to begin with. So why even bother with trying to come up with some flawed concept of when transubstantiation would not take place?"

What an utterly perfect non-answer. If you feel that there is an error present and you wish to defend it it behooves you to educate those who,in your opinion, are somehow deluded.
If you are having difficulty with that particular question perhaps you could address mine in post #115 eh?

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 8:47 PM

Well Patricia, then my work here is done.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 8:55 PM

What cave have you been living in, Mr. Salt? Biology = evolution. Christians are terrified of evolution and they have been trying to suppress the teaching of it for several decades.

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 8:27 PM

Biology does not answer any question concerning god/gods/God, so why should Christians want to suppress it?

Evolution does not answer any question concerning god/gods/God, so why should Christians want to suppress it?

Now, atheism does answer any question concerning god/gods/God > does not exist.

So, using what appears to be the common logic found here at Pharyngula, and interpolating your statement within its context, biology/evolution = atheism. Why you guys continually point to that which does not answer and state that it does reminds me of someone pushing on a door clearly marked pull.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 8:59 PM

Salt, your constipation is affecting your thinking.

There is no question regarding origins whose answer must be "god".

We aren't christers here. Maybe you can explain why christers want to suppress education.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 9:02 PM

Salt, your constipation is affecting your thinking.

There is no question regarding origins whose answer must be "god".

We aren't christers here. Maybe you can explain why christers want to suppress education.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 8:59 PM

Education about what?, BOB? Or do I get three guesses?

Posted by: SteveC | July 14, 2008 9:06 PM

I wonder if there's some way to do this in a manner similar to Jimmy Kimmel's "unnecessary censorship" bits? In those bits, various celebrities are shown speaking, but well chosen bits are bleeped out, pixelated, etc., giving the impression that something naughty is being said or done, but this is always 100% in the viewer's mind.

Maybe PZ could go ahead and desecrate the crap out of the cracker on video (or not?), but pixelate the proceedings, you know, so as not to offend anyone.

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 9:10 PM

You're really dense, Mr. Salt.

You were asked, why do christians try to suppress science education. Why don't you answer the question or get lost.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 9:12 PM

Well Salt, since you seem to be having a hard time with it, I'll type more slowly.

Why do christers want to suppress education about biology (to include evolution)?

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 9:15 PM

You're really dense, Mr. Salt.

You were asked, why do christians try to suppress science education. Why don't you answer the question or get lost.

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 9:10 PM

Liar! I was asked why Christians try to suppress education.

Since you lied, GET LOST dim bulb.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 9:19 PM

"No. Wrong. False. My logic is absolutely flawless and impeccable, and INCLUDES GRANTING THE PREMISE THAT TRANSUBSTANTIATION IS TRUE."

Actually it doesn't.

What, are you completely incapable of reading simple English words?

What part of "[...]for the sake of argument, the Eucharist is real" do you not understand?

Your own comments reveal that you don't understand the concept to begin with.

What part of "The ritual of the Eucharist is that a priest consecrates the wafers and wine and God transubstantiates into them" is incorrect?

Getting into the finer details of transubstantiation is a total and complete waste of time.

Well, this is true. Because it's all make-believe. Heck, it looks like even you don't believe in it. Not really, anyway.

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 9:20 PM

Salt, you are really slow. Are you on dial-up?

I can demonstrate 2+2=4.

Can you demonstrate god helplessly trapped in a wafer?

And as far as god, let's see some debate. So far you aren't doing it right.

Tell me, oh wise guy who has seen the light, what is god? Persuade me that the universe needs a god, or that life needs a god, or that I need a god.

I promise I'll be polite if you actually engage in a constructive manner and try to persuade.

Unlike Jim, who has quit his christer responsibility of saving souls ("a total and complete waste of time"). Bummer, too, I bet he could've gotten a prime seat to view hell from if he saved just one or two of us poor misguided, satan-deceived souls.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 9:23 PM

Well Salt, since you seem to be having a hard time with it, I'll type more slowly.

Why do christers want to suppress education about biology (to include evolution)?

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 9:12 PM

Ah! Biology. Quite a specific subset of education. More precise. I mean, you could have been referring to womens studies or economics. Thank you.

Guess you missed my post # 151

Posted by: speedwell | July 14, 2008 9:26 PM

Gee, the last time I remember reading about a bunch of Catholic true-believers hassling a poor son of a bitch who wanted to desecrate something for science, it was when Vesalius had his life ruined for daring to dissect the sacrosanct human corpse. And that, contrary to a magic cracker, WAS a "real person."

Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 9:29 PM

Salt, I really really hope you are only playing dumb. Otherwise I'd have to believe you are another proud liar for cheese.

Your post doesn't answer the question, it has a bunch of rhetorical questions in it. In fact, my discussion with you about this topic started post post 151.

christers suppress science education, and lately, specifically, evolution theory in biology. Why do they try to suppress the teaching of biology and its foundational theory of evolution?

Posted by: shane | July 14, 2008 9:32 PM

Salt @ #169 referring to post #151, heh, doubleplusgood example of doublethink newspeak that post.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 9:40 PM

To be fair to Salt, the official Catholic Church doctrine is, IIRC, that evolution is okay. It's really the US-based fundies that are so rabidly against it.

So they're okay with biological education - to an extent that is. Once it starts overlapping with sex education they have a problem.

Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 9:42 PM

Salt, you didn't answer the question.

Why have Christians have been trying to suppress science education, especially biological evolution?

You can do it, Salt. Just answer the question.

Biology teachers don't talk about your Mr. God. They just teach biology, and evolution is the key component of biology. The Christians don't want evolution in there. Why not?

Do you think you can answer a simple question about science education without talking about your invisible friend?

Posted by: Anon | July 14, 2008 9:43 PM

BobC (168)

To begin... you use the term "Christians" as if it were monolithic. It is not. *Some* christians have been trying to suppress science education. Catholics are not, traditionally, part of that "some".

For the small subset (and no, it is not a "no true scotsman"--*you* were the one choosing the blanket term "Christian" instead of specifying an appropriate subset) or christians who do oppose evolution, it is quite arguably not fear at all, nor insanity, stupidity, or any other "problem" (but thank you for your concern). Rather, it is love, legitimate concern for your (and others') eternal soul, and the belief that if you continue as you are you (*you*, not themselves) will burn in hell. There can be no greater calling than to save you from that, if one sincerely believes that hell is your destiny.

I have no doubt that there are some who are happy to believe you will burn in hell. What I am concerned about is that you do not believe that there are some who are doing everything in their power to save you from this worst possible fate. If their motivation is "fear", it is not fear of evolution, but fear that you will be punished when they might have otherwise saved you. There is no "stupidity", but ignorance on two counts--theirs, which I do not need to explain to you, and yours, for your beliefs about them. There is, in my opinion, no "insanity" on either side, nor any "problem".

I am an atheist. You may or may not believe me--I don't care. I am an atheist. I was once a born-again christian. I was a skeptic then, and my skepticism was encouraged by my church (it was assumed that I would find the same evidence that convinced them that their beliefs were true). My skepticism led me to atheism, but my history is with me. I know that there are good people in the church. I know that there are thinking people in the church. I know that there is not one entity called "the church", or one monolithic group called "christians" any more than there is one monolithic group called "atheists".

So.... Maybe Salt will answer the question. I rather hope not. Whether or not Salt answers, it is a badly phrased question, full of false assumptions and glaring generalizations. I suspect it will generate more heat than light. I think the christians are wrong on this issue (to the extent that they can have one position), but not for any of the reasons you have suggested.

I have great hope for the commenters here. I believe they (we) can get beyond stereotypes and caricatures. I firmly believe the "unrepentant science heathens" to be in the right on this, and proudly wear that title... and as a proud USH, I think we can do better.

Just my 2 cents.

Posted by: me | July 14, 2008 9:49 PM

I agree with Amplexus (way at the top of this thread). Do a scientific calorie experiment, except have a non-consecrated cracker as the control, and prove that the 'body of jesus' cracker IS just a cracker.

Posted by: shane | July 14, 2008 9:53 PM

Slightly OT, but I'm surprised you have enough catholics over in the US at the moment to cause "problems". Caught the train into town, Sydney, this morning and it was choc-a-block full of christers singing "Hallelujah", and not the good Jeff Buckley version. The Yank "pilgrims" are the loudest chattiest - "bet you didn't expect to be spiritualised this morning" - but they're all singing. Large groups of them are prowling around town waving national flags and wearing their identical yellow and red WYD Popefest backpacks.
Yesterday a large group of Brazilians walked up and down my street singing Kumbaya or something. I don't know where they go at night.
At least they mostly come in the daylight... mostly.

Posted by: Jim | July 14, 2008 9:56 PM

"Well, this is true. Because it's all make-believe. Heck, it looks like even you don't believe in it. Not really, anyway."

Actually, I do. Which is why I find your "logic" flawed and find it pointless to discuss it in any detail. Getting into the finer details of transubstantiation can be difficult with a Protestant (as I'm all too familiar with). But discussing it with an Atheist is a total and complete waste of time. We wouldn't even be able to get through John 6. Just because you say the word "transubstantiation" does not mean that you're starting with a proper understanding of what that means.

And again, at the end of the day, it doesn't change the basic problem we have here, that people want to behave like ignorant children and piss off Catholics. And even if you believed your "logic", that does not serve your purpose, so I'm not sure why you're all excited about it. But I'd be perfectly happy if you really did believe it was impossible and went along your merry way.

Posted by: Anon | July 14, 2008 10:01 PM

BobC (186)

Thank you for your comments. In fact, I was going to complain a bit more until I re-read and saw "these christians". With the "these" modifier, I agree.

And Salt is not doing him/herself any favors since my comment.

I do believe that it is possible for a good christian to disagree with you and with science out of ignorance rather than stupidity--but I find it very hard to put Salt in that category.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:08 PM

Actually, I do.

No you don't. You can't even be bothered to argue in favor of it.

Which is why I find your "logic" flawed and find it pointless to discuss it in any detail.

No, it's because my logic is absolutely flawless that you find it pointless to discuss it at all.

Just because you say the word "transubstantiation" does not mean that you're starting with a proper understanding of what that means.

So? In what way does a "proper" understanding of the "meaning" of "transubstantiation" alter my logic? Show it. Argue it. Defend what you pretend to believe in.

But I'd be perfectly happy if you really did believe it was impossible and went along your merry way.

But if it is impossible to desecrate the host, then there isn't anything for Catholics to be pissed off about! That's the whole bloody point!

Posted by: Red Expendable | July 14, 2008 10:23 PM

The best thing PZ could do is just eat the cracker. Just eat it, dry and plain. Post it on youtube. Just look at the camera, smile, eat the cracker. Don't need to do anything like crumbling it,blending it, or smearing it with peanut butter or cheese.

Just it eat and smile. 30 seconds of video.

Next!

I see this as exactly the kind of bullshit Muslims were offended about with cartoon drawings of their stupid prophet. I admire PZ for his bravery and his courage in the face of an ugly, violent and dogmatic mob of Catholics.

Keep up the good fight PZ!!

RedEx

P.S. It's just a cracker.

Posted by: Amplexus | July 14, 2008 10:25 PM

Please PZ do something science-y with the crackers. Feed them to some zebrafish, burn them and measure the calories, something alone this line.
You've declared(rightly) that science erodes faith in a real way.

I beg you please take a symbolic action to reduce this "host" to the material cracker that it truely is. The Bush administration was assembled and supported largely by the religious right. Bushfish: meet zebrafish.
http://bushfish.org/

Posted by: Patricia | July 14, 2008 10:31 PM

Jim & Salt - Piss off the catholics? Ha! There's a real sin. It's about time somebody pissed off the child molesting, woman killing, genocidal bastards. Fuck the catholics.
Want to humble an uppity woman you christian freaks? Trot out your gawd. Let's see him. He appeared to Adam, Eve & Moses. He spoke to Noah. He made the serpent speak in Eden, and Balaams Ass talk. Where is he boys? He made the world, how about he turns out the Sun for 15 seconds? Suspend gravity for a minute? He's bullshit and you're full of bullshit.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:32 PM

there isn't anything for Catholics to be pissed off about!
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:08 PM

Yet, some took offense. Why does that give you enjoyment?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 10:38 PM

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:32 PM

Wow! You're good. Wish I could be like you.

Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 14, 2008 10:39 PM

Jim Writes

"Actually, I do. Which is why I find your "logic" flawed and find it pointless to discuss it in any detail. Getting into the finer details of transubstantiation can be difficult with a Protestant (as I'm all too familiar with). But discussing it with an Atheist is a total and complete waste of time. We wouldn't even be able to get through John 6. Just because you say the word "transubstantiation" does not mean that you're starting with a proper understanding of what that means."

How convenient that you are incapable of explaining your stance because of OUR ignorance. Exactly how are we supposed to be convinced by that which you seem both reluctant and incapable of explaining?

Way back in post #115 I posed a question for believers and It has nothing to do with the Eucharist itself but with the vesting of authority for the Eucharist.

Richard in Edmonton writes

"It struck me today that I am ignorant of the means by which the first members of the Christian religion who instituted the ritual of the Eucharist were able to discern whether they had succeeded in accomplishing the actual transubstantiation effect if ,being human, they are not able to detect a difference in the "substance" but only in the "accidents" of material things.

After all, one should be certain of such a thing before invoking the obedience of one's flock to partake of this ritual wouldn't you think?

Any believers out there with some insight to this situation?"

So Jim perhaps we can have you acquaint us with the origins of the ritual for the purpose of clarity? You do wish clarity to be arrived at do you not?

Awaiting in sincere patience for honest rebuttal.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:41 PM

Metaphorically, as to the sun, He does that every so often.

No, those are called "eclipses". They happen when the moon in its orbit happens to come directly between the Earth and the Sun. These are predictable natural phenomena. It's a pity that you're still so superstitious that you think a magical angry God is responsible.

Posted by: Anon | July 14, 2008 10:44 PM

sorry you do not believe me, Holbach. I have no god(s). I do, however (because of my past) understand those who do believe; perhaps you do not. No problem. In about 90% of my life, I am arguing against belief, because that is what is called for. But when people claim some knowledge of believers that is, in fact, false, I have no problem correcting them. If you met me in real life, I have no doubt at all that you would be convinced; it is highly unlikely that you will, and so you are ignorant of my [lack of] beliefs. I accept this.

I eat crackers with soup. It has been over 30 years since anyone gave me a cracker and said it was the body of christ. (for the record, this church gave grape juice for blood, as they were against wine.) It has been over 25 years (conservative estimate) since I had the slightest inkling that it was anything but a cracker.

If your world view cannot handle an atheist who actually understands christians, perhaps that is your loss. But... so as not to mince words--you are quite wrong. I am indeed an atheist. I do not care one whit if you believe me; those who know me already know. I cannot prove (nor can anyone, on the interwebs) my beliefs to you, nor yours to me. And, frankly, they are irrelevant. Which, in a way, is precisely the point.

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

Metaphorically, as to the sun, He does that every so often. -Salt

No, those are called "eclipses". They happen when the moon in its orbit happens to come directly between the Earth and the Sun. These are predictable natural phenomena. It's a pity that you're still so superstitious that you think a magical angry God is responsible.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:41 PM

LMAO! You guys are so predictable.

No, those are called "eclipses"

No shit, sherlock.

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

Salt said If you want gravity suspended, go into space.

Unintentionally funny I think. The best kind.

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

"FYI - the KKK are a Christian organisation. Any problems they have with Catholicism are strictly sectarian and has nothing to do with atheists or atheism."

PZ's proposed behavior and the comments suggested on most of this blog aren't really much different when you get down to it. You have a group of people who consider themselves superior, hate another group of people because of something that unites that group of people, and find entertainment in provoking that group of people. The only real difference is how far you're willing to take it. Today it's childesh hate speech and threats of desecrating something they hold sacred. What do you have planned for tomorrow? How far do you let this escalate? You're feeding a mob mentality. You might as well wear the white hoods since you're cut from the same cloth.

Posted by: Kel | July 14, 2008 10:57 PM

@Jim

Today it's childesh hate speech and threats of desecrating something they hold sacred.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 10:59 PM

Of course gods don't exist, and you will never prove they don't exist except in your mind. So since they exist in your mind that means they exist outside of your mind? Why is it that they don't exist in my mind?

You are putting in something that does not exist, and yet I am unable to do the same. How do you explain that? Fallacious?
Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 10:50 PM

Fallacious? Indeed. You begin with the absolute "Of course gods don't exist". You do know what a fallacy is, don't you?

Nothing you stated proves one way or another whether god/gods/God exists or not. It's but child's play.

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

Okay, let's say we atheists hold this blog sacred
Posted by: Kel | July 14, 2008 10:57 PM

That's rich.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 11:08 PM

Today it's childesh hate speech and threats of desecrating something they hold sacred. What do you have planned for tomorrow?

Tomorrow it'll probably be Mormonism or Scientology, or hey, maybe even Islam.

We're equal-opportunity scoffers.

How far do you let this escalate?

That's as far as it goes. Ridicule and refutation.

You might as well wear the white hoods since you're cut from the same cloth.

Nonsense. The KKK are also Christians, as well as being racists and anti-Semites. Of course we scoff at them as well.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 11:11 PM

You guys are really off your game tonight. What is this, the second string? Or are you guys wearing an anti-banana disguise? (if that escapes you, see Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop)

Posted by: Anon | July 14, 2008 11:17 PM

Salt, you are an idiot.

Forget I ever thought to defend you.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 11:19 PM

You guys are really off your game tonight. What is this, the second string? Or are you guys wearing an anti-banana disguise? (if that escapes you, see Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop)
Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 11:11 PM

Ah, the good old ad hominem, mixed in with a pop culture reference in a weak attempt at condescending humor. Still no data or evidence, but then again, we weren't really expecting any.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 11:22 PM

Salt,

I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not we can prove that, at point in the universe, there might have been something other than human. I feel it is highly unlikely, but not impossible.

What I challenge is your justification that the 'something' is, without doubt, the god you happen to believe in (the catholic one?) - as opposed to the vast number of other gods there are to choose from.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 11:25 PM

Ah, the good old ad hominem, mixed in with a pop culture reference in a weak attempt at condescending humor. Still no data or evidence, but then again, we weren't really expecting any.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 11:19 PM

Never thought that which is self evident needed any.

Salt, you are an idiot.
Forget I ever thought to defend you.
Posted by: Anon | July 14, 2008 11:17 PM

Thank you. I mean that.

I am confident that there are no gods and can never prove it. You are confident that there are gods, and likewise will never prove it. I can live without it, but you cannot live without it. Can you comprehend what I am trying to convey to you without being fallacious?
Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 11:16 PM

Sure. Nicely stated. So why does it get your panties in such a wad?

Oh yeah, that is a must-see classic.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 14, 2008 11:17 PM

Yep.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 14, 2008 11:26 PM

I said that it's a complex theological topic and would be a waste of time, given the fact that you neither believe in God, nor the divinity of Jesus. How could we even begin to discuss the content of John chapter 6 if you don't believe Jesus is the Son of God and view the Bible as a work of fiction???

Complex? No. Circular reasoning? Yes.

I'm saying that the entire attempt would be a waste of time.

Glad we agree.

Explain to me why I should even waste my time.

Please don't. I almost fell asleep just reading you explain why you don't want to explain the unexplainable.

Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 11:29 PM

Salt follow up to mine @ 224 I'll grant you this: it's not your fault that gods don't exist, you had nothing to do with it! But you do have something in common with most rabid religionists and that is to invent something that does not exist. Am I getting through to you? You will never win this argument with me, as not only do I have blatant reason on my side, but I am the most ardent atheist you will ever have the misfortune to counter my rationalism with your nonsensical bullshit. Sit down and rest your besopped brain, and here is a cracker to eat as you ponder it's transformation.

Posted by: Kel | July 14, 2008 11:30 PM

Salt,
It's was a hypothetical. And even then, honestly would you people not eat beef because the Hindus consider it a sacred animal? Honestly, it's IMPOSSIBLE to adhere to religions you aren't a part of. No matter how much you say it's offensive to Catholics, it's no more offensive to desecrate a holy cracker than it is for you to eat a holy animal of another religion.

Posted by: shane | July 14, 2008 11:33 PM

Kel, so by partaking of a nice big juicy sirloin I'm offending hindus? Cool. I dig on swine, do you think I would offend anyone by eating bacon too?

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 11:38 PM

Salt,
It's was a hypothetical. And even then, honestly would you people not eat beef because the Hindus consider it a sacred animal?

No matter how much you say it's offensive to Catholics, it's no more offensive to desecrate a holy cracker than it is for you to eat a holy animal of another religion.
Posted by: Kel | July 14, 2008 11:30 PM

Do the Hindu's consider it offensive to eat beef? Not that I am aware of. A friend recently got back from India and he said he often ate steak.

Posted by: shane | July 14, 2008 11:39 PM

What I challenge is your justification that the 'something' is, without doubt, the god you happen to believe in (the catholic one?) - as opposed to the vast number of other gods there are to choose from. Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 11:22 PM

You are quite free to do so. BTW, the catholic one is no different than the Jewish or the protestant one. I am not catholic, fyi.

Salt, um... What? Huh? I'm not seeing any substance to your replies.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 14, 2008 11:42 PM

Do the Hindu's consider it offensive to eat beef? Not that I am aware of. A friend recently got back from India and he said he often ate steak.

Not all Indians are Hindu. You are really letting your ignorance show.

Posted by: Frank Mitchell | July 14, 2008 11:45 PM

On the subject of "substance" vs. "accidents":

When I was Catholic, it was a matter of "faith" that a tasteless melt-in-your-mouth cracker and cheap wine became the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ at a certain point in the Mass. And yes, it still looks, smells, and tastes like a cracker and cheap wine, and any test devised by man, scientific or otherwise, could not find the difference between that particular plate of crackers and chalice of cheap wine, and the crackers still in plastic or cheap wine in a bottle sitting in the sacristy ... although even thinking about doing such a test is apparently now sacrilege.

How can this be? (All you ex-Catholics, join in:) IT'S A MYSTERY!

I can only believe six impossible things before breakfast; the sheer quantity required to be Catholic beggared even my imagination, so one day I gave up Catholicism for Lent (badabing!) and never looked back.

Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 11:48 PM

Salt I just saw a video on the internet news that the head moron in Rome is going to apologise for all the sexual abuse by those slimy fucking priests. Now isn't that just so big of him. Let me ask you this: Why doesn't he get his imaginary god (see my aim here again Salt, with negative?) to come down and apologise, as this is the gist of the whole insanity? Repeat: WHY DOESN'T HE GET HIS GOD TO COME DOWN AND APOLOGISE? This question will forever remain unanswerable, because to attempt to answer it will engender all manner of illiogical excuses, none of which will prove that gods do not exist.

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

What I challenge is your justification that the 'something' is, without doubt, the god you happen to believe in (the catholic one?) - as opposed to the vast number of other gods there are to choose from. Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 11:22 PM

You are quite free to do so. BTW, the catholic one is no different than the Jewish or the protestant one. I am not catholic, fyi. - salt

Salt, um... What? Huh? I'm not seeing any substance to your replies.

Posted by: shane | July 14, 2008 11:39 PM

Damn, you are one sharp cookie, shane. Umm, Umm. Sharp as a tack.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 11:55 PM

Repeat: WHY DOESN'T HE GET HIS GOD TO COME DOWN AND APOLOGISE? This question will forever remain unanswerable, because to attempt to answer it will engender all manner of illiogical excuses, none of which will prove that gods do not exist.

Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 11:48 PM

And we have another sharp tack.

So tell us, Holback, who is the "head moron in Rome" going to apologize for? "slimy fucking priests" or God?

Are you really this IQ deficient?

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 12:03 AM

You know, Salt. Since your god obviously loves you and hates me, why doesn't he present himself to me, just to prove me wrong and prove you right. Better yet, why doesn't he just kill me with a lighting bolt? I'm sure that would make things easier to save the souls of prosperity.

Posted by: gsenski | July 15, 2008 12:11 AM

I think you should nail that cracker to a cross. Get a couple of popsickle sticks, tie them together and thumb tack that sucker on there...

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 12:16 AM

Assuming he exists, that will happen, at his good time and not yours.

Oh that's right, the omnipotent god just couldn't be bothered for ten seconds to save my soul. But let's not forget, he loves me.

Posted by: Salt | July 15, 2008 12:20 AM

Assuming he exists, that will happen, at his good time and not yours. - Salt

Oh that's right, the omnipotent god just couldn't be bothered for ten seconds to save my soul. But let's not forget, he loves me.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 12:16 AM

Wat makes you think it is lost, assuming you have one?

I shall go no further, but assuming none are lost, why should he have any great concern about you right now?

Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 12:29 AM

Salt: Damn, you are one sharp cookie, shane. Umm, Umm. Sharp as a tack.
Bravo Salt, bravo. *golf clap*. Consider me skewered. Definitely a troll. He's running out of (non) material now though.

Posted by: Holbach | July 15, 2008 12:30 AM

Jim @ 228 and elsewhere Your brain is one cesspit of a religious commode, and just reading your comments confirms my stance that you will never see the light of reason. You will most assuredly die in this manner, and all your insane thoughts, actions and remarks will be extinguished by the worms who have no feeling one way or the other of the condition of your brain. You will lie there slowly being devoured by those intelligently designed worms, and as you did not speak rationally while you were alive, your deranged thoughts will have no meaning when you are dead. You will be unaided by any imaginary god you have deigned to proffer to help you in your hour of need while you were alive. You will go out without a god, just as you came in. I am confident that if you devour enough crackers you may be able to stem the tide of eventual insanity with that everlasting transubstantiation to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 12:34 AM

I shall go no further, but assuming none are lost, why should he have any great concern about you right now?

Oh, maybe because it is a major tenet of Christian faith - and the defining principle of the doctrine of a loving, personal God - that God does, by nature, care for each and every one of his creations. That's why he should, if he exists. But I realize that such an exercise in critical thinking falls outside your range of comprehension, so you should probably stick to your "sharp as a tack" ad hominem arsenal - at least that way you can feign intelligence, however futile that may be.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 12:35 AM

LMAO. Hey, Mike, turn your headlights on. Easier to see in the dark.

Getting wittier by the second, I see.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 15, 2008 1:24 AM

Salt mistakes vagueness and obsfucation for profundity and wit.

Remember that abortion thread where he dropped a few non-sequiturs, laughed and declared victory, then left? Only he didn't really leave?

That was awesome!

Posted by: bastion | July 15, 2008 1:25 AM

At #238 Salt wrote:
BTW, the catholic [god] is no different than the Jewish or the protestant one. I am not catholic, fyi.

But yet this one god gave each of these three groups different, and often conflicting, rules that it was commanded to follow.

And within each group, he also gave the many subgroups (the different sects in Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism) different rules.

And god told each of these subgroups that it had the right set of rules, and that it shouldn't follow the other rules.

So how can anyone really know they're following the right set of rules?

God is so darn mysterious and tricky.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 1:37 AM

And how has he determined a grave to rightfully belong to someone, but a sacrament bestowed by a priest upon a supplicant (deemed worthy) not to?

Easy - someone is buried in the grave. If you dig it up, it will have a physical body - or what's left of one - in it. No one respects graves because of who might exist within them, but rather because of who's actually down there. You find me a communion wafer that undoubtedly has someone buried inside it, then we can discuss how the two are similar. "The proper reverence due those who have gone before" does not include wafers of unleavened bread.

Posted by: bastion | July 15, 2008 1:39 AM

At #259 gdlchmst said:
Oh that's right, the omnipotent god just couldn't be bothered for ten seconds to save my soul. But let's not forget, he loves me.

Nod. Why does god have this need to be so darn mysterious and tricky?

Why can't he just have a TV show like Jesus on South Park?

Or he could have his own blog.

OK. Not everyone has cable or even connects to the internet.

But heck, what would it hurt if he just sent us a nice post card now and then? Is it the cost of postage that's stopping him?

Posted by: Numad | July 15, 2008 1:40 AM

Breakfast,

"And how has he determined a grave to rightfully belong to someone, but a sacrament bestowed by a priest upon a supplicant (deemed worthy) not to?"

The grave actually belongs (in every sense of the word) to someone else, the wafer is given to anybody who shows up. Unless you shove another attendant out of the way and steal his wafer, there's absolutely no point of comparison between the two acts. This isn't an occult method of determination.

Maybe it comes from living in Quebec for a long while, but the idea of Catholic mass as private and select, and of the Eucharist as some kind of discriminate process that has to be fooled, really doesn't jibe with reality.

Owlmirror is right. The theology isn't accorded with reality, even making every supernatural assumption believers would be making. The Host is only considered vulnerable as an excuse to crusade against the unbeliever.

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

Numad - Whether the theology is coherent or not is utterly beside the point of whether it's reasonable to accord the wafer ceremony respect, as I tried to show with the example of our cultural mythologies surrounding death. For this sort of brash attack on another's belief system to be credible at ALL, it can't just be you saying "Well, *I* don't believe in such foolish things!!" -- or you wouldn't have any reason to object to some mean, nihilistic individual breaking people's gravestones because she simply doesn't believe that they deserve respect. I'm saying that we already accept that it's rude and stupid to piss on things other people care about just because we don't happen to care about them -- so there had better be a good and genuine reason for pissing on this wafer.

It doesn't matter to Catholics whether the process is really select or not. It matters to them because of the role of the ceremony in their religious life. It's an affirmation of their membership and good standing in the religion that they share in public with their fellow churchgoers. It reinforces their feeling of a personal relationship with God. It doesn't take much imagination to figure why they might be annoyed by someone taking their symbol and disrespecting it. It's not "just a frackin' cracker", or PZ wouldn't have bothered calling for its desecration -- the goal is to symbolically slap Catholics in the face for having a silly belief.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 1:57 AM

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 1:42 AM

brokenSoldier -- So if, say, someone dies in an accident and the body can't be recovered, it's ok to, say, pee on their gravestone and mock whoever takes umbrage at the act?

Now you're being intentionally dense, I think. But either way, I'll explain the concept a little bit further. Even if someone's body may not be in the grave, the grave is for that one person, and that one person alone. Whether or not the body is in there, that site is designated as their final resting place. For that reason, a grave and a communion wafer will never be viewed as analogous, even when someone is trying to manufacture rage over the wafer's supposed mistreatment.

I don't think that's an honest appraisal of why we care about respecting graves.

It's honest, all right. Graves are repsected because they are recognized as the place in which that former human now lies, physical body or not. There is a name on the headstone, and that name - the memory of that human - is what is respected. So, in light of the hair splitting, I'll rephrase the challenge. You show me a communion wafer that the burial site for a human, and then we can talk about the two in the same light. And no metaphysics or discussion of transubstantiation. The wafer has to be the actual resting place, and has to be unique - as in, they can't all be the resting place for the same person. Since that will never happen, the two will never exist in the same category.

Both the grave and the wafer are important to those for whom they are important because of the norms and ceremonies surrounding them, the symbolic significance of the more or less arbitrary object. God 'blesses the cracker' and your loved one 'cares if you visit'. The fact that there's a corpse in the grave is about as relevant as whether the colour of the cracker is close to a flesh tone or not.

Actually, the priest consecrates the bread and wine, and I doubt very seriously your loved ones care if you visit. My offerings of respect are not directed towards my loved one's eternal happiness (that would be silly, because they are dead); they are directed towards my respect for who they once were and my desire to keep them in my memory. I would be pissed if someone desecrated my family or friend's grave, but I wouldn't care in the least if someone stomped on a cracker that was supposed to "be" them. That sounds a bit too voodoo doll-ish for me.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 2:00 AM

I'm questioning PZ's given reasons for disrespecting Catholic beliefs in particular, Numad. You echoed his argument that it's ok to make fun of Catholics but not, say, people with dead relatives, because the ceremony that Catholics care about isn't extremely selective about who can participate in it, whereas funerals are selective. What I continue to wonder is what the hell that has to do with whether or not we ought to accord Catholics normal human respect.

Posted by: Numad | July 15, 2008 2:06 AM

Breakfast,

I imagine my grasp of english must be failing terribly again, because that's not something that should be read into my comments at all. Or you're just being intentionally obtuse.

Posted by: Kel | July 15, 2008 2:09 AM

You echoed his argument that it's ok to make fun of Catholics

Posted by: Numad | July 15, 2008 2:17 AM

"We would be mortified if such a group took it upon themselves to disprove our silly beliefs by bombing [churches]. Of course they wouldn't mind doing so and they would think our reasons for objecting were stupid. But it is profoundly narrow-minded of them to believe that *their* reasons are the only reasons in the world that could matter, and that their own rituals and practices are the only true, objective and sensible ones possible."

Gee. Something doesn't work here. I wonder what it could be.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 2:22 AM

Wafers have meanings to Catholics because of the rituals and norms surrounding the wafer, in a similar manner.

This is where you are wrong. They are not similar, at least not to a healthy mind.

But my point was only to demonstrate that we don't think someone's disagreement with us about the funeral ritual -- say a group just stopped caring about dead people when they died, and thought we should use all corpses for science instead of stuffing tracts of valuable land full of them -- gives them the right to be an asshole about it.

One would still want to educate them so that they will donate the bodies to science. And if, like the catholics in this case, they insisted I must respect their beliefs and stuff my family members' corpses in the dirt, I have every right to protest.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 2:31 AM

I hope nobody's forced you to take communion, gdlchmst! All most Catholics want in this regard is for people not to come and fuck with their ceremony, and the significant objects associated with it.

I think it is fascinating that any people can whip up such an enduring furor over something that is physically just a cracker. It's a testament to the power of these symbolic frameworks in human life, although I've no doubt a good portion of the madness is what has been deliberately stoked by the Catholic League folks, and what is continually boiling over in these stupid culture wars to begin with.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 2:35 AM

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 2:13 AM

Can you not see how all you are doing here is giving me some exposition about your culture's gravesite rituals?

No, I can't at all. All I posited was a respect for the dead in their own memory. That's hardly a facet of "my culture" that is distinct enough for you to parse which culture I actually belong to. Sorry, far too many cultures respect their dead for you to try to shoehorn me into one of them in order to make a point.

Graves have meanings to us because of their connection to the closure of funerals, because we feel an urge to somehow protect our loved ones' rotting corpses, because they mark a place for that person and that person alone, etc., etc.

Maybe to you (and here's is where you give me a distinct insight into your cultural tendencies), but I respect graves for the singular reason I posted above. They mark the location where someone I cared for was laid to rest. The reverence is centered not around the grave, but around the memory of the person.

Obviously the two phenomena mean different things and belong in different contexts.

I know they do. You, however, were the one to equate the two originally.

But my point was only to demonstrate that we don't think someone's disagreement with us about the funeral ritual...gives them the right to be an asshole about it.

Again, I disagree. Everyone has the right to be an asshole, but those rights stop where others' right begin. And desecrating the grave of someone's relative crosses that line. Desecrating a yeast-less bit of bread simply does not, no matter how much spiritual importance someone may place upon it. Desecrating a grave is against the law. Desecrating a cracker is not.

But it is profoundly narrow-minded of them to believe that *their* reasons are the only reasons in the world that could matter...

What "matters" is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the fact that you see a crime - grave desecration - as equivalent with doing something to a wafer. You can say it is in bad taste all you want, but in the end that is simply your opinion, and no one from the government or any other organization has the right to tell you that their ritual with the wafer matters so much that there are some things you just can't do with it.

And to make that last statement about foisting beliefs and reasons for those beliefs on others is hilarious, due to the fact that we are talking about a situation where Catholics are calling for legal action to be taken against someone who has merely expressed the intent of doing something to the wafer. If they truly believed in their doctrine, then PZ's actions will be dealt with by the one who is actually being offended on judgement day. If their doctrine is true, then they should leave the indignance to God - why do they continually feel the need to fight his battles for him? It is not merely because they are offended, but also because - especially for those running organizations bent on the expansion of their sect - they wish to foist their beliefs on the rest of society. And that is exactly the reason for PZ's reaction - it is the perpetual insistence on trying to make society bow to their ideaa and beliefs that causes such backlash.

Posted by: Numad | July 15, 2008 2:42 AM

"They mark the location where someone I cared for was laid to rest. The reverence is centered not around the grave, but around the memory of the person."

So then, the funeral counterpart to the whole wafer thing would be if someone were to stand in a graveyard and hand out paper flowers to passerby while saying something about it representing this or that person who just died, and one of the passerbys intentionally ruined the flower.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 2:44 AM

Numad: Fair enough. There's a gradation of levels of disrespect. And the disrespect PZ's trying to convey is very symbolic, barely at all material.

I'm just saying you can't underestimate the personal significance of such a symbolic object. In fact, Catholics themselves only half see the issue as symbolic in the first place; strictly speaking, they should believe that this is a piece of real material far more important than any crucifix or church.

A corpse is a good example of a symbolic object that we all accept to be extremely significant. Whether there's "good reason" or not for attaching all the moral value to one rotting piece of human meat or one flimsy piece of cracker is beside the point and almost a crazy question in the first place. We care about corpses because of our instinctual revulsions and attachments and our acculturation. Catholics care about wafers for their reasons. We would do well to keep in mind how incidental and culturally determined many (or all) of our own values are, at the least. If we were pressed we would likely have to admit it's all a bit kooky at base. It's getting to sound worryingly fascistic, the sort of talk coming out of gdlchemist -- Nobody who believes any differently from us deserves respect, and their minds should be changed or they should be mocked.

Anyway, maybe society would indeed be better off on the whole without religion; I'm honestly not sure. And maybe the only, or an important, way of bringing that about is to slowly make more and more fun of demonstrably ridiculous beliefs. But I feel like we should at least think about what we're doing as we do that, and not just ride a great, unquestioning wave of derision and moral superiority .

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 15, 2008 2:55 AM

Breakfast wrote:
Anyway, maybe society would indeed be better off on the whole without religion

I think it would, as long as we remember that there's a reason why people latched onto the concept of god-based morality in the first place - because it's not necessarily obvious (as illustrated by believers who question how there can be morality without deities to reveal it to us)to everyone, and needs to be taught.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 2:58 AM

So then, the funeral counterpart to the whole wafer thing would be if someone were to stand in a graveyard and hand out paper flowers to passerby while saying something about it representing this or that person who just died, and one of the passerbys intentionally ruined the flower.

That actually equates a lot better than the grave comparison - the thing being destroyed is merely a symbol or other identifier to the dead person, and not the place of rest. And it is silly to try to punish someone for intentionally debasing a flower, freely passed out among the attendees, based on the fact that it is a symbolic representation of the person, just as it is silly to call for the firing or expulsion of someone who 'disrespects' a wafer.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 3:02 AM

Breakfast:

If we were pressed we would likely have to admit it's all a bit kooky at base.

I freely admit that demanding respect for a piece of bread is kooky. I will not, however, admit the same concerning the respect for the memories of my deceased family and friends. Maybe you see it that way, but I definitely do not.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 3:09 AM

If the passing out of the paper flower were considered to be a central and indispensable part of the funeral, and it were believed to, I don't know, contain a part of the person's soul, and if it were to be dealt with and disposed of only in a very particular way for the service to be completed with due respect, like, say, being burned on a pyre -- then the comparison would be more apt, I think.

If the passerby didn't burn the flower in the pyre, is he going to be assault and force to give the flower back? Since we are trying to keep the analogy apt. Funny to think you would find this appropriate and yet call me a fascist for not respecting the idea that a cracker is Jesus.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 3:16 AM

gdl, I didn't say I condoned anything about how the people in the service or, say, the Catholic League responded.

'Fascistic' is a heavy word to swing around and probably wasn't necessary. But this is what did it for me:

*Normal* human respect dictates that we do not afford them any respect pertaining to the idiotic idea of crackers being sacred. And someone with normal human sensibilities would see no problem with what PZ suggests.

Nobody merits the descriptor 'normal' except everyone who agrees with you, apparently. And this thing valued on religious grounds deserves derision because you believe religion is "to opiate the masses". You can surely how narrow and unsympathetic a way of figuring the world this is.

Anyway. It's high time I turned in, everybody. Cheers.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 15, 2008 3:18 AM

Here's a thought - what if someone is a believing Catholic when the priest hands him/her the host, but in the time between accepting it and putting it in his mouth he decides he doesn't want to be Catholic anymore?

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 3:29 AM

Breakfast,

Nobody merits the descriptor 'normal' except everyone who agrees with you, apparently.

I believe I was parroting your use of the phrase: "What I continue to wonder is what the hell that has to do with whether or not we ought to accord Catholics normal human respect."

And this thing valued on religious grounds deserves derision because you believe religion is "to opiate the masses". You can surely how narrow and unsympathetic a way of figuring the world this is.

Funny, I thought this "narrow and unsympathetic" worldview was the worldview of many atheists. Either you are concern trolling or you are still harboring relgion in a special little place in your heart.

Posted by: Jim | July 15, 2008 3:43 AM

"But you are not capable. I offered a simple, clear, logical 18-point list that grants you God, the Roman Catholic Church, and the truth of transubstantiation, all as simple givens, and you can't tell me how it's flawed."

No, you've given me your definitions which allow you to draw whatever conclusions you want. This whole train goes right back to God, predestination, divine providence... There's just too much to cover and it will ultimately still boil down to the fact that you don't believe in God, Jesus, or transubstantiation anyway, so what's the point?

"Given my simple logic, do you agree that it is not possible to desecrate the host at all, ever? And do you therefore agree that Catholics have no reason to be angry about the threat of said "desecration"?

No, I do not agree. Do you agree that by my providing references to the Bible or writings by those who were taught by the Apostles (e.g. St. Ignatius of Antioch) that it would have zero impact on your beliefs? A quick and easy response would be for me to point you to the last paragraph of 1 Cor. 11. That's just for starters.

But even your second bullet:

2 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that Catholicism is true.
2a) Catholicism is the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Right there, there's no point in continuing if you understand what that includes. But again, you don't understand what it is you're stating there or you would not have continued with your subsequent points. Even if you now restrict that to just what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, I'd still refer you back to 1 Cor. 11 and what the Church teaches about those verses.

Like I keep saying, it's a waste of time.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 3:58 AM

Even if you now restrict that to just what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, I'd still refer you back to 1 Cor. 11 and what the Church teaches about those verses.

Like I keep saying, it's a waste of time.

It most certainly is, but for the sole reason that you can't see the obvious flaw in stating your references. You state as proof for your position the writings of humans over a thousand years ago. They - just as you today - can offer no verifiable, tangible data in support of your position. The only possible argument for the definite truth of those writings in the Bible is an appeal to the supernatural - that they were "divinely inspired" - which fails to pass even a cursory logical examination.

Your constant dismissals of the requests to back up your claims, with the reason that it would somehow take too long, are ridiculous enough without the added caveat in many of them suggesting that your intellect is the only one that could grasp your explanation. That is pure comedy coming from someone who in their posts is so seemingly averse to data analysis, logic, and critical thinking.

Posted by: 386sx | July 15, 2008 4:01 AM

Given my simple logic, do you agree that it is not possible to desecrate the host at all, ever?

Well, Jesus is invincible, and if he's offended by some stupid lame crap like that, then he's a spoiled rotten brat. And certainly not profoundly "wise".

So, yes it is possible to desecrate the host, but only if Jesus is a complete moron. Thanks!

Posted by: Raiko | July 15, 2008 4:09 AM

You point out the most intriguing thing in all of this when you mention that you didn't do anything to any cracker. You just wrote about someone doing something (barely anything) to a cracker.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 15, 2008 4:24 AM

No, you've given me your definitions which allow you to draw whatever conclusions you want

Then explain how those definitions are wrong.

This whole train goes right back to God, predestination, divine providence... There's just too much to cover and it will ultimately still boil down to the fact that you don't believe in God, Jesus, or transubstantiation anyway, so what's the point?

I don't believe that the Wizard of Oz is true, but I can still discuss how many flying monkeys it might take to airlift a car, given the information in the fictional story.

Yes, I think your story is fiction, but explain to me how that matters given that I'm granting you the premises of the fiction.

No, I do not agree. Do you agree that by my providing references to the Bible or writings by those who were taught by the Apostles (e.g. St. Ignatius of Antioch) that it would have zero impact on your beliefs?

What beliefs? I'm trying to argue from the basic premises as laid out.

A quick and easy response would be for me to point you to the last paragraph of 1 Cor. 11.

Are you trying to say that the authority of Paul of Tarsus or St. Ignatius of Antioch trumps the authority, perfection, power, and knowledge of the Almighty God? If so, say so! Say that Paul said that God is too weak or too stupid to prevent himself from being desecrated, and on that authority, my premises are contradicted. At least that would be an argument.

2 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that Catholicism is true.
2a) Catholicism is the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Right there, there's no point in continuing if you understand what that includes.

So are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church does indeed teach that the Almighty, Perfect, Powerful, and All-knowing God actually is too stupid and weak to not enter a wafer about to be eaten by someone unworthy?

I may have to reconsider my argument in light of this.

Posted by: Sauceress | July 15, 2008 4:29 AM

Don Smith, FCD #276

NaN votes Woohoo! I wrapped the counter! In the negative direction!

Same thing happened to me.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 4:33 AM

Whoops, my connection timed out, so I refreshed a couple times. Sorry for the multiple posts!

Posted by: MH | July 15, 2008 4:37 AM

I'm getting tired of these comparisons of dead people and dead wheat. Of course we respect corpses; they used to be humans. Wheat, we don't respect so much. Not even the Jains would get bent out of shape at the thought of a bit of wheat getting 'abused'.

My lighthearted suggestion for the cracker would be to send it to CERN. Instead of using the Large Hadron Collider for detecting the 'God particle', they could use it to try to detect Jebons! (NB: very slow link)

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 4:49 AM

clinteas:

Hmm, while not every religious person would react with such extremism, you're right. The religious do take criticism as a personal attack. What do you suggest we do then? How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 5:04 AM

Jim, is there any catholic bullshit you DON'T believe in?

Posted by: JimC | July 15, 2008 5:08 AM

Bible and Sacred Tradition as sources? The fact that the Catholic faith is based on these two sources should come as no surprise. So this whole exercise becomes a waste of time. The Eucharist came from Jesus and it's impossible to discuss without the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

There is no 'sacred tradition', that is simply an argument from authority and in this case one that doesn't exist. Your essentially saying these opinions are better than mine because and I'll cow to them.

The Eucharist certainly didnot come from Jesus who was being purely symbolic and the RCC was a late comer to their current idea. Somuch for 'sacred tradition'.

The Apostles handed on their first hand account. If you don't accept that, and most Atheists don't

Most educated Christians don't either as it's pretty clear the writers of the gospels are unknown.

Beyond that, we start getting into a debate about the existance of God to begin with and debate about free will, predestination, etc., etc., etc

Of which you will find zero agreeement on any within Christianity and even the RCC. All of which are theological blatherings without a shred of evidential integrity. You might as well be talking Xenu and Santa.

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 5:25 AM

And this is one of the more hilarious bits of this whole cracker spiel,that the transsubstantiation thingy was decreed by some committee in probably the 13th century,its not that it has always been a catholic ritual or dogma.
Even more ludicrous given its a medieval committee idea that everyone in the catholic church is still pretending its some sort of grassroots catholic holy ceremony that makes dog beam down into a cracker when the cracker has some stuff in latin mumbled over it.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 5:35 AM

Wowbagger:

Concern troll? What does that entail? Yes, I am an atheist. I don't consider myself part of this new movement of atheism, though, since it seems to use ridicule more than argumentation. I will admit, however, that centuries of argumentation hasn't dented their delusional beliefs.

My objection has already been stated. Here it is again:

How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?

Does raising an objection automatically make me a "concern troll?" I just want to know whether confirmation bias and the bandwagon effect have run rampant throughout the New Atheist (what other term to use?) movement.

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

@ Monkey's Uncle/Kenny/Dobbs/*insert fake name of your choice here*

//So when I look at the grave, I feel no sadness, because that body decaying down there is not my father, the father I knew walked and talked, joked and chided, rung me up with inane computer questions, bought me my first bike etc.
Because I am an Atheist, I don't believe he is in heaven, I don't think he has been saved or redeemed in any way. And I feel no sadness at the graveside, and some people can not understand why. If someone were to vandalise that grave, I would be pissed off, not because my father had been dishonoured, but because I had to spend so much time and money on it//

You,Sir,if youre not a fake,are one sad individual,a pathetic wanker and utterly despiccable person.

All it takes to feel compassion,sadness,joy,love,any given emotion,is to be human.I dont give a flying fuck if you are catholic,atheist,hindu or jewish,if you are human and not totally fucked in the head,you can feel emotions and show empathy.
If you cant,youre a sociopath.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 5:53 AM

When do the white hoods and torches come out?

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. - Jim

That'll be a few centuries after the burnings at the stake resume then.

Posted by: Jim | July 15, 2008 5:57 AM

"As opposed to everything that you've achieved from the lengthy posts you've written explaining how you're avoiding Owlmirror's proposition? It'd have taken far less time for you to have an honest stab at it. At least then we could have given you points for trying."

But look where it has gone and where it continues to go. Owlmirror started out with claims of assuming the Catholic Church is correct, and then starts backtracking on that. Where is it now? It's right where I said it would be. Everything the Catholic Church uses to explain transubstantiation has now been thrown out and it's reduced down to the existance/nature of God, predestination, free will, etc. It comes down to the same arguments but from a different starting point.

But he keeps going back to that instead of addressing my primary assertion that none of it matters anyway because he doesn't believe in transubstantiation anyway, and everyone here seems obsessed with pissing off Catholics. That's really the only issue that matters. I'm not here to try to convince anyone about my beliefs. The only reason I came here was to try to understand the motivations for desecration of the Eucharist. Devil's Advocate is right on the money and actually seems to be more representative of the Atheists I've met and talked to.

Absolutely nothing is accomplished. This is not the way that intelligent adults behave. Why not just break out the white hoods and torches?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 6:09 AM

I'd place a modest bet that "Jim" is actually Greg Krehbiel, of http://crowhill.net/blog/, who came to the blog not long ago for the purpose of calling PZ an "insufferable ass". I think I recognise the particular style of pompous arrogance and refusal to back up his claims. If it's not him, they've certainly learned how to duck the issue from the same source. How about it Jim - and remember, "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 6:10 AM

Although I may be burned at the stake for this, Jim is right about absolutely nothing being accomplished. What does this prove?

Again, I raise my point:

How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?

I won't stop bringing it up until someone makes an honest attempt at answering it. Freethink, ye rational minds! Don't jump on the bandwagon! Is this really a rational thing to do? Sure, I'm kind of in the mood for childish immaturities, but I can't rationally find any reason to do such things. Please set emotion aside, step back, and reevaluate not only the impending cracker desecration, but also your entire methodology! (No offense intended.)

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 6:14 AM

John Morales:

Trolling, huh? I don't think you've answered my objection sufficiently, sir. Personally, I think that reasoning and evidence are brighter lights than ridicule. I was expecting a rational response for my dissent, but I got ridicule!

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 6:18 AM

Wowbagger,No 338:

I agree.

DA,No 351 :

//Although I may be burned at the stake for this, Jim is right about absolutely nothing being accomplished. What does this prove?
Again, I raise my point:
How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?//

Burning at the stake is a catholic thing.
You are a concern troll.
Nice how in the last few days the trolls always show up in pairs,and play good atheist,bad atheist.
Its not a holiest holies unless you are a catholic,and no sect has the right to impose their particular cult's holiness onto society,if you dont believe it,read your constitution.

Posted by: Monkey's Uncle | July 15, 2008 6:19 AM

@clinteas/Devil's Advocate:

And exactly why am I an 'emotionless monster'? I don't consider myself to be 'fucked in the head' I was trying to point out that (and you both have proved my point with your invective) people put too much emphasis on things that are unimportant. I am remembering a person as they were when they were alive, not as they are now. Which draws a parallel with people who are setting too much importance on a bloody wafer for pete's sake. I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it's about time we left the mediaeval thinking behind and started to question our feelings about this subject.

If I've offended anybody who considers graves and funerals to be 'off limits' to discussion, then I apologise. But I am trying to question why we set so much store in these beliefs.

My post is real, I am a real Atheist, I may be a wanker, but I don't think I am despiccable.... I may be despicable ;-)....and I am nothing to do with Kenny. And I am not a sociopath. Well, at least not at weekends.

Perhaps you think that the post is a snipe at Atheists? Or that I am a 'monster' for not caring about a grave? Can you be more specific?

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 6:24 AM

Then he shouldn't do something that's completely tasteless.*

Posted by: SEF | July 15, 2008 6:33 AM

A "science heathen" ought to mean someone lacking any science. As such, the "unrepentant science heathen"s would actually be the IDiots and other anti-science religious nutters who are proud of their ignorance, not the science-knowledgable people. :-/

Perhaps this is just another English vs American "English" thing though.

Posted by: Fernando Magyar | July 15, 2008 6:40 AM

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ... But He loves you.

Nuff said!

Thank you, George Carlin

Posted by: John Morales | July 15, 2008 6:40 AM

Devil's Advocate, re:Trolling, huh?

Yup. Here's some of your initial comment:

The New Atheists (most people here) seem to be gifted with a mob mentality. Why do you crush the dissenters who agree with you on everything but cracker desecration? Oh, wait. I haven't found any dissenters here yet. I guess I'm the first then.


I am an atheist and a vocal critic of religion, but I think this has gone too far.

I don't think you've answered my objection sufficiently, sir.

True.

It was a metaphor, and a throwaway for a troll.

So,

Situation: Catholics claim their belief is rational and that they practice forgiveness.

Incident: PZ seizes opportunity to point out the situation when an incident arises.

Result: Due to PZ's high profile, attention is taken.
Result: Catholic League issues pseudo-fatwa. cf. "fatwa envy"
Result: Events escalate. Responses are predictable.
etc.

See, the metaphorical light of attention was focused on claims of belief that go unexamined, even by practicing Catholics.

Oh yeah, re:

Why do you crush the dissenters who agree with you on everything but cracker desecration?

"You", in this case, is the "consensus" of Pharyngula, such as it is. It's a collective intelligence.

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 6:47 AM

@ Fernando Magyar No 363:

He loves you ! He loves you,and he needs money !!

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 6:48 AM

John Morales:

All right, John. I was unnecessarily acidic. I apologize. However, the Catholic League _does_not_ speak for all practicing Catholics. It is wrong to generalize and say that other Catholics would react similarly.

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 6:54 AM

Goodness me !

SvenDeMilo had this all summed up beautifully when he compared the mess in here of the last few days to a Grateful Dead concert in the late 70s...

Posted by: Monkey's Uncle | July 15, 2008 6:56 AM

@Devil's Advocate:

Hey, s'OK...with a handle like Devil's Advocate I was expecting some argument ;-)

I do think of him, all the time...but not whilst I'm at the grave. Weird that, but anyway...

I don't think this is a win situation...if PZed DOES get a 'cracker' and 'desecrates' it then some people will be pleased, some people might find it asinine, but if he backs down he hands the argument back to the religious who will say he has 'felt the power of the lord' or some such.

I don't know where it will go from here...but I'm in there for the ride!

I just find it sad and somewhat ridiculous that this can be blown out of proportion. We in the UK are not immune from religious idiocy, there is a big row about women bishops at the moment, and one of your clergy is over here now espousing his homosexuality to jeers and heckling from the 'moral' mob...

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 6:58 AM

As to the "Sizzle" thread,this is the second time that a thread wont load in a few days,and looking at the time in the US,I doubt PZ posted this at 530am,whats going on there?

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 15, 2008 7:02 AM

Devil's advocate,

I know what an ad hoc hypothese is, I'm asking you to explain which ones you refute and why, wasn't that clear ?

Geebus, who do you think you are ?

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 7:09 AM

Neg,

those 2 monkeys are just trying to pull our strings mate,not worth the effort.
Might be some general tiredness on my part involved too,after a week of wafting thru more or less sane posts here LOL.

Posted by: John Morales | July 15, 2008 7:10 AM

Jim

Meanwhile, nobody is addressing the more important issue of what's accomplished by this whole stunt? You're not going to shake my faith.

Well, the Catholics could've said "it's the flesh of Christ when taken by a believer, but only a cracker otherwise" and avoided this whole thing.

Instead, they grew offended and tested the True Scotsman boundary, quite contrarily to their claims that they forgive their enemies.

It exposes the hypocrisy.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 7:17 AM

Au contraire, clinteas. I am done with my "concern trolling." After arguing here with everyone, I've resolved my cognitive dissonance. Call me selfish for doing so. Go ahead. Nonetheless, I hope I've given people *something* to think about. So long as PZ doesn't do something absurdly tasteless, I support the cause. Just think for yourselves.

I am not pulling anyone's strings.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 7:27 AM

I don't see Atheists as a threat to my faith so much as I do a threat to society at this point. It's a HUGE step backwards in a civilized society. What's next? Are you going to throw rocks at any car with a "Jesus fish" on it? - Jim

1) We're a modest lot - we don't need an upper-case "A".
2) Atheists are a "threat to society"? Oh, right, that'll be why Sweden is so much more violent than the US, then?
3) Your bleatings about "What's next" have been answered several times. Are you incapable of reading, or simply dishonest?

I don't understand this need to piss people off. - Jim
Put it down to nearly two millennia of Christian - and specifically Catholic - persecution of anyone who disagrees with them. And to the continuing attacks on the rights of women, gays, and atheists. And to the lies about condoms, and the systematic cover-up of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy - planned and led by the current Pope. The aim is to persuade some ordinary, decent Catholics to think about the absurdities their religion demands they believe, and the immoral behaviour these absurdities lead to (issuing death threats over a cracker being a comparatively trivial example); and thus to weaken the Catholic Church, than which few ends can be more worthwhile.

Posted by: Damian | July 15, 2008 7:33 AM

Devil's Advocate:

Firstly, nobody here is a "new atheist". Secondly, I would bet that at least 70% of the people that post here regularly, many of whom are scientists, philosophers, and generally extremely intelligent people, are skilled in argumentation. The idea that atheism is simply about ridicule is naively false.

Right, now that is out of the way. Having said that, ridicule is a powerful tool that, when used correctly, is more effective in specific circumstances than a scientifically or philosophically rigorous argument. Why? Because it hits right at the heart, exposing the ridiculousness of many beliefs. Because it forces people re-evaluate just how seriously they take what is often extremely trivial in comparison to things that we would all agree are really serious.

Ridicule has been exploited in Britain for many centuries, particularly with respect to religion and politics -- two areas of life where adherents often take themselves far too seriously.

Think of it this way: by ridiculing a belief that any rational person would consider to be rather unimportant -- in the grand scheme of things, at least -- you are actually exalting the really important issues, and making it clear that, no, you cannot occupy this level of importance, you have no right to expect that a wafer, for instance, is as important as a human life. That is insulting, and it is an argument that has been put forward by a number of Catholics that have visited this site over the last few days.

We are also living in an age where many people can't quite work out whether there should even be any standards pertaining to belief. I would class myself as fairly liberal, but I don't buy the argument that it is admirable to simply leave people alone to get on with their delusions. There is an ethical issue, for a start. I am not advocating that we force anyone to do anything, but it is, in my opinion, more respectful to hold religious believers to the same standards that we expect of ourselves. Anything else is essentially patronizing them, and suggests that they shouldn't expect any better. I can not do that in good conscience, I'm afraid.

As PZ has pointed out many times before, we live in an age of relative apathy. The idea that we are likely to change minds through everyday dialogue, particularly concerning something that is so often deeply ingrained in a persons being, is hopelessly naive. Sure, there will be a certain number of people who will be responsive to that. But there will be a much larger group who, as in the past when atheists were essentially invisible in the US, will completely ignore anything that you have to say. It is well known that there are various cognitive mechanisms that 'protect' people from truly internalizing ideas that they feel uncomfortable with.

So, one of the ways to get them to think about what you have to say is to make them angry. It is much more difficult to maintain control when you are angry, for obvious reasons. I am not suggesting that the purpose is to goad people in to doing irrational things, not at all. I am suggesting that when a person is angry, they often can't help but think about what has so annoyed them. And don't think that it will necessarily make them more determined, either. Once a chain of events has been set in motion, you can be all but certain that a large percentage of people will, at some point, actually consider the point that you were trying to get across, and it can change minds.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 7:46 AM

Damian:

The idea that I think that _atheism_ is merely ridicule is naively false. Please don't condescend.

Other than that, I thank you for your detailed response. It - along with everyone else's responses here - has given me a lot to think about. I just want to make it _crystal_ clear that I am not pulling anyone's strings. Also, for the third time, I apologize for my irrational, emotion-driven introduction. I guess "New Atheist" is a pejorative. I am sorry (I didn't know).

I have been apathetic about this for too long. A call to arms?

Posted by: speedwell | July 15, 2008 8:59 AM

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "Sacred cows make the best hamburger?"

If we "make nice" all the time and let ourselves be run over, what happens to the necessary defense of reality and truth (the real true sort of truth, not the fake "truth" of religions)?

Posted by: scooter | July 15, 2008 9:48 AM

From the Dept of Rendundancy Dept

Christian is suing Lakewood Church for crippling him, and making him more retarded

If anything, the first amendment assumes brain damage as a constitutional right.

Good luck. Poe was the mysterious missing founding Father

Posted by: scooter | July 15, 2008 10:05 AM

How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?

My holiest holies are my asshole and my mouth and every second rate comedian since the dawn of language has been making fun of my holiest of holies and you don't hear me threatening to kill children.

In fact, my mouth and asshole are what make Jesus the Cracker tick.

I stick Jesus in my mouth, he comes out my asshole the next day.

That's the foundation of catholicism, mouths and assholes.

Jesus does not go into my heart, then come out my ears. He does not crawl up my nose, then oxidize in my liver.

He is not melted into a spoon and taken intravenously. He goes in my mouth, and out my ass.

The old fashioned way.

So what is your point?

Posted by: Tom P. | July 15, 2008 10:11 AM

Catholics are free to believe whatever they want. They are free to use those beliefs, no matter how silly, to help them determine their positions on public policy. They are free to take the priest's word as gospel (sorry, couldn't resist) and base their attempts to change public laws on those words. But when they do, they MUST expect that people who disagree with them will attack those beliefs. If Catholics are going to say that abortion is immoral because their belief is that god gives life then they should expect that other beliefs related to that such as that god is inside a piece of unleavened bread will be open to assault. Catholic beliefs ARE used to effect public policy such as abortion, birth control, free distribution of condoms, sex education in public schools, and stem cell research. If Catholics are going to use their beliefs to keep gay couples from marrying or keeping gays out of the military then they have no right to call foul when their beliefs are held up to ridicule. Catholics don't care who they offend (or even kill... see blocking free condom laws during the AIDS epidemic, blocking stem cell research) so why should I care if they are offended? I will gladly mock any religion that tries to use its absurd beliefs to make life worse for the living.

Posted by: Tom P. | July 15, 2008 10:28 AM

I don't see Atheists as a threat to my faith so much as I do a threat to society at this point. It's a HUGE step backwards in a civilized society.

This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have read recently other than the fear that gangs of angry atheists will be attacking the GOP convention. How many politicians who have lied, cheated, caused unnecessary wars, etc. have been atheists? How many muggers in the streets, killers, sex fiends, etc are atheists? In case you aren't sure I will tell you. Very, very, very few. Not that atheists are better than Christians but there are a lot more Christians and for some reason their beliefs don't stop them from acting immorally. So no, atheism is not a step backward. And since atheists don't insist that non-non-believers deserve eternal damnation, we are perhaps a bit more civilized than the typical christian who thinks that being skeptical is grounds for burning in hell for all eternity.

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 15, 2008 10:29 AM

Monkey's Uncle wrote:

I don't think this is a win situation...if PZed DOES get a 'cracker' and 'desecrates' it then some people will be pleased, some people might find it asinine, but if he backs down he hands the argument back to the religious who will say he has 'felt the power of the lord' or some such.

Not the power of the Lord, but the power of the vengeful and stupid. Desecrating the cracker now wouldn't add a damn thing to the point made by PZ in his first post. He didn't have to do it to get the reaction he should have expected doing it would get him. It was Bill Donohue who drove home PZ's point and Donohue and his emailing followers are too blind to see it: getting upset over a cracker is insane and some people are that insane. But also, getting angry and taking it out on a cracker is just as useless and crazy. Unless you're going to do something funny or with some point to it, then there's no reason to abuse the cracker.

Posted by: Moses | July 15, 2008 10:36 AM

586,000 hits for Pharyngula so far this week. Maybe we should send him TWO crackers...

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 10:46 AM

Spaghetti McTrousers@398
Mr. McTrousers, if the godly had restricted themselves to saying "You asshole" to Cook(and by the way, what do Americans have against that useful beast, the donkey?), Myers would never have blogged about it.

Posted by: chgo_liz | July 15, 2008 10:54 AM

@#398,

I doubt PZ would do anything but laugh. There would be a few hundred posts about how silly you are for thinking that tearing up a single book somehow negates the truth of the knowledge captured within. A few people would point to the (Christian) burning of the Library at Alexandria.

And then we'd be back to zebrafish and octopus.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 11:01 AM

when one is in space, does it not have the appearance of being just so [gravity is suspended] no matter the physics involved? - Salt.

No, it doesn't, Mycroft. Remind me never to get into a spaceship you're piloting.

Posted by: Moses | July 15, 2008 11:04 AM

When do civilized human beings abandon that belief? Ever?

Posted by: Jim | July 14, 2008 8:50 PM

When someone does something like, oh, making picture of the prophet in a magazine or making a chocolate Jesus or not eating the cracker according to ritual. Unless, of course, you're running with the "no True Scotsman" fallacy. Then, of course, you (by the magic of the fallacy) remove the offenders from your group of people who are civilized.

And, for the record, the Arabs have been "civilized" a damn lot longer than the Europeans.

And I certainly don't forget that my Mennonite ancestors came to America fleeing religious persecution by the Catholics and other Protestants. I certainly don't forget that a huge swath of them had to flee America because of relgious persecution for these beliefs:

During the Colonial period, Mennonites were distinguished from other Pennsylvania Germans in three ways: their opposition to the American Revolutionary War, resistance to public education and disapproval of religious revivalism. Contributions of Mennonites during this period include the idea of separation of church and state and opposition to slavery.

Or that one of my distant ancestors' brother was KILLED because of his religious beliefs, specifically the "non-violence" aspects that lead them to oppose the Revolutionary War by not fighting in it... Seriously, your "civilized" fuckers had roving death squads and drove many, many Mennonites off their land. Some ended up in Canada, and I have a TON of Canadian relatives, others in Western New York, Indiana, etc.

Here's another "civilized action." Because of our beliefs in non-violence, many Mennonites, during WWII were PUT INTO FORCED LABOR CAMPS as conscientious objectors. In a bizarre twist, they were not even provided food by the US Government, but had to rely solely on the support of their families for even the basic necessities. Our history books, when they speak of it, gloss it over. Much like the Internment of the Japanese.

So don't lecture me on "what civilized people do." Because, if history is our guide, we're not so civilized. Especially people that come from most main-stream Christian faiths who've gone from mere "disrespect" to out-right organized pogroms against my people for over 400 years.

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 15, 2008 11:10 AM

Spaghetti McTrousers said:

The cracker belongs to the priest, and the *only* people who are invited to come and get one are communicating Catholics.

Considering Cook is (or was at the time, I'm not sure what this episode has done to his faith) a communicating catholic this argument does not apply here. he was freely given his wafer, he did not steal it under false pretences and so it was his to do with what he would.

As to whether the Church was offended by his use of the wafer, well within the Church that is their business and if they had responded simply by banning him from Church property until he apologised and returned it, or put a similar internal church sanction on him this issue would have died then and there.

Within the church church property, church rules (so long as these rules do not breach any federal or state laws) and if you don't like it, don't go to church - I see this as similar to the rules of any other social organisation and within the organisation this is simple and fair.

The problem here is that the Cook crackergate episode was taken outside the Church - various catholics have tried to get him expelled from college and have threatened him with actual, physical harm in the world outside the church. In other words, they have taken an internal Church rule based on internal beliefs and demanded that it be enforced by external authorities.

The fact that the Catholic League then tried to get PZ, who is not Catholic and under absolutely no obligation to defer to the church on anything, fired for threatening harm to the symbol of an internal church belief merely underlines the fact that this wafer business is not about catholics just wanting to do their thing in peace. It is about a systematic attempt by the Catholic League to ensure that deference to internal church beliefs are enforced by external authorities whether or not those people choose to be members of the catholic club or not.

That is the problem that have here - so how about a deal, we leave your wafers alone and you promise to keep your internal party strictly internal from now on. OK?

Posted by: EX-CATHOLIC now Christian | July 15, 2008 11:19 AM

I am an EX-Catholic {cradle} raised Catholic, and became a New Ager also atheist-agnostic for years, before converting to being a born again Christian.

What I want to tell the atheists and others here, is do not make the mistake of thinking Catholicism represents what Christianity is all about. The RCC is not true Christianity but a false fascimile of it. I didn't know myself until I was a middle-aged adult, and until I read a Bible for myself and saw what Jesus Christ truly taught away from the smoke, mirrors, and fog of Catholic superstitions, legends, power-hungry-morally corrupt leaders, and realized God, desired that I use my human mind as given:

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:

instead of shutting it down to accept the illogic of Catholic theology, I was able to move on and come into a relationship with Jesus Christ.

I want all you atheists/freethinkers and others to know...there are many Christians out there, who DO NOT support the teachings of Roman Catholicism and that the top ludicrous teaching is the idea that their priests can turn bread into "god". Many folks do not know this but Jesus Christ Himself warned against these false teachings that would come. We all know where the Catholic wafer goes in its final stage after being eaten. Jesus's words were spiritual, not about eating magic-mysterious god-wafers.

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

The draught by the way, was the toilets of that time, in other words the SEWER.

Some of us are smart enough to know that there is no way God can be kidnapped in a ziplock baggie by a rebellious teenager and who believe the Bible when it says:

Isa: God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

That nixes both the Catholic wafer and it's tabernacles.

It is alarming to see Catholics so upset at God being so "helpless" as if the creator of the Universe could be kidnapped! From a Christian angle this is pure blasphemy!

Now in America, we do have freedom of religion. Dominionists, Catholics and others who desire power and control over others, forget that Jesus Christ is about freedom not bondage. The force of law does not lead to true conversion or changed hearts: That is the Holy Spirit's doing. Some defenders of their false churches, desire, to use force of law that was never mandated by the Bible.

In the BIble the apostles ask Jesus Christ if they can call down fire, on some folks who have rejected Him, and Jesus rebukes them telling them they have the spirit of Satan.

Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

I think everyone including Catholics should be left in peace to practice their religion even though I very admantantly disagree with it. Same for atheists who speak their minds about false idols, though I think the step of antagonizing people on purpose is not a good one, and grabbing wafers from your local RCC or doing websites to trash the wafer....[atheists and "freethinkers" wouldn't want Catholics storming local UU churches or Ethical Humanist societies so that favor should be returned] should be avoided. There are useful laws already on the books about not disrupting church services and more as to whether an item that is freely handed over can be stolen, that is stretching things. Isnt it the responsiblity of Catholic priests to know who is in good standing or not or even a member of their own churches?

To be frank it has been alarming to see the interaction here, and those who confess to be Christians {Catholic posters} using the language I've seen used here, the threats and more. This too goes against what Jesus Christ taught and it has been sad to see.

Matt 5:44

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

This is the way things are supposed to be done.

So atheists, agnostics and other "freethinkers" do not make the mistake of thinking Catholicism automatically equals Christianity. Read for YOURSELVES exactly what Jesus Christ taught, [outside of any church even evangelical ones] and check it out. Consider your own actions in terms of how you yourselves want to be treated: understand that if you truly support freedom of religion that must be supported across the board.

Thanks, just wanted to post an alternative viewpoint here on this board.

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 15, 2008 11:26 AM

EX-CATHOLIC now Christian:

Don't worry, we are all quite aware that Christianity comes in a wide variety of different flavours.

The funny thing is that the vast majority of said flavours tend to claim that they and only they are the true church and everyone else has got it wrong to some degree or other.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 11:30 AM

Jim asked in #354: "And for what???"

The goal is the complete eradication of religious insanity, and there is no religion more insane than the money making racket called the Catholic church.

Expect never ending relentless ridicule of your idiotic beliefs. Catholic morons will never be allowed to forget they are no better than Muslim terrorists.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 11:35 AM

"I am an EX-Catholic {cradle} raised Catholic, and became a New Ager also atheist-agnostic for years, before converting to being a born again Christian. What I want to tell the atheists and others here, is do not make the mistake of thinking Catholicism represents what Christianity is all about. The RCC is not true Christianity but a false fascimile of it."

Yeah, we know there's Catholic morons and born-again Christian morons. Each group looks forward to the other group's eternal torture in hell. Both groups are assholes and batshit crazy.

Posted by: JayGilb | July 15, 2008 11:40 AM

PZ - You should nail 95 wafers on the door of a Catholic church.

Posted by: EX-CATHOLIC now Christian | July 15, 2008 11:46 AM

EX-CATHOLIC now Christian:

Don't worry, we are all quite aware that Christianity comes in a wide variety of different flavours.

The funny thing is that the vast majority of said flavours tend to claim that they and only they are the true church and everyone else has got it wrong to some degree or other.

Glad to hear it.

While I believe in absolute truth {truth can be known, and there is "one" truth} any church that claims to be the one true church, ISN'T. Even there scripturally, Jesus had the apostles question him about OTHERS preaching in His name, and Jesus taught "this other church" so to speak was one of them!

Posted by: Moses | July 15, 2008 11:50 AM

Gravity? Why would he do that? If you want gravity suspended, go into space.

Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 10:36 PM

Uhhh... Gravity isn't suspended when you're in space. It still works.

I mean, duh.

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 11:55 AM

Pope person,

//Ok, I've got it. Some Catholics acted like assholes to Cook first, so that makes it ok for PZ to promise to act like a giant asshole to all Catholics.

Just like some dipshits sending PZ death-threats by email made it ok for folks here to email them death-threats in return.//

Doesnt take much to "act like a giant asshole to all Catholics",now does it? I guess something like" transsubstantiation was invented at a committee meeting in the 13th century" would do nicely,right?

And please feel free to post the death threats that were sent by people here in return to the ones PZ received.Oh,there werent any? Bummer,guess you were just lying then....

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 12:03 PM

EX-CATHOLIC now Christian,

Do shut up. We're not interested in inter-godbot squabbling.

Posted by: clinteas | July 15, 2008 12:14 PM

Im going to bed !

Lilly de Lure,
Hello !!

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | July 15, 2008 12:16 PM

Spaghetti McTrousers said:

Rather than counter-productively uniting every single one of them in hatred of you and everything you stand for, completely eclipsing your point with your outrageous behaviour.

OK, on one side, people trying to ruin and threatening to end the lives of two people. On the other, someone threatening to harm a cracker that would have been eaten anyway. You honestly believe that the cracker threatener is the one behaving outrageously.

Moving right along . . . .

Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2008 12:17 PM

Which outrageous behavior is that?

It seems it's the Catholics who can't seem to control themselves.

Posted by: Spaghetti McTrousers | July 15, 2008 12:30 PM

Again, I'm not talking about threatening the cracker, I'm talking about the promised actual desecration. What I'm suggesting - in case my point is unclear - is that I don't think it's a very good idea.

No, I don't think it would be as bad as the campaign to ruin Mr Cook's life, or as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, or paedophile priests, or an endless list of other Catholic crimes. But really, are those the standards you want to judge a proposed course of action by? It's a bad idea, on its own terms.

You honestly believe that the cracker [desecrater] is the one behaving outrageously.

The whole point - PZ's and mine - is that is this is exactly what millions of Catholics do think. Did you miss the start of this story, or something?

And by the way, that's a false equivalence Lilly. I've said nothing at all in defence of the people trying to wreck two people's lives. In fact, I believe I used the term "asshole" to describe them. I can go further if you want, but I didn't think it was a controversial point.

Posted by: Moses | July 15, 2008 12:35 PM

#285

I'm questioning PZ's given reasons for disrespecting Catholic beliefs in particular, Numad.

They're the ones making death-threats. Seriously, they're making death threats. Over their own mistake and unwillingness to offer the student they assaulted an apology for assaulting him for their barbaric and unlawful behavior. (Yes, you really can't grab and manhandle another human if they don't eat your magic cracker. It's the law.)

So, had this been MUSLIMS making death threats, or performing "honor killings" you'd not be here because YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT unless it's your special belief. Then it matters.

You echoed his argument that it's ok to make fun of Catholics but not, say, people with dead relatives, because the ceremony that Catholics care about isn't extremely selective about who can participate in it, whereas funerals are selective.

Or did you mean something different with your over-reaching and off-the-mark analogy?

What I continue to wonder is what the hell that has to do with whether or not we ought to accord Catholics normal human respect.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 2:00 AM

What I wonder is why the hell people like you refuse to see your transgretions? How you are incapable of separating the respect most of us give "to your innate humanness" (when you're not being dense pricks) but refuse to give to your "silly ideas that are wholly fictional nonsense."

What I also wonder is why we have to give you SPECIAL respect for a narrow sub-set of your beliefs? Because that's what you're demanding. And, further, why don't you recognize the hypocrisy you demonstrate when you demand this special respect (like a bunch of petulant, spoiled children) and don't respect anyone else's beliefs in this matter.

My belief is PISS ON THE DAMN THING, IT'S JUST A FUCKING CRACKER.

These are COMPETEING BELIEFS. YOUR BELIEF IS NO MORE SPECIAL, no matter how much you whine about it, than mine. Though MINE has a hell of a lot more empirical evidence than yours.

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 12:37 PM

#439

Actually, I think PZ's point is that it is impossible to desecrate a cracker. It's a manufactured, false crime. It's just a cracker, no matter what people might believe it to be. A simple inspection of the object will determine conclusively that it's just a cracker! It would be like saying someone desecrated a marble, or a hair-pin.

No one has the right to not be offended. Just because you cherish an unsupportable idea doesn't mean anyone else has to cherish that same idea. It's your own fault for cherishing such a goofy idea so vulnerable to ridicule.

Posted by: Moses | July 15, 2008 12:38 PM

How about if they just started spraypainting whole graveyards red, or peeing all over the place, or whatever. It doesn't matter. I'm making a point about expressions of disrespect and what justifies them.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 2:19 AM

That's vandalism and it is a crime. Not eating a magic cracker isn't a crime. Assaulting the person who didn't eat the magic cracker, or threatening to kill him, are crimes.

Boy, that was easy...

Posted by: Spaghetti McTrousers | July 15, 2008 12:51 PM

Two different issues are getting muddled up.

1. Is PZ within his rights to desecrate a cracker?

2. Is it a good idea for PZ to desecrate a cracker?

The answers are 1. yes, and 2. no.

[If you don't like "desecrate", replace with "piss on", "stamp on", whatever.]

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 12:54 PM

#446

"...threatening violence towards a cracker ..."

You mean like masticating, re-hydrating, dissolving with acid, mixing with bile, excreting, and depositing in a toilet bowl?

Posted by: Paul W. | July 15, 2008 12:58 PM

I may get slammed as a concern troll again for this, but I'm still concerned that P.Z. may be on shaky legal ground here. (Or if not, that ground could change as a result---Defense of Crackers laws could get passed as a response to this sort of thing, and maybe upheld by the courts.)

I'm not a lawyer, but nobody else here seems to be either, and I think it's worth discussing.

I think it's simplistic to dismiss PZ's request for wafers as being about something that is simply being given away free and clear.

Consider free newspapers that are "given away." They are not given away for any purpose that you want, and there's a limit on who can take how many for what reasons.

You can't, for example, grab a stack of your local campus newspaper, run it through one of those paper-log-making gadgets, and use it for firewood. That's theft.

Likewise, you can't grab a stack of your local alternative free and throw them away because you don't like the paper's politics. That's not just theft, that's a violation of the paper's first amendment right to freedom of the press. Vigilante censorship of that sort is not okay, even if it's "just some printed matter" that "they give away for free." IIRC, it's crime.

(I think the paper firelog example is the same sort of crime, even if the intent is only to get free fuel, not inhibit political speech. It does interfere with free expression, so it's a bigger deal than the paper and printing costs.)

Stealing newspapers is illegal, even if those papers are "given away freely" for a certain purpose. If I understand the issues, it doesn't matter that there's no "transaction" with an expected payment.

I don't recall the details of court decisions about this, or have citations, and I don't know if they were based on basic laws about property plus civil rights, or specific statutes about stealing newspapers.

Either way, I'm pretty sure the courts upheld the basic idea that newspapers have the right to give papers away for free, on the honor system, and be legally protected from certain abuses---people doing "the wrong thing" with their "free" newspapers.

IIRC, the courts ruled that such protection was necessary to avoid creating an unreasonable barrier to freedom of the press; it's important for low-budget operations that produce free newspapers be able to distribute them cheaply by just leaving stacks of them in various places, with no guards or anything.

I can easily imagine that the courts would take a similar position on "free" communion wafers, in service of free exercise of religion. (The Catholic church already puts more effort into "guarding" the crackers than the alternative press does into guarding stacks of paper.)

I suspect that frog was right (and I was wrong) in the earlier thread that the courts wouldn't decide this on the basis of basic property law and the first amendment; it would probably require a specific statute, and the courts would merely uphold its application with this sort of reasoning.

It's not clear to me that such a law doesn't exist, maybe a Minnesota state law, or maybe even 18 U.S. Code 247:

http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=87677376161+5+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

On a casual reading, it might seem that Section 247 doesn't apply on several counts. In particular, it talks about "religious objects" in places of worship, and only applies in "interstate commerce."

It's not clear to me what those things really mean, legally. For example, P.Z. asked people to do "what it takes" to get the crackers, arguably asking them to take them from churches under false pretenses, and send them to him. If part of the purported "crime" occurs in a church, that may be enough, and if P.Z. is asking for them across state lines, and they are shipped commercially across state lines to him, that may be enough to trigger the interstate commerce clause.

(The interstate commerce clause has often been interpreted very, very loosely by the courts, especially to allow federal civil rights laws to be applied to what would otherwise be matters left to the states.)

Before doing anything like this, I would lawyer up, and make sure I knew both the relevant state laws and the federal laws, and how the courts have interpreted them.

For the record, I'm not Catholic, and in fact am very anti-Catholicism. I just would not want to run up against the Catholic church's lawyers without my ducks in a row. (Especially given the large number of Catholics on the Supreme Court.)

I'd be happy to find out I'm wrong to be worried about this, but I'd want to see some specific laws and precedents making it clear P.Z. is off the hook.

(I also take seriously the idea that even if it is technically illegal, it's justified civil disobedience in service of a valid point. Certainly the Catholic Church has done vastly worse things, but it's not clear to me we ought to cross that line, legal or not. This may just be too far outside the Overton Window to be a win.)

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 1:00 PM

"...who have engaged in similar behavior,..."

Like making death threats? I'm not sure there were any made. If there were, your point stands. However, making death threats over a cracker is not only insanity, it's probably not even legal.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2008 1:02 PM

No one is worried but you.

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 1:06 PM

I want everyone to do what it takes to get me a car. Really. Go on, whatever it takes. If you can't get me a car, I'll settle for a plant. Any plant. Go on now. Do it. Whatever it takes. You have my permission.

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 1:09 PM

Patricia,

"I wonder what the think catholics will happen to PZ when he cracks the cracker, and breaks the spell? "

Gasp!!

I never thought of that!! He will break god!! Oh the humanity!

On second thought PZ, please don't break god. He loves you.

Posted by: LawnBoy | July 15, 2008 1:12 PM

And how many have issued death threats...the percentage of Dr. Myers' readers who have engaged in similar behavior

I don't believe there's any evidence that anyone from this blog issued a death threat on the authors of either of the two emails that he publicized. He asked everyone to stop because there were too many of us emailing them directly and emailing HR, etc., not because any of us were threatening them.

So, unless you know about death threats that haven't been made public in this forum, you're setting up a false equivalence.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 15, 2008 1:15 PM

JohnMcG: Who said anything about catholics trading creative ideas on death threats to PZ and Cook, nice strawman. However, if you go to the Pharyngula home page and look for the two posts dated the past few days with 'mail' in the title you can read for yourself the e-mail threats to PZ.

As to our side, nobody has sent death threats to the two senders in the 'mail dump' post who did send threats to PZ. At worst, a few idiots on our 'side' apparently signed up one of the senders to various types of SPAM. Yep, signing someone up for SPAM definitely equates with threats of death and violence, idiot.

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 1:20 PM

"Point granted. Now what?"

Ask mr. D to denounce that type of activity, if he hasn't already, and shut up. Period.

People that conduct these superstitious ceremonies should be responsible to keep track of their magic crackers. If they can't then they should not be surprised if they get "desecrated".

And remember, the only reason this all started was because of the original incident. The point is, don't expect anyone else to respect an indefensible idea just because you think it's special. The cracker is just a cracker. There is no reason to get worked up over it - you're right. So let's not.

Posted by: Colugo | July 15, 2008 1:28 PM

I skip going online for a few days and in the meantime this turns into the Cracker Blog. Jesus H. Christ.

Remember PZ's previous threat (in jest) to urinate on a Bible? That didn't raise a ruckus. It just shows how much the profile of Pharyngula has risen in the last few years.

Posted by: JohnMcG | July 15, 2008 1:35 PM

People that conduct these superstitious ceremonies should be responsible to keep track of their magic crackers. If they can't then they should not be surprised if they get "desecrated".

Now the Catholic assholes have armed police guarding their crackers, ready to shoot to kill anyone who doesn't respect their holy wafers.

Good to know I'm among the "rational" crowd.

Here's an thought -- we could live in a society where people didn't try to steal what others consider sacred. But I guess that's too much to ask.

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 1:42 PM

#469

"we could live in a society where people didn't try to steal what others consider sacred"

But that's the point. We don't hold your indefensible, crazy ideas about magical crackers sacred. Furthermore, we have powerful reasons and arguments why we think it's accurate to describe your ideas about magical crackers as insane. Additionally, those same crazy ideas seem to either leak into society or are foisted with a demand for deference, even though they are bat-shit crazy! Superstitious beliefs are poison to modern society and cause people to do bat-shit crazy things - like make death threats over a CRACKER!

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 2:03 PM

Some crazy ideas imagined by superstition:

- You continue to live after you stop living
- Although unseen and untestable, deities are real
- Although unseen and untestable, angels are real
- Although unseen and untestable, devils are real
- Although unseen and untestable, souls are real
- Magical incantations are effectual
- Even though created by simple people thousands of years ago, the writings are accurate
- Kill an infidel, get some virgins
- The Earth is about 6000 years old
- Humans are not of the animal kingdom
- There used to be a spherical shell of water encompassing the Earth
- A cracker is worth killing a person over
- Vicarious punishment and redemption is perfectly moral
- So is owning slaves
- Just because my beliefs can't be defended rationally, that doesn't mean they're crazy

Posted by: qbsmd | July 15, 2008 2:06 PM

Meanwhile, nobody is addressing the more important issue of what's accomplished by this whole stunt? You're not going to shake my faith. I don't see Atheists as a threat to my faith so much as I do a threat to society at this point. It's a HUGE step backwards in a civilized society. What's next? Are you going to throw rocks at any car with a "Jesus fish" on it? Are you going to sit outside of churches honking your horn or playing Celine Dion until everybody's ears bleed? I don't understand this need to piss people off.
Posted by: Jim

This started with a student protesting that his tuition was supporting a Catholic church. Then he received so many threats that he surrendered. PZ then stepped in, as I interpret it, with the message that he would not be intimidated so easily, and would stand up to the abuse from Catholics instead. The original point is that the church is claiming public money for itself and demanding that everyone else respect their beliefs and practices. All of this is about saying "no" to that.

Posted by: Paul W. | July 15, 2008 2:20 PM

Is it illegal to ask your friends to each bring you a copy of the free newspaper because you want to make papier-mache?

I don't know. It may be, technically---I'm not sure where the law draws that particular line---but be below the level of seriousness that anybody gives a shit. The free newspaper people aren't going to make a big deal about that, so the courts won't, either.

Asking people to obtain consecrated communion wafers may be above the line, even if filching a newspaper or two isn't. It's obviously a bigger deal to a lot of people, including the people being tricked out of the wafers, so it's more likely to be an issue that laws and courts would take seriously.

I still think you need to work on your analogies a bit more.

That may be, but it's pretty clear that the people treating it as a simple black-and-white issue of "giving something away" need to work on theirs as well.

I was just giving a counterexample to the often-expressed idea that if you "give something away," it's yours to do with as you wish, and that's all there is to it. That is not true if the other side can make a case that you're creating a barrier to the easy exercise of their first amendment rights.

I'm not saying that what PZ is doing is illegal; I don't know, and I think it's likely not. (And I hope not.)

I am objecting to people making it sound like these things are dead obvious. They aren't.

This reminds me of the Ono vs. Premise thing. A lot of people here said that it was an obvious, open-and-shut case of copyright infringment, and several ridiculed me and Russell Blackford for saying that Premise had a good case that they "ought" to win.

I'm less confident of my judgement of the issues in this case---I know less about civil rights law than copyright law. On the other hand, I'm still less confident of the consensus Pharyngula view; I'm pretty sure that what seems obvious to many people here should not seem so obvious, as a matter of law.

I've seen zero indication that anybody here actually knows the relevant law. (Although frog did a good job of straightening me out on one basic misconception.)

My analogies aren't perfect, but they don't have to be. If similar analogies convince lawmakers and judges, that's all it takes. (Nobody here bought my analogies in the Imagine case, either, but the judge made essentially the same argument, and Ono lost.)

You seem to think the burden of proof is on me to show that P.Z. is doing something illegal. I don't claim that he is, just that people's simplistic arguments that he's not don't hold water. A single counterexample is sufficient to show the invalidity of one of the major arguments that's been used over and over here.

This kind of stuff often depends on exactly where legislatures and courts draw several very specific lines to balance several conflicting rights. Pretending that it's simple is foolish. Assuming that the law wouldn't enshrine something foolish is dangerous, too.

Have a look at 18 USC 247. It may not apply here, but it's an interesting example of what may be enshrined in law, no matter how obviously stupid it is to Pharynguloids like us. Notice, for example, the talk about "religious objects" and the criminality of defacing them without reference to whether the "religious object" really, objectively has any particular economic value. Maybe a cracker would count if the right guy mumbles the right words over it.

(Why not? What's the point of protecting "religious objects" specifically, if not to go well beyond what you get from protecting rationally valuable objects?)

Whether that law actually applies here or not, for other reasons, I think such a cracker would count as a religious object you could get up to a year in prison for mistreating in certain ways. That's cause for concern. If this federal law doesn't apply, some similar state law might.

Does anybody here know that Minnesota doesn't have any laws like that? If so, they should speak up. And until then, people shouldn't be so cocksure about what they or P.Z. have "a legal right" to do with certain crackers.

Posted by: speedwell | July 15, 2008 2:26 PM

So, now we're supposed to "respect" the beliefs and practices of others when we step into their churches? If we happen to stop by a party where the host and guests are dropping acid, are we supposed to "respect" those delusions too? If we get lost in Thailand and set foot in a brothel specializing in children, are we expected to "respect" their beliefs and practices as well? If we visit a prison, are we supposed to act like raping your cellmate and peeing on the warden is OK with us? If we tour the headquarters of a large company, should we nod and smile as the CFO tells us about the three sets of books he keeps and the kickbacks he receives from government contractors, and how it's OK because "that's business?"

My point is simply that it is not necessary or proper to let a dysfunctional, delusional bunch of brainwashed cultists dictate to us that we must "respect" their fantasies and crimes.

Posted by: Holbach | July 15, 2008 2:35 PM

Patricia @ 452 Gone since early this morning for lub, oil and filter, auto inspection sticker and sundry other things, and also to check out local churches for any loose crackers hanging about. I just checked the Comcast Internet News, and the chief moron sheep herder is in Sydney, Australia in conjunction with the World Youth Day. Oh what a farce, to see this dolt coming off the plane from Rome and all the local bishops, cardinals, priests and other insane rabble fawning in their circus outfits and kissing the moron's ass. What a pathetic and demeaning sight to see the insane hordes grovel before this symbol of abject insanity! As for the apology, this is forthcoming in a mass insane gathering of the sheep of the world, to be given in the next few days. There were scenes of the insane refuse gathering in pockets all over the place and puking themselves stupid over the presence of the hily farter(sic). Oh, the youth of the world; this is the time to grab them when their brains are still mush after the initial mulching by parents and local churches. We'll have these pablum shitters before they reach adulthood, and by god, we'll have their cesspit brains forever! Yeah, praise the lord shitter! I would like to witness this farcical scenario as portrayed in my ever ready mind to blast the retards:
The papist is on a monstrous stage with microphones spread out to broadcast the crap to the insane world. After his initial homilies, he finally states that the apology is now at hand: "And here to offer his utmost and sincere apology for the sexual molestation by his slimy priests, I give you our god! Er, I give you our god! (Still no appearance). And here he is at last, our lord god! (and in a whisper from the corner of his mouth, "where the fuck are you; you're making me look bad!) One more time, let's hear it for our lord , the god! Hey, you're making me look foolish; make an appearance, damn it! Okay you son of a bitch, I'll suspend the cracker ritual until you make an appearance! Make me look like an asshole, eh? Okay my sheep, er, my children, god said it could not make it today but just keep praying and it will let you know of a surprise visit to you fuckers, er, suckers, er muckers; hell, you know what I mean! And oh by the way, god told me to drop the cracker ritual as it is all a bunch of insane shit to keep your bowels flowing!

Posted by: Patricia | July 15, 2008 2:48 PM

Holbach - I spent the morning trying to figure out that damned eucharist, so I haven't got to see what the lead tard is up to.
Last time he gave his sorries it boiled down to I'll pray for you. It's a disgrace. His prayers are worth even less than his crackers.

Posted by: Numad | July 15, 2008 2:54 PM

Paul W,

"My analogies aren't perfect, but they don't have to be. If similar analogies convince lawmakers and judges, that's all it takes."

That would make responding to your arguments a big old waste of time, wouldn't it? Since they're only examples of arguments that could be presented to judges and lawmakers in the future, who may or may not be on acid by then. It doesn't matter if they make sense (and you may or may not even be making them), they just have to roughly look like they do. Hey, the burden is on other people to prove that any number of hypothetical arguments can't hypothetically convince any number of hypothetical people in the future.

You did make a good point by saying that legally, receiving something for free isn't necessarily unconditional. And I could certainly see a situation in which the giving out of wafers could be abused in the same way that free newspapers can be.

There's still no point in saying that these conditions could be redefined into anything, regardless of any standard of logic or reason. They could, but it doesn't matter.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2008 2:55 PM

It is based on evidence.

Call em like we see them.

Posted by: JohnMcG | July 15, 2008 3:09 PM

There would be something quite ironic about this being threadjacked for a discussion of differing Scriptual interpretations.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2008 3:25 PM

Yep. Let's insult every single one of them. Maybe one of them will think... "well it is just a nasty piece of bread".

Because that's what it is.

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 3:30 PM

No one has the right to not be insulted.

It would illustrate the fact that no one has the right to not be insulted.

Maybe if one is insulted by such a mundane act, they should either grow a thicker skin or revere something that is a little less susceptible to insult.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 3:36 PM

The problem with having utopian ambitions for your society might be that you start to have trouble being sensitive to the pluralism that exists in it now, and the dreary necessity of reigning in your personal absolutism in order to foster a good environment for everyone to coexist in.

People keep coming back to the falsity of the belief as a reason for discounting the importance it has for Catholics -- as a justification for the big act of disrespect toward them that PZ proposed making. But that is not a viable way of organizing the world, not right now. You can't just tell everyone who doesn't agree with you that they have no right to complain when you shit on their worldview on the basis that you're right and they're wrong. Because they equally believe themselves to be right. You have to recognize yourself as situated in a group within a culture just like everyone else, and work from there.

Of course the need to move toward improving society (say -- debatably -- by discouraging religious beliefs) is at odds with the need to respect the bounds in the current one. But I don't take that as a sign that the latter should just be ignored -- just that it's very tricky ground and that we should keep both in mind.

So, I'm still not decided on the general question of whether to publicly deride religion as a means to ending it. The reason I leap on this particular issue is that PZ's proposed sacrilege appears so incredibly unhelpful: it's a display of utter venom toward this group, in response to their venomous reaction to this guy's disruptive act (which may have been a touch venomously motivated anyway).

There's so much divisiveness in the political climate already that I can't see the gain in worsening it. Damian #387's eloquent post starts to sound implausible to me right when he starts explaining how pissing people off more will help dispel their false belief systems. To my mind the vast effect of this sort of thing is to reinforce the mentality they share with this group: that they are persecuted, beset by unsympathetic enemies who wish to eliminate them, and that they can only triumph if they band together against them. In fact, that seems like the blindingly obvious result, in which case all the "It'll open their minds" talk is pure rationalization for an act of spite, another grenade lobbed in the culture wars. There must be more reasonable ways to advance the dialogue.

Moses, #441: I'm not Catholic. You should swear and accuse less, and read more closely.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 3:43 PM

Pope McTrousers, at #490, I agree with you.
However I think there's a question to be asked here about how much offense a group in our society can get to take.
There's talk here that the Catholic reaction has to a large degree been generated by the frothings of the Catholic League people. Perhaps people would not react so much without demagogues reacting for them. At some point one has to draw the line regarding just how much self-righteousness a group can help itself to (although hell if I know where that can be drawn).

I don't think the whole reaction is really about the cracker in the first place, though. It's about Catholics' ongoing perception of themselves as persecuted and insulted by disrespectful outsiders, their feeling of being a last bastion of values in a nihilistic modern world, and the sense of a continuing war against atheists (which the atheists share).

Posted by: His Holiness Pope McTrousers | July 15, 2008 3:45 PM

It would illustrate the fact that no one has the right to not be insulted.

And I'm sure the Nobel Prize committee will be on the phone to congratulate him for this amjazing insight.

...or maybe if we're all so terrifically scientific and rational, maybe we should set our sights just a teensy bit higher than performing mundane acts on crackers in order to piss people off.

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 3:52 PM

Actually, I should correct my post #495. I'm not even saying that we should compromise our loftier values in order to respect an opposing set of pluralistic values. I'm saying that the reality of the matter dictates that we simply can't get anywhere with that goal of a beautiful, religion-free, 100% rational society, or whatever it is, without working with the current pluralism in mind. Right now you will get nowhere, not anywhere, by shitting on Catholics and then saying "Well, if it makes you so mad, why don't you just stop being a stupid Catholic!" That is an ineffective method. I hope you guys can see what I'm saying.

Posted by: His Holiness Pope McTrousers | July 15, 2008 3:59 PM

These sheep have been led from an early age to not question the authority to whom they defer.

Yeah. Well I think probing questions and clever argument are more likely to encourage dissent from authority than screaming "fuck you" in their faces (which is how any Catholic will interpret cracker-desecration).

The bottom line is that crude, insulting stunts don't encourage most people to question their beliefs. In fact, the opposite. They make them protective and defensive of them, with an added unhelpful splash of "atheists are assholes, the hell I'm gonna be one of those".

Posted by: speedwell | July 15, 2008 4:01 PM

To my mind the vast effect of this sort of thing is to reinforce the mentality they share with this group: that they are persecuted, beset by unsympathetic enemies who wish to eliminate them, and that they can only triumph if they band together against them. In fact, that seems like the blindingly obvious result, in which case all the "It'll open their minds" talk is pure rationalization for an act of spite, another grenade lobbed in the culture wars. There must be more reasonable ways to advance the dialogue.

Sure, because the way to help a psychotic person who has broken with reality is to reason with them, right? I'd really like to think so. I'd like to think that it's possible to use the cognitive therapy techniques of clearly demonstrating the falseness of their delusion.

But I think we're dealing with people well-primed to reject the evidence whenever it conflicts with their made-up stories. They "blank out" anything they don't want to see. Given that, in a way it's encouraging that PZ got their attention at all. If they were perfect at blocking out reality, they would complacently sit back and expect PZ to incur the angry judgment of a swift-punishing God as a natural consequence of his actions. They wouldn't feel obliged to rush in like harpies and screech and sneer to prove their devotion.

Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 15, 2008 4:13 PM

Breakfast writes

"Right now you will get nowhere, not anywhere, by shitting on Catholics and then saying "Well, if it makes you so mad, why don't you just stop being a stupid Catholic!" That is an ineffective method. I hope you guys can see what I'm saying."

I am not sure that all people here are covered by this generalization though some may well be. However the freedom of speech is precisely best when those with whom you most disagree are the ones you have the opportunity to engage.

The purpose to be served here is less with pissing Catholics off than with expressing outrage at the notion that a cracker used in a ritual within the Catholic Church takes precedence over the importance of a member of that same church.

Posted by: Michael | July 15, 2008 4:22 PM

It seems foolish to weigh in 500 comments in to a controversy that is a week old but....

PZ has two problems with this brouhaha. First, regardless of the validity or efficacy of ridiculing those you disagree with or who hold ideas you deem to be foolish, PZ holds a position of authority in the community and should be expected to behave in a respectful manner. He will undoubtedly be encountering Catholic students and it is totally unprofessional to express his opinions the way he did.

The second problem is that PZ unwittingly makes the same philosophical errors as IDers, namely that with his little experiment to prove that the Eucharist is just a cracker he presumes God should behave exactly as he expects God to behave and if he doesn't, God can't possibly exist. That reasoning is puerile. Of course God is powerful enough to avoid being desecrated. It is that he chooses not to avoid it because he chose to give us free will. Nor is God going to rain down fire on PZ for desecrating the host. Why would anyone think that? Because that's what they would do if they were God? That's about as well-thought an argument as complex specified information.

You can't criticize people for dismissing evolution when it is clear they don't know anything about it and then turn around and mock Catholics based on a completely false assumption of the theology and an infantile understanding of the concept you're mocking.

Posted by: James Goetz | July 15, 2008 4:45 PM

PZ, I have a question for you.

How could you know if any supposed wafer mailed to you was genuinely illicitly taken from a Roman Catholic Mass?

Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 4:51 PM

But I think we're dealing with people well-primed to reject the evidence whenever it conflicts with their made-up stories. They "blank out" anything they don't want to see. Given that, in a way it's encouraging that PZ got their attention at all.

I don't see the relevance of that bit of psychological speculation, but they certainly are well-primed to be offended by, and to get defensive and aggressive toward, PZ and people like him. So I find it neither surprising nor encouraging that he succeeded in that task.

If they were perfect at blocking out reality, they would complacently sit back and expect PZ to incur the angry judgment of a swift-punishing God as a natural consequence of his actions. They wouldn't feel obliged to rush in like harpies and screech and sneer to prove their devotion.

As any believer -- or really anyone who looks at those beliefs without their snideness up high -- would tell you, that is a pretty silly expectation.

Posted by: Acrackerist | July 15, 2008 4:53 PM

Um

wouldn't all of this be solved if we put that cracker under an electron microscope after it had be blessed?

It would scientifically make the confirmation. And we could have it peer reviewed.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 4:54 PM

Michael, Catholics get all the respect they deserve, and like all other insane assholes, they deserve no respect at all.

"a completely false assumption of the theology and an infantile understanding of the concept you're mocking."

The concept we are mocking is magic. How much does a person have to know about magic to know the people who believe in it are deranged?

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

"How could you know if any supposed wafer mailed to you was genuinely illicitly taken from a Roman Catholic Mass?"

Uh, that's sort of the whole point. Nobody can know. The Catholics themselves can't tell the difference between a consecrated host and an unconsecrated one if you lay them side by side on the altar. For all they know, the poor college kid may have had one that dropped out of the bag after the priest consecrated the rest. Ironic, isn't it, that they can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he actually took one that was consecrated, or sent back the same one he took? How could they know, indeed!

Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2008 5:10 PM

The mentality that hokey superstitions and miracles should be made fun of? That one?

Religion is owed no respect. Only tolerance when tolerable.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2008 5:22 PM

Invading a country isn't quite the same as violating a jesus cracker.

Posted by: Tom P. | July 15, 2008 5:25 PM

PZ is expressing hate and bigotry at Catholics

Not at all. What PZ is doing is expressing his disgust at the idea that nothing could be more vile than desecrating a piece of bread. We are living in a world where people will say to you, "Return that cracker or we will kill you." Can't you see the absurdity of this? If I take a communion wafer during mass and then turn to the crowd and say that I am removing it in order to desecrate it, would you think it worth killing me to get it back? Because if you are putting armed guards in a church to stop people from taking hosts home with them then that is what you are saying. I can think of few things more vile than valuing a piece of bread over a human life.

How about if we do this... instead of desecrating the hosts, hold them hostage. Tell the Catholic Church to stop interfering in secular issues or the host gets it.

Posted by: Holbach | July 15, 2008 5:29 PM

E. V. @ 520 No, you have every right to lambaste the overkill of the "crackergate". I'm with you to a point. We will never even come to the numbers of crackers that have been swallowed, literally and figuratively by way of ridicule, but I think the best the catholics could do would to give up this insane practice and find out if it makes a difference. I'm sure they will discover that they can still brush their teeth, start their car, catch a train and all sorts of things that they couldn't do when they started that pathetic nonsense. Get it? Any way, take a break, and here, have a cracker! Just kidding!

Posted by: E.V. | July 15, 2008 5:34 PM

Holbach,
I love a cause as much as the next guy, but it seems we're left only to tilt at windbags...

Posted by: JohnMcG | July 15, 2008 5:38 PM

Yeah. So what?

So we've just spent four years in Iraq with no sign of getting out because they're Arab Muslims, and Arab Muslims did 9/11. How did that work out?

We have some unkind words for those who attack, or even from bad opinions about a group based on the behavior of a few of their members.

If that's what you and Dr. Myers want to be, then I guess you're right that it's not a big deal.

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 5:44 PM

That's the problem with you fuck-tards. You conflate argument with physical warfare. You actually want to kill someone if they disagree with your crazy ideas. Fuck off scum. Grow a brain. Insults to not equal physical assault! Get it ass-wipe?

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 15, 2008 5:48 PM

James Goetz asked:

PZ, ... How could you know if any supposed wafer mailed to you was genuinely illicitly taken from a Roman Catholic Mass?

Well, it would depend on how much faith PZ had in the person who sent it.

Ultimately he can't know. And so, if PZ makes his video, he'll have to add a subtitle to the title: "PZ abuses your Christian cracker... Or, maybe not. No one knows."

So, unless the cracker starts screaming "Oh Noooo!!" like Mr. Bill, there will be no way to know.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 5:51 PM

"I said that PZ Myers' position in the academic community requires that he treat them respectfully."

Bullshit. PZ doesn't talk about religious stupidity in the classroom, but he can say what he wants on his own blog. Are you against freedom of speech? If yes, then get out of my country.

"Transubstantiation is no more magic than phrenology is science."

Transubstantiation, also known as jebus in a cracker, is not magic?

Bullshit. Your entire idiotic religion is nothing more than a collection of magic tricks.

Posted by: Jim | July 15, 2008 5:54 PM

"There's talk here that the Catholic reaction has to a large degree been generated by the frothings of the Catholic League people. Perhaps people would not react so much without demagogues reacting for them."

Amazingly inconsistent. The Catholic League had nothing to do with this. One minute people are telling Catholics that they're ignoring the original Webster Cook incident. The next minute, they ignore it themselves. I found this website through an email someone forwarded me. But it's my beliefs and the beliefs of the Catholic Church that actually compelled me to reach out. Donohue's comments were totally mild compared to what I felt inside.

And going out of your way to desectrate the Eucharist is only going to make things worse. Catholics aren't going to leave the Church over this. They're going to get pissed off and unite because some bigot is insulting them. Do you honestly believe that the two people who emailed threats to PZ have a solid grasp of transubstantiation? They might, but I find it improbable. They reacted to a threat, pure and simple.

I'll tell you the end result if PZ continues. Catholics will unite. Other religious groups will then join in. And everybody will be talking about the petty and hate filled bigot. People won't have to demand that he gets fired. The university will do that on their own because they don't want the negative publicity. Nobody with two brain cells would be willing to believe he's not spreading that hate in the classroom as well.

No good will come from this.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 5:56 PM

JohnMcG, there is nothing wrong with ridiculing every Catholic in the world, and every other religious person in the world, because religious insanity is out of control, and because anyone stupid enough to believe a magical fairy hides in the clouds deserves to be ridiculed.

Posted by: E.V. | July 15, 2008 5:57 PM

JohnMcG.
I just read your blog. Your being disengenuous if you can say you aren't aware PZ has recieved threats of violence. "(I'm sayin' THIS specific thread...") C'mon, you are a man of honor. Go back just a few threads if you happened to have missed the shit storm.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 6:02 PM

JohnMcG, OK, then you are in favor of suppressing free speech. Please go live in Iran.

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 15, 2008 6:05 PM

@ 536 JohnMCG

If I'm not mistaken hes referring to the death threats that Cook and PZ have gotten

Addendum: Never mind. I went back, read it, and realized that John is a complete gibbering nutcase like Jim and Salt...
well that's a bit harsh, he hasn't quite reached the level of denseness that Salt has or the boring piety of Jim but still, he has a certain... repetitiveness about him.

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 15, 2008 6:07 PM

You're reading too much into a simple word, John

Posted by: JohnMcG | July 15, 2008 6:14 PM

Bob,

I am in favor of employers having the right to exercise some prudence when someone's public comments compromise their ability to do their job.

It's why Jimmy the Greek was fired.
It's why Al Campanis was fired.

I'm sure that if a bishop or priest made a public statement that pedophilia was no big deal, and kept his job, you guys would rightfully be all over us for letting this guy continue to be in his position.

It's at least conceivable that Myers's statements and plans would compromise his ability to teach Catholics and Muslims.

If everyone who thinks employers should have this ability has to move to Iran, it better be a pretty big boat.

Posted by: Scott C. | July 15, 2008 6:18 PM

A must see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL8h4fhGj78&feature=related

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 6:26 PM

John,

Forgive me if I misread your post about the 9/11 conflict. The way I understood it is that you implied things weren't going well with that. You implied that the bad opinions are what was egging on the U.S. enemy. Then you proposed that perhaps the nasty name-calling cracker desecrating atheist community would bring on further ire and combativeness from the catholic community by bing that way.

It's a bloody war you equated with oversensitive myth believers and their feelings of impropriety. If you think the comparison is justified then yes, then I feel you feel it justified to escalate a competition of ideas to a bloody war. Of course, the other death threats made by the "few" don't help the situation.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted the intentions of your post. However, I still strongly disagree with your overarching position.

Posted by: GS | July 15, 2008 6:29 PM

Michael #554:

Of course, you might have to hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head at once. That might be too much for you. But then again, you probably don't understand the quantum theory of light either.

Show me the math. Show me the double-slit experiment.

Posted by: reuben | July 15, 2008 6:31 PM

Posted by: Michael | July 15, 2008 6:22 PM
But then again, you probably don't understand the quantum theory of light either. How can light be a particle and a wave? Oh no! Ooga booga! It must be maaaagic...

you freakin' idiot - quantum theory is empirically testable and incredibly well verified through experiment. Can you say the same for god-in-(or-not-quite-really-in)-a-cracker theory?

Posted by: True Bob | July 15, 2008 6:35 PM

I suspect PZ is having more of a positive effect on UM Morris than negative.

The difference, Michael, is that scientists say "I don't understand that, let's see what makes it tick" while religios say "I don't understand, so goddidit!".

How do you think we even got to wavicles? Some bible reference? IIRC, god is the light per various christers around here.

BTW, thanks for the reading advice, I didn't know Aristotle wrote about crackers with or without cheeses.

And since I haven't seen it yet, I'll hope I'm first:

It's not the lord, it's a FRACKER!

Posted by: splendidmonkey | July 15, 2008 6:38 PM

@#553 - excellent. I have Brit envy when ever I hear "pee-zed".

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 15, 2008 7:10 PM

Michael #509,

You can't criticize people for dismissing evolution when it is clear they don't know anything about it and then turn around and mock Catholics based on a completely false assumption of the theology and an infantile understanding of the concept you're mocking.

Oh but I don't mock Catholics based on false assumptions, look, I'll even grant you with the groovy details from the vatican's own catechism on the sacrament of the eucharist, it's all there :

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

these paragraphs are the funniest :

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205

BUT THEN, WAIT !

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"210

So you see, all of this coldswallop has to be taken on faith, it can't be apprehended by the senses, it's supernatural as usual.

And then, please note the little comment :

The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.

"The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship."

Doesn't that need to be ridiculed ? That's the whole point isn't it, their systematic assumption that the rest of the world absolutely needs them.

Posted by: Alex | July 15, 2008 7:22 PM

Now that was funny True Bob. Thanks for that.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 7:36 PM

Transubstantiation is no more magic than phrenology is science.

Nice strawman argument there. Phrenology is a long-debunked field of pseudo-science, just as the Catholic theory of transubstantiation is a long-debunked superstition that was believable to our species during the Dark Ages when scientific knowledge was primitive - to put it politely - compared to today's society. We have the knowledge now to know that it simply is not possible to prove without committing the logical fallacy of appealing to the divine.

So your comparison really fails on all levels, because just as transubstantiation is a theological myth (and definitely not magic, since it is literally impossible for a piece of bread to transform into flesh), phrenology is a pseudo-science that was refuted quite a while ago. So let's recap your faulty statement.

Transubstantiation is no more magic than phrenology is science. Since phrenology is not science due to its lack of ability to provide testable hypotheses that result in consistently accurate observations, then transubstantiation is not even close to a valid hypothesis, because when subjected to the same scrutiny as phrenology, transubstantiation fails just as miserably. It is not magic - is a religious belief, and one that has absolutely no reasonably valid basis whatsoever. So let me fix your statement to make it accurate:

Transubstantiation is no more magic real than phrenology is science.

There, all better.

Michael:

But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

That is exactly what it means. Are you suggesting that our First Amendment tells us that we have the right to say what we want, except that after we do, we have to worry about retribution? Freedom of speech is exactly that - freedom from fear of retaliation based simply on your speech. The exclusions to this right exist only in situations where the abuse of the right can directly lead to harm or violence in the legal sense, and the relation between the speaker and the results must be direct, as in the most common example of screaming 'Fire' in a crowded theater, or any other form of intentionally inciting violence.

PZ has every right to say anything he wants on this blog, because it is in no way affiliated with the official positions of his University. If you don't know that entities can absolve themselves of perceived offenses committed by their employees during their own personal endeavors, then you don't pay much attention these days to the multitude of disclaimers that exist, in all forms of media, that an individuals personal beliefs reflect in no way those of their employers, publishers, etc... Your interpretation of our right to freedom of speech is ridculously uninformed, and I would suggest you rectify that situation before making statements such as that.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 7:49 PM

The Christian extremists don't seem to respect any of the First Amendment. They don't respect the Establishment Clause, and apparently they also want to throw out freedom of speech, especially when people don't speak kindly about their sacred crackers.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 7:53 PM

So we've just spent four years in Iraq with no sign of getting out because they're Arab Muslims, and Arab Muslims did 9/11. How did that work out?

Such an idiotic statement only shows your willingness to be as intellectually dishonest as you have to be to twist your point into something coherent. If you're really suggesting that Iraq was a xenophobic retaliation for the attacks on the Trade Center, then you've completely bought into the bullshit line that there was a link between that country and that attack. And if you haven't, then you're treating this war as if it were a recess argument between kids.

What got us into that war was not some childish reaction aganist Arab Muslims, but rather a selfish and greedy administration who wanted to get into the business of nation-building in an attempt to get rid of theocracies in the middle east by creating a democratic client state in Iraq (though only one that we approve of, of course...) and hoping that the movement will destabilize the authoritarian governments in the region. That, and because it was an opportunity for the administration to play upon irrational fears to mask the fact that they have spent the last 7 1/2 years trying - and succeeding, mostly - to distort the Constitution and award the executive branch with far more unilateral power than our founding document actually gives them. Oh, and don't forget the opportunity it afforded for the administration to seriously ramp up the privatization of a ridiculous amount of services that once were handled by the military itself. And of course, the contracts, many of which were no-bid contracts, went to friends of the administration, to include the Blackwater mercenary army operating in the predominantly Muslim area, led by a right-wing Christian zealot who belongs to one of the same families that bankrolled Reagan's candidacy and continues to advocate the intrusion of their specific form of Christianity into positions of control in our government and society.

So your reductionist and intellectually vacant description of why we got into Iraq seeks only to distort the truth in order for you to try to make some kind of point here on this board. The reasoning fails, and so does your argumentation.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 8:00 PM

I think somebody said a religious belief is not magic. I don't get that. I thought every religious belief was a belief in a magic trick. For example, the magical insertion of jebus into a cracker. Or the magical transformation of the dead jebus into a zombie.

Posted by: BobC | July 15, 2008 8:19 PM

Michael and Jim, is there any Catholic bullshit you DON'T believe? Please answer the question. I don't think there's one thing you retards would reject if the pope told you to believe it.

Posted by: windy | July 15, 2008 8:35 PM

Does anybody here know that Minnesota doesn't have any laws like that? If so, they should speak up. And until then, people shouldn't be so cocksure about what they or P.Z. have "a legal right" to do with certain crackers.

If you include me in those people, I haven't "cocksure"ly declared that there are no restrictions on the use of free gifts (my example in the other thread was, IIRC, that you can't sell your portion of food from a soup kitchen). I'm just saying that so far I've found your analogies of torturing puppies etc., very far-fetched.

Here is an example of Eucharist theft that is analogous to the example of stealing an entire stack of free newspapers. Regifting single items is not in the same category.

Your example of the law against damaging religious property may be more relevant, but it is a completely different issue from the use of free gifts. And if that law is invoked in defense of a wafer, things will at least get interesting...

Posted by: rmp | July 15, 2008 8:39 PM

Can one of the religious here explain something to me. What about all those drops of wine that are spilled every Sunday during communion, does Jesus get upset with the waste of xxx pints of blood every week?

I know that when I was growing up, some Catholic churches didn't distribute the wine, only the bread but I thought that has changed. If not, I know the wine is distributed in the Lutheran church I grew up in.

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 15, 2008 8:47 PM

Negentropyeater, #580

Would you say that that is because, when it's non-specific, maybe they can all say something along the lines of, 'oh, he doesn't mean me and my god - he means all those people who believe in another god/religion/sect/minor interpretation over a single line of text in the bible that makes all the difference over who goes to hell and who doesn't'?

RMP, #581

They bring out the Holy Handiwipe™!

Posted by: acrackerist | July 15, 2008 9:09 PM

what? a hate crime against a cracker? srsly?

you know, it wouldn't bother me if these crazy theocrats burned a copy of The God Delusion or something.

just so long as they had it on tape and posted it on youtube.

Posted by: Moses | July 15, 2008 9:30 PM

That would very counter-productive. It is just a cracker, but the complaint that some Catholics, like Andrew Sullivan (who apparently takes Vox Day seriously), are making is that PZ is expressing hate and bigotry at Catholics. (Not that their aren't reasons to be angry, just that expressing it in anything but words stating why you're angry doesn't help unless you intend to intimidate.) Avoid expressing anger, or anything that could be interpreted that way.

Now that you've got their attention you want them to think, not feel. Like I said before, challenge Bill to tell consecrated from unconsecrated crackers, or as others have suggested; do scientific tests.

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 15, 2008 1:06 PM

I do understand and respect what you're saying. My choice of words, vulgar as they were, was to illustrate the current false paradigm of 'superior beliefs' from which this idiotic "offense" has taken its predictable Internet life.

In my thesis, I have a belief that a cracker is just a cracker. Further, I have a competing emotional position that it is OFFENSIVE to me that others believe that it has any special significance in any way that is not entirely related to the physical properties that it possesses. Further, my belief is that I, or anyone else, should not be castigated for not respecting said cracker.

My belief is belief is in direct competition with the belief that the Magic Jesus Cracker deserves, though the emotions of the deluded who hold the beliefs to be true, respect. They are free to believe that. I actually respect that, though I will be blunt in my laughter at their primitive superstition because I don't have to respect the ideas, only their rights to hold those ideas.

No matter how stupid, barbaric or silly they are.

And, at no point, are their beliefs about their magic cracker better than anyone else's. No matter how many times they talk about Jesus telling them about the magic cracker. (Which, in and of itself, is a lie, but I'm not going into the additions to the bible here today. Until I get my remodeling done, my reference materials are packed away and I'm not going one-armed into a theological dispute over the changes made to the bible by the early Catholic Church to support their otherwise unsupported beliefs in the Trinity, The Last Supper and the Place of Women in the Church.)

Posted by: Paul W. | July 15, 2008 9:34 PM

Windy@584:

Problem is that it applies to "real property" only.

Except that part f seems to provide a definition of "real property" for this law, which includes "religious objects contained within a place of worship." It seems to me that consecrated communion wafers would count. I'd want an expert legal opinion.

(f) As used in this section, the term "religious real property" means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 9:38 PM

Wasn't some religious nutter just arguing a couple of days back that communion wafers, being consecrated, were AS god, and therefore NOT property?

Posted by: JohnMcG | July 15, 2008 9:48 PM

E.V. is correct that I have probably indulged my playful side here more than I should, so this will be my last post.

One of the principles being asserted is that even though only a few Catholics (Bill Donahue, the lay minister in Florida, those sending death threats) are guilty of objectively offensive behavior, it is still an appopriate response to do something that would offend *all* Catholics.

My Iraq war analogy was admittedly a poor fit. But I don't think we would have accepted the Iraq invastion if 9/11 happened, nor would we have accepted it if Iraq was not populated mainly by Arab Muslims. Arab Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks, maybe the case for war wasn't quite solid, but damnit, those Arab Muslims have it coming!

Yes, it would be an oversimplification that we went to war out of a bigoted desire to get back at Arabs. But it would be wrong to deny it played a part.

And the results have been disastrous.

I don't want to threaten Dr. Myers; I'm not going to work to see him fired. But I think our discourse would be much improved if people didn't do stupid stunts like this, and if people like Bill Donahue didn't stage elaborate flops.

Posted by: Jesus, called Christ | July 15, 2008 9:53 PM

You people are sick with your religious fetish objects that include dead men, bleeding, hanging from torture devices. Seriously, that's perverse. And disgusting.

I absolutely agree. Believe me, it creeps me out all the time.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2008 9:54 PM

Michael #554 said,

"How can light be a particle and a wave? Oh no! Ooga booga! It must be maaaagic..."

The claim that light exhibits both properties of a wave and a particle has been experimentally verified. The double slit experiment shows light's wave-like behavior while the photoelectric effect shows light's particle-like behavior. The claim that a cracker exhibits both properties of a cracker and the offspring of a divine entity has yet to be shown experimentally.

"Again, pick up a book. Go read some Aristotle."

Aristotle knew less about the universe than a grade school kid does today. In those days the importance of experimental verification was not well known. This is one of my favourite quotes from Bertrand Russell:

"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."

Posted by: judgemc | July 15, 2008 10:07 PM

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1461

New press release! Donohue sure developed a fast man crush; for a guy who had never heard of P.Z. until last week.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 15, 2008 10:09 PM

Just for the record I didn't say that, one of the Catholic weirdos said it.

My mistake on that one - My intended target for ridiculing that statement was Michael (the "Catholic weirdo" that originally put that logical nightmare of a statement up in the first place).

And a bad mistake, too, because, for the record, I get quite a bit of enjoyment out of reading your posts.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 10:17 PM

Has anyone heard anything about this from the #1 catholic in the world?

He's too busy touring Australia on the State's dole, and preparing his apology for his minion's sex crimes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7503246.stm

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 10:25 PM

I think our discourse would be much improved if people didn't do stupid stunts like this, and if people like Bill Donahue didn't stage elaborate flops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

two words:

Overton

Window

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 10:30 PM

Maybe I should have said for a guy who claimed to have never heard of P.Z. until last week...

oh man, did he?

what a maroon.

like anyone couldn't have checked that ON HIS OWN BLOG and found him criticizing Myers previously.

someone around these parts even recently posted the direct links to Donowhore railing against that play and PZ.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 15, 2008 10:37 PM

Wowbagger,

when they are attacked all at once, they just feel , ah we're in good company, it's just those damned atheist attacking all of us.
when they are singled us, it's immediately, why us and not them ? and don't forget that it's not only the atheists who have attacked the catholics about this issue of the Eucharist, so of course they take it much more personal, they react more aggressively.

All of this is just very predictable. What, some people are surprised by the Cathos' reaction ? No way. So what ?
I mean, there's no way America is going to become a society more tolerant of non believers if it systematically avoids conflicts.
What do you guys think we had to endure in France in the 60s with people like Jean Paul Sartre, de Beauvoir, Devos, Gainsbourg and many others ? They did much worse than what PZ did, in terms of civil disobedience, in order to chock and provoke the church. It was quasi permanent.
For chrissake, Jean Paul Sartre was almost imprisoned, and then what did De Gaulle say ?
"You don't arrest Voltaire !"
Of course, in France, we only had the Catholic church to worry about, whereas in the US you have a few big ones, and that's an additional difficluty.

I don't see how these kinds of things should be avoided, I mean things like this crackergate that make enough noise, on the contrary, they need to be exploited. So far, non believers in the USA have not really eaten up in the territory of the religious. The statistics show that over the last 25 years they have about doubled and have gained a critical mass of approx. 15%. But the religious have remained stable at about 80%. So now obviously, it's going to be a different ball game, the next phase if it is to be succesful, will necessarily be more conflictual.
Nobody likes to lose market share. Don't forget that for them, religion is a business.

Posted by: Paul W. | July 15, 2008 10:54 PM

Religious objects, for purpose of the statute, would be almost certainly be interpreted as fixtures.

OK, on your reading "fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of worship" doesn't mean "fixed objects, or religious objects that may be simply contained within a place of worship." Instead it means "the usual sorts of fixtures (such as light fixtures) plus any fixed religious objects..."

My reading was that they were meaning to extend the notion of religious real property to include things that weren't necessarily fixed, but which were not incidental to the religious function of the land and building.

I like your reading better---it keeps the real property clause about about land, buildings, and things affixed thereto---but I'm not sure they couldn't work it the other way. (After all, the same section talks about obstructing activities as well as damaging real property, so it's not just a law about real estate.)

Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 11:15 PM

Wowbagger, I'm at Circular Quay (Sydney, on the Harbour) and the poor deluded happy clapper god bothering cracker swallowing papal groupies are deadset everywhere. Easy to pick out too, red and yellow WYD packpacks, national flags and scarves, travelling together in packs, eyes glazed and stupid grin - like they've just dropped an E, and they respond to a "hi" with a "didn't Jesus make this a glorious day" or something. If they weren't so peaceful and happy they'd look like marauding band of football hooligans.

When the new anti-annoyance laws were thrown out yesterday it was funny to see protesters trying to hand out condoms. You should've seen the dirty looks from the pilgrims. A couple of girls on tele last night handed the condoms back saying that they were only 13 and 14. Oops.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 11:27 PM

A couple of girls on tele last night handed the condoms back saying that they were only 13 and 14.

gee, I've never heard of young teens having sex.

*rolleyes*

Posted by: Paul W. | July 15, 2008 11:30 PM

Icthyic,

before you attempt to stretch the application of that statute any further, do also recall that with this specific "object", the intended purpose of it is to destroy it. You'll have to work that into whether the statute is applicable as well.

You're begging the question a bit here. I'm not sure I am "stretching" statute to apply it, though I hope you're right.

It looks like a law against interfering with transitory religious processes, as well as damaging permanent religious property. It's not clear that they meant to protect transitory processes and fixed property, but not transitory or unfixed property used in those processes. (Why would they do that?) They may have just jammed the "or contained in..." clause in badly. (Which might mean that the law would need revision before they could enforce it as intended.)

They may have meant to generalize the real property clause to cover any religious objects contained in the place of worship, in order to protect the function of the building as a place of worship.

As for the intended purpose of the wafer being to destroy it, that's not right. Its intended purpose is for believing Catholics to absorb their undead God's zombie essence, which according to the Catholic Encyclopedia (I think it was) takes about 15 minutes, during which you should maintain the right frame of mind, while digesting God. After 15 minutes, it's done, and the wafer has reverted to normal matter you can excrete per usual without making Jesus cry.

(Shoving the wafer straight up your ass, on the other hand, would be a no no. How it gets into your ass is important.)

Consider a free newspaper, which you're not supposed to steal for non-reading purposes. After it's served its purpose, you can dispose of it or destroy it, but you can't take it and destroy it just to keep it from serving its purpose---e.g., to stop other people from reading it.

I wouldn't the courts could apply similar logic to a wafer, ruling that it's specially protected because it serves a particular function, and is protected from interference with that function. The fact that its function is transitory (like a newspaper's) doesn't break the argument.

Posted by: shane | July 15, 2008 11:41 PM

A couple of girls on tele last night handed the condoms back saying that they were only 13 and 14.

gee, I've never heard of young teens having sex.

*rolleyes*

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 15, 2008 11:47 PM

A couple of girls on tele last night handed the condoms back saying that they were only 13 and 14 and added they weren't planning on spending that much time around priests.

Fixed.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 15, 2008 11:52 PM

#599

From the new Catholic league press release :

Donohue is of course lying, what else can he do ? Of course he can safely assume that his hordes of devoted deluded followers will never go and check the truth. Afterall dishonest propaganda is his area of expertise.

Compare this lying cristofacist and his dishonest propaganda :

"The biology professor made it clear that he would never disrespect Islam the way he does Catholicism. When asked about those who abuse the Koran, for example, he said such an act was analogous to desecrating a graveyard. 'That's completely different,' he said. 'I don't favor [that idea].' But when it comes to the Body of Christ, he opines, 'The cracker is completely different.'

With the original version :

MnIndy: What about the stories of US military personnel urinating on and otherwise abusing copies of the Koran in Iraq? Were you outraged by that, or is that a different version of this for you?

Myers: There's a subtle difference there -- maybe an important difference. I don't favor the idea of going to somebody's home or to something they own and possess and consider very important, like a graveyard -- going to a grave and desecrating that. That's something completely different. Because what you're doing is doing harm to something unique and something that is rightfully part of somebody else -- it's somebody else's ownership. The cracker is completely different. This is something that's freely handed out.

MnIndy: Do you see a parallel between this case and the furor in Denmark (and later the Islamic world at large) over cartoonists' depictions of Mohammed? It seems unlikely that these Catholics would take kindly to being compared to Islamic extremists, but death threats over the fate of a host suggests it's not an unfair characterization.

Myers: Of course! Both are demands that quirky sectarian peculiarities be given undue respect by those who don't believe in them. Furthermore, the majority of the email I'm receiving is making it explicit: they are telling me that I should not abuse their sacred icon, but that I should instead go do something sacrilegious with the Koran.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 11:54 PM

added they weren't planning on spending that much time around priests.

thankyou. much clearer now.

:P

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 15, 2008 11:58 PM

Re: the Catholic League press release -

Liars for Jesus™
There are no depths to which we will not stoop

Posted by: Wowbagger | July 16, 2008 12:10 AM

Exactly. It was only their rules he broke - no-one else's. The worst they can do is excommunicate him - though, from what I've read, they're not that keen on that anymore 'cause it'd mean they couldn't claim him as a Catholic when they try and justify special treatment because of how many of them there are.

Posted by: Numad | July 16, 2008 12:22 AM

Paul W. did reference legislation that would exist to protect the distribution of free newspapers from intentional disruption or abuse which could properly apply to the distribution of communion wafers. Both free newspaper and wafers could be taken in mass for profit or simply to cripple further distribution, otherwise.

I can't say I,m familiar with this type of legislation myself, especially not in the US, but I think it sounds really abusive to say that legislation like this would actually make the act of one person taking a single free newspaper into entering a binding obligation of reading the newspaper. Which is what is implied to apply to the improper use of communion wafers; someone who receives a wafer is then legally obligated to follow all of the proper rites. Seems to miss the spirit of the free newspaper protection idea altogether.

Posted by: Tom P. | July 16, 2008 12:33 AM

As to the question of whether PZ's antipathy towards Catholic beliefs would effect his ability to teach Catholic students, the same question could be asked of Catholic professors teaching atheists who they believe are bound to go to hell. Mocking someone's beliefs is not bigotry.

"To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion - that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas - any ideas even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. And the law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed. It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression." - Rowan Atkinson, speaking out about the latest attempt to criminalize speech in Britain.

Posted by: Ygor427 | July 16, 2008 12:46 AM

I've been following this blog for about a year now. I love biology and am a proud atheist so it seems like required reading. I'm afraid to say that this Catholic League business is when NuAtheism jumped the shark (or should I say octopus?).

What we need now is the New New-Atheism because these little attention getting devices are not helping anybody. This pathetic relationship that PZ and the Fundies have (offense->righteous condemnation->offense) is a shrill masturbatory exercise that only confirms the worst ideas about what an Atheist is.

Posted by: Tom P. | July 16, 2008 12:51 AM

The free mnewspaper analogy falls apart for many reasons. Taking a host given by the priest does not effect the ability of anyone in the church to practice their religion. Comparing this to taking ALL of the available newspapers to keep anyone from reading them is absurd. The law does not prevent me from taking a copy of a free newspaper in order to wrap my lunch in it, use it to blow my nose, or cut it up into paper dolls. I am not required to read any free newspaper that I take. In California, for example, I can take up to 25 copies of a free newspaper and burn them in my fireplace. In Maryland it is a crime to distribute free newspapers in a way that is likely to lead to litter. As an aside, in almost every case of free newspaper displays being cleaned out, it is for the purpose of reselling the newspapers to recycling companies. So to complete the analogy, a similar law for hosts would make it a crime to take a number of hosts significant enough to prevent people from making use of them and then reselling the purloined hosts. Taking a single host and quietly taking it away from the church premises would not interfere with the worshipers at the church service.

Posted by: j.d. | July 16, 2008 1:25 AM

^i think that was commented upon in #632. no newspaper references are necessary...

Posted by: bastion | July 16, 2008 2:03 AM

At #448 JohnMcG wrote:
I'd be interested if anyone could point me to the online comment thread where Catholics are trading creative ideas on how best to kill Dr. Myers or Webster Cook.

I'd be interested if anyone could point me to the online comment thread where atheists are trading creative ideas on how best to kill anyone.

Posted by: benjdm | July 16, 2008 2:39 AM

The person who sent the threat from their 1-800-flowers email has been fired:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/148476/woman_fired_over_death_threat_sent_from_work_email.html

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

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

Posted by: cyan | July 16, 2008 4:38 AM

In the comments section at the following address a "c kroll" claims to be the sender of the threatening email and says that Melanie Kroll had nothing to do with it. He also has a lot more to say. It was posted very early a.m. July 16.

http://breakingspells.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/employee-of-1800flowerscom-issues-death-threats-to-professor/#comment-274

Posted by: IAmMarauder | July 16, 2008 6:08 AM

@646:
Looking at the original email I can see that the email from 1-800-Flowers came from a machine internal to their corporate network. It then becomes a case of seeing who was logged into the machine, and whether that person was in the office at the time. Once all of the evidence is gathered it then becomes a case of the corporate computer usage policy and how it relates to the situation.

If this occurred at my place of employment, and if the evidence places her logged into the PC at the time, the she is responsible. Our computer usage policy states that anything done via a machine whilst a person is logged in is that persons responsibility. That is why staff are actively encouraged to logout or lock a machine when you leave it for any reason.

While it is unfortunate that Melanie was fired, 1-800-Flowers wouldn't risk this unless they had solid evidence. Otherwise they are open to a wrongful dismissal case. Being ignorant of corporate policy is no excuse. Neither is her trusting whomever sent the email. Her login and machine are corporate property - and since the email came from the corporate system it is their neck on the line if PZ did pursue legal action. It is for this reason Computer usage policies exist.

Posted by: IAmMarauder | July 16, 2008 6:45 AM

Hi Matt,

Sorry about that, I misinterpreted the intent of your post.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 16, 2008 7:16 AM

"What kind of society would we have if no one took action due to a victim's request that no action be taken? Despite PZ being the victim here, and having the sole right to bring charges upon the perpetrator, it is not in the community's interest to tolerate such threats or leave the pursuit of recourse to the discretion of the victim once the act is publicly known. Were we to remain impartial then opportunities for silencing the victim prevail over justice."

There is a good argument that is some circumstances people should be prosecuted even if the victim of a crime does not want a prosecution. Such circumstances would be where the victim is intimidated, such as in cases of domestic violence.

I do not think PZ was feeling intimidated by these e-mails.

Posted by: chrisD | July 16, 2008 7:43 AM

Whether he was intimidated or not is not entirely the point.

I think we can all agree that every person has a right to personal security. When it becomes publicly known that a person is threatening another person's security then we as a society have an obligation to the victim and even ourselves to pursue justice regardless of the victim's wishes.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 7:47 AM

When it becomes publicly known that a person is threatening another person's security then we as a society have an obligation to the victim and even ourselves to pursue justice regardless of the victim's wishes.

First, protecting people's security and pursuing justice are quite different things. Second, it's not at all clear that either was achieved. Third, it sounds a whole lot like you're rationalizing vigilantism.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 16, 2008 7:53 AM

"I think we can all agree that every person has a right to personal security. When it becomes publicly known that a person is threatening another person's security then we as a society have an obligation to the victim and even ourselves to pursue justice regardless of the victim's wishes."

This could be valid, but only if rather than contacting the company people had contacted the police. If someone is a threat then they will be threat even if they have been sacked. In fact it is quite possible sacking such a person would increase the risk they pose. It is very unlikely to reduce it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 16, 2008 8:12 AM

Other times you talk total bollocks. This is an example of the latter.

Wow, that's some cogent argumentation. I stand refuted.

Not.

Posted by: Wolfhound | July 16, 2008 8:25 AM

Sorry to any of you who feel badly for this twat. She was caught. Her employers did the right thing by sacking her. I feel no sympathy for her. If it turns out she was innocent, she can perhaps look into litigation. If not, it's not like there's a dearth of telemarketing jobs out there.

/brutal bitch mode

Posted by: Iain Walker | July 16, 2008 10:04 AM

Owlmirror (Comment #23):

This is pretty much my own argument that the desecration of the host is impossible.

However, there's nothing to prevent God from untransubstatiating the host after the initial consecration, but before it can be subjected to unorthodox treatment. So your

14 ) Therefore, since it would be improper to transubstantiate into a wafer which God knows will be received by someone who does not have faith in Catholicism, God can, and indeed, must, refuse to transubstantiate into those wafers which will be received by those who do not have faith in Catholicism.

doesn't follow, because God has at least one other option available to him.

It might have been better to say that God would be obliged to ensure that an about-to-be-desecrated host is no longer transubstantiated, either by not transubstantiating it the first place, or by subsequently untransubstatiating it.

Of course, a Catholic can still get round this by arguing that it's not up to God to rearrange things so that we don't do things which are inappropriate or sinful (since this would negate much of the point of Christianity), and hence that it would be unreasonable to expect God to untransubstatiate a host in danger of desecration. It would be our responsibility not to desecrate, not God's to prevent us from doing so. And in terms of Christian doctrine, this would be a perfectly consistent position.

Mmm. Syllogilicious. I coulda been a theologian...

Well, for the above reasons, I don't think your argument works. But since making arguments that don't work seems to be the main qualification for being a theologian ... ;-)

Posted by: E in MD | July 16, 2008 10:27 AM

Economy in flames. Two countries invaded. Millions dead or displaced from their homes. Over 4000 American soldiers dead. Civil rights of Americans being sold off to protect phone companies. Bush claiming the right to read our mail and confiscate our property on his word alone. No real ability to contest any of this in court. Gas is over $4 a gallon. Peak oil is either rapidly approaching or already happened. Entire sections of the ocean are barren.

and these stupid assholes are worried about a fucking cracker.

Perhaps if these people actually LISTENED to what their mythical Jesus character is supposed to have said they wouldn't be acting like this.

Book of Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also

5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

So Catholics, STFU. If your god exists and has a problem with PZ or this kid who stole your cracker your god will take care of it himself. It even says so in that book you have so much faith in. Perhaps if you lived by these words as you claimed you wouldn't be so angry or be sending death threats to some stupid college kid.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement | July 16, 2008 12:04 PM

666? Congrats, Tom P.

Posted by: Richadr in Edmonton | July 16, 2008 12:08 PM

Paul W. writes

"The Catholics can argue---with some justification, I think---that the occasional theft of a wafer is a much bigger deal to them, with respect to their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. They can argue that a few "stolen" wafers have a bigger chilling effect on their religious exercise, or creates a bigger "undue burden," than a few stolen papers has on a newspaper's freedom of the press."

The difficulty I see for this position in a court of law is them having to substantiate the position they take that the cracker is actually changed into Body of Christ to the satisfaction of the court. Failing this they should not be able to claim that they were acting out of defensive concern for an actual entity being abused by the person in question and would then have to defend the actions they took as applies to just a cracker.

It would be an interesting test of the justice system concerning religious exemption on the basis of belief though.

Posted by: Tom P. | July 16, 2008 12:54 PM

Actually I think PZ's main goal was to relieve the pressure from a young man who did nothing wrong but was being threatened with violence by people in his community. He has done that admirably well. His secondary goal was to start a conversation about the entire issue.

So Michael, as a Catholic perhaps you could answer these questions: Is desecrating the host, as Mr. Donahue has claimed, really the vilest thing a person can possibly do? If so, then is killing a person to stop him from doing it something that you would promote? If killing a person stealing a host is not acceptable then why are armed guards being permitted at church services?

Posted by: BobC | July 16, 2008 1:12 PM

Michael: "Furthermore, I maintain that as a professor at a university, society expects PZ to act with class and professionalism."

You expect PZ to respect your magical cracker.

Michael, it's very obvious you're a shit-for-brains asshole. You better start getting used to your idiotic religion being ridiculed. It's never going to end. The Catholics acted like terrorists and they will never be allowed to forget it.

"Furthermore, referring to the host as zombie Jesus shows no more understanding of the theological concept than creationists referring to evolutionary explanations of speciation as 'just-so' stories show a grasp of evolutionary theory. It's sophomoric."

Michael, you got a lot of fucking nerve. It's sophomoric to call your magical cracker a zombie jesus?

Look it shithead. Every single Catholic belief you have is pure bullshit. Your magical cracker, your belief your stinking dead jebus became a zombie, all the other miracles, and your magical fairy in the clouds, they're all inventions of ancient idiots and believed only by gullible batshit crazy assholes like yourself. You don't have one shred of evidence for any of your childish fantasies. Who cares about the minor details of your theological bullshit? I don't have to know anything about astrology to know it's bullshit. All religions are the same. Any sane person can figure out it's all garbage without knowing every detail of every supernatural magic trick.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 16, 2008 2:31 PM

Posted by: Michael | July 16, 2008 12:28 PM

I have a very accurate understanding of freedom of speech in this country.

You may think you do, but when you make statements such as:

But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

you give the impression that you do not. Our freedom of speech is a legal freedom, and for you to say that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, you're saying that people must temper their speech in order to prevent retaliation. While this may be true in a pragmatic sense in the interest of tact, such concerns have nothing to do with the First Amendment. If you meant that people should be more polite, then say so. But to say that our freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences is patently false.

The response that the wave-particle duality of light has been empirically verified whereas transubstantiation has not does not actually address the issue. Both dualities demonstrate that an object can hold two seemingly exclusive properties (essences) at the same time.

No, the light example shows that things can display such duality. Transubstantiation shows no such thing, because it has never been tested and verified. At best, it is a myth that claims the wafer has such duality. One is based in reality and evidentiary scrutiny, while the other is based in mysticism.

To say that transubstantiation is false because it cannot be verified empirically suggests that there is only one way to seek or demonstrate truth and understanding. That is facile, vacuous reasoning.

It's called the scientific method, and the only one using facile, vacuous reasoning is you when you suggest that theological and philosophical debate is even remotely effective at finding "truth" and furthering our understanding of physical matters - such as the transformation of a cracker into God. Use all the theological equivocation and biblical citation you want, but until it is subjected to empirical scrutiny, then its "truth" shall remain a spiritual one, and decidedly not one based in reality.

Furthermore, referring to the host as zombie Jesus shows no more understanding of the theological concept than creationists referring to evolutionary explanations of speciation as "just-so" stories show a grasp of evolutionary theory. It's sophomoric.

Get a clue - it is called ridicule and sarcasm, and it is used for the express purpose of pointing out exactly how unreasonable and silly the idea of transubstantiation is in the first place. If you want to try to take the intellectual "high road," I'd suggest that you explain to me how it is not a correct characterization of the consecrated wafer. It is supposed to be transformed into the flesh of a man dead for 2000 years, so while it may be sophomoric to you, I find it to be a crass, yet funny, comment on the literal belief that a wafer can transform into a deity.

And be careful with the suggestions that the people you're debating here don't have a grasp on theology and the arguments for and against the religious topics that arise. It is very common for someone to claim - honestly, no doubt - that they are devout believers, but it is decidedly less likely (especially in contemporary America) for those very same people to have a command of the ideas they so fervently advocate. On the other hand, most atheists you run into here are much more well versed on theological arguments. Just speaking for myself, I was a cradle Catholic that left my faith only after seriously examining what it was that I was expected to believe, along with the personal experience of seeing how religion as a whole (not just Christianity) has affected - and is still affecting - the world. So assuming that I don't know the finer points of theological debate is a dangerous one, indeed, because it is incorrect, just as such an assumption about most of the regulars here - atheist or not - would be incorrect.

I can't recall the exact quote or who it came from, so I'll paraphrase. (If anyone can nail it down, I'd appreciate it...) You'd do well to really take this to heart:

A belief cannot be truly valued until it has been subjected to skepticism and doubt, and thusly confirmed.

Meaning, that if you hold a belief you have never doubted or tried to discredit, then it is most definitely not a true belief, but rather a rote piece of doctrine that you have taken hook, line, and sinker from someone else.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 16, 2008 3:35 PM

Posted by: JohnMcG | July 16, 2008 2:51 PM

Catholics believe and assert something absurd, therefore they deserve whatever abuse can be heaped on them.

Keep playing the smug, persecuted victim if you want, but the reason for this entire uproar is exactly because a member of the Catholic congregation levied a death threat against someone who merely stated an intention of "abusing" a communion wafer. Catholics are not being abused simply for their belief, but rather for their insistence that the rest of us hold that belief as sacred as they do. But then again, you know that, and were simply trying to play the victim - again.

That when we say what we believe about a "cracker" we have self-identified as fools unworthy of the tiniest respect.

In the sense of personal respect as a human being, you're completely false in stating that your beliefs diminish the humanistic respect afforded you. In the intellectual sense, however, such respect is earned. And by believeing that a wafer can become the flesh of Jesus, you invite such intellectual criticism upon yourself. The fact that you believe a piece of bread actually turns into a deity is quite silly to me, and if you post here, I have the right to tell you so. As far as societal respect goes, your beliefs deserve no more - and no less - than any other religious belief. Except, that is, when you start demanding people be fired over failing to conform to those beliefs of yours. Then the door is wide open, and you definitely do deserve the ridicule. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are plenty of other sites out there whose regulars will "respect" your beliefs much more.

That's fine. I'm unconvinced that the best form for such skpeticism is what Dr. Myers is doing. At best, it's rude and counter-productive.

Hey, way to take a post from a completely different conversation way out of context. PZ's actions are in no way directed at being skeptical and examining his beliefs in order to confirm or deny them. His actions are in the pursuit of demonstrating his belief that a piece of bread does not hold a higher value than a human life. The piece of bread, while it may be a religious symbol, is nothing more than a piece of bread.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 4:09 PM

If you shout loudly "I hate fags!" in a gay bar, you suffer the consequences of getting thrown out.

did it feel good to type that? Get a thrill out of breaking a taboo and calling gay folks what you can't in "polite company"?

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 16, 2008 5:02 PM

Posted by: Michael | July 16, 2008 4:02 PM

No, I expect PZ to ignore my magical cracker, not go out of his way to shit on it.

It most definitely has been largely ingored up until now, and would have stayed that way had the Catholic response to this situation not been the attempted "shitting on" the civil rights afforded Mr. Webster Cook by the Constitution. PZ's declaration of intended sacrilege was a direct response to the insistence that the belief in the saced nature of a wafer be recognized by the rest of us, to the extent of insisting that action be taken against Cook and PZ for their "disrespect" of a symbol.

If you can't be civil I have no use for you.

And if you cannot mount a defense for your position without resorting to demanding universal respect for a wafer at the expense of the expulsion of a fellow Catholic from his university, or the demand for firing PZ from his tenured position, then I have no use for you, either.

I never said anything at all about stifling First Amendment freedoms. But I will repeat again, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Because while you have the right to say what you want, I have the right to say whatever I want back. If you shout loudly "I hate fags!" in a gay bar, you suffer the consequences of getting thrown out.

You most certainly did, in using the specific phrase 'freedom of speech.' In that post, you were expressly stating that PZ's position as a professor limits what he can and cannot say, and it was clear from your post that you meant his recent blog post should affect his employment at the university. While true in the classroom while operating in his official capacity, his comments on his own personal blog are separate from that, and he has the freedom to express his opinions without fear of losing his job. Had he stated in class what he posted on his blog, then such consequences would be valid.

And your example of inciting homosexuals to violence against you fails, as well. Because just as you have the right to walk into such a place and make that remark, they have the right to ignore you. If you were - deservedly so, I might add - to "suffer the consequences" you mentioned, then you would then have every legal recourse to file assault and battery charges on those who attacked you. I shouldn't have to remind you that in a trial over such a matter, "he called me a bad name" is a completely inadequate defense for committing a crime.

Certainly the idea that the wafer literally transforms into a deity is bizarre but that is not what is believed.

And here you're showing your lack of knowledge on Catholic doctrine. I showed a similar gap in knowledge just recently here in another post - and was corrected by kmerian - concerning the concept of transubstantiation. It is most certainly Catholic doctrine that upon consecration, the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Simply because some Catholics either reject that or don't know enough about the details of the subject to know that is what their faith maintains does not mean that it is not what is believed by the Church.

But I ask you, have you ever subjected your belief (which I rightly or wrongly presume you have) in common descent to the same skepticism?

You rightly assume I believe in common descent, and I most certainly have subjected it to opposing viewpoints, and in good scientific practice, I still do. The day I stop doing so will be the day that I am no longer of this Earth. While there are some things that I do take for granted, when it comes to beliefs that truly matter to me, I - along with most of the regulars here, I assume - never hesitate to subject them to skepticism. The ones that haven't stood up to such examinations - i.e. religion - I no longer believe.

The reason common descent stood up to such examination is precisely because there is a multitude of rational, empirical evidence in support of its claim.

How would I empirically determine that the body I found was that of a lawyer?

I'll ignore the obvious disingenuity of that question and answer plainly. While there are no physiological tests that could be done to determine his occupation, there are myriad other ways to colect the empirical data needed to confirm that he was, in fact, a lawyer. And if you can't grasp what those might be, I suggest you look into this thing we like to call research. Even a cursory examination of the man's home is likely to turn up evidence that he was an attorney, and failing that, I'm pretty sure that all attorneys are required to attend specialized schools and pass admission tests upon their graduation. Perhaps some record of him would exist there?

You, on the other hand, just gave an image of yourself standing over the problem, stagnant, and coming to the conclusion that it would be impossible to divine the answer. Sorry, but the search for truth actually does require a little more legwork than that.

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 16, 2008 5:20 PM

"Actually I think PZ's main goal was to relieve the pressure from a young man who did nothing wrong but was being threatened with violence by people in his community. He has done that admirably well."

So...he's kinda like Jesus! PZ Myers, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us!

Posted by: M | July 16, 2008 5:36 PM

In Re: #678:

I appreciate your description of the transubstantiation doctrine and your highlighting of the various doctrinal considerations, given the arguments posed.

I have a few quick points to make, mostly things that came to mind after reading this article:

Antilocution is a term defined by psychologist Gordon Allport in his book the Nature of Prejudice, 1954. Antilocution defines verbal remarks against a person, group or community, which are not addressed directly to the target. However because antilocution creates an environment where discrimination is acceptable, it frequently progresses to other more damaging forms of prejudiced behavior. Its use is overshadowed by the more modern term "Hate speech" which has almost the same meaning.

My question to the blog author is what other motivation does he have than to "create an evironment where discrimination is acceptable", and where it may "progress to other more damaging forms of prejudiced behavior."

1. An argument based on recrimination would not hold weight as there are many members of the particular group targeted (Catholics, in this case)who have not, presumably, spoken out against the author of this blog or engaged in antilocution in a way that his respose would seem reasonable under the circumstances.

2. An argument seeking to engage in antilocution for the purpose of disproving a religious tenant (transubstantiation, in this case) is also without merit. As most major religious tenets are based on one's acceptance of certain facts on faith, they cannot be proven through scientific inquiry and thus the negative "effects" (i.e. increased discrimination, hatred, ill will) certainly do not seem to outweigh any percieved "benefits" (i.e. to conclusively disprove a religious belief).

3. An argument seeking to engage in antilocution for the purposes of highlighting the percieved absurdity of a religious tenant also bears skepticism. While personal opinions are certainly encouraged, and speech i

4. An argument based solely on the assertion of one's First Ammendment right to free speech is similarly lacking. The constitution fails to recognize "lewd" or "offensive" speech for purposes of First Ammendment. Such speech recieves little or no constitutional protection. So while the author is certainly "free" (in the constitutional sense) to desecrate as many Hosts as he would like, his actions should be subject to scrutiny as once again the negative consequences of antilocution seem to outweigh

5. Finally, an argument based solely on one's freedom to do as they choose so long as it is within the law (in this case, desecrating a religiou item) is a claim that should be considered in light of current societal norms. Certainly, one is free to engage in lawful activities to the extent that they do not interfere with others. However, to the extent that one's activities have the specific intent and effect of creating a climate of hatred and discrimination towards a particular group of individuals, those activities may need to be reevaluated.

To all these points I would conclude simply that one should exercise personal restraint on activity to the extent that the activity is 1) unnecessary, 2) resulting in extreme prejudice or discrimination and 3) lacking in any sort of rational basis.

The "should" comes not from a religious duty, but from a societal one that is not limited to any particular ethical theory. Namely, the duty to treat ones fellow human beings with a level of civility and dignity is an idea that should not be foreign to those of us in the United States. After all, this country is one of diversity and as such, intentional prejudicial behavior should recieve close consideration and critique. Each citizen should recieve the level of respect accorded to him as a citizen. I believe this, at the very least, requires that we respect the right of each citizen to hold a religious belief free from prejudice, hatred or reprisal from fellow citizens. This rule should not be limited to Catholicism, nor should Catholicism be exempted from it.

I would be more than happy to respond to those who wish to comment on these things, however, I should mention that I am not interested in engaging in ad hominem or fruitless arguments over the merits or faults of Catholicism. My argument is simply a common-sense one, and as such I appreciate and enjoy common sense responses. Thanks.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 16, 2008 6:02 PM

Then this is a matter of academic freedom, not the First Amendment and freedom of speech, since if thie were a First Amemdnment issue, the bartender and Dr. Myers would be due the same level of protection.

Since it is a First Amendment issue, Dr. Myers and the hypothetical bartender are not in the same situation. In the bartender's case, the owner of the establishment would be well within his rights to fire the bartender, not simply because he is an employee of his establishment, but for the specific reason that he made his comment while in his official capacity with the bar. That is grounds for removal, for obvious reasons.

The university, bound to certain restrictions due to the public money they receive, would have no grounds to fire or otherwise punish Dr. Myers unless he made his statements in the classroom or while acting as an official representative of the university. Since it was on his personal blog, firing him would solely be on the grounds that they did not agree with what he said - a violation of the First Amendment - because the University cannot censor their employees' opinions and statements when they are not operating in their official capacity.

Posted by: JohnMcG | July 16, 2008 6:16 PM

not simply because he is an employee of his establishment, but for the specific reason that he made his comment while in his official capacity with the bar.

I missed that part of the hypo, and hadn't assumed the bartender said that as part of his job. My apologies.

But I suspect that even if a bartender wrote something similar on his personal blog, and the customers became aware of it, that could ultimately lead to his dismissal, as he would have compromised his ability to serve the clientele. And the First Amendment wouldn't help him there.

Since it was on his personal blog, firing him would solely be on the grounds that they did not agree with what he said

No, it could be on the grounds that his job requires him to relate with Catholics and Muslims, and his public writings have compromised his ability to do that.

A police commissioner who used the n-word in an unofficial capacity would have severely compromised his ability to relate with black police officers, and I would expect he would be fired.

Posted by: True Bob | July 16, 2008 6:37 PM

WRT dead body analogy - the dead body is NOT a lawyer, it is a corpse. It ceased to be a lawyer when it died. It is an ex-attorney. If he weren't naked in the street, he'd be pushing up the daisies.

You can find his identity by examining fingerprints, dental records, etc. That's how they do identify unknown corpses. That's using the old noggin, examine the evidence. Not stare helplessly and say "Idunno".

Apparently you worship the god named Gluten.

Posted by: windy | July 16, 2008 7:46 PM

Apparently, the law Paul W. has been referring to is also known as the "Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996".

Posted by: Paul W. | July 17, 2008 8:08 AM

Broken Soldier@692

Several of the things you say are things I've been saying lately, though less confidently. Maybe you're agreeing with me, but it sounds like you're disagreeing. Or maybe you're just disagreeing with my lack of confidence in things that I'm somewhat tentatively or "mostly" agreeing with?

to reiterate:

I don't think P.Z. is breaking any law. The closest thing to a law against cracker desecration that I've found is 18 USC 247, and I think agree that it doesn't apply to crackers because they're not "real property."

I don't think Webster Cook did any thing illegal, or even very "wrong" by the Catholic rules---he meant to eat the cracker when he took it, so it wasn't stealing.

Just clarifying, again, that I'm mostly persuaded by what frog, windy, truth machine, and others have been saying about things I've been worried about.

On the other hand, I've come up with an example of something that seems to contradict the principle we've been agreeing on, that the "safe zone" for religion has to be implemented by specific laws. I'll put that in a separate comment, though, because if it's right, it's an important point I don't want to bury.

Posted by: Iain Walker | July 17, 2008 10:55 AM

Michael (Comment #678):

It is not literal in the sense that the bread and wine physically become a dead guy, but that they substantially become a dead guy. For example, if I find a body naked on the side of the road, I would have no way of knowing that he was, say, a lawyer. I could do no physical, empirical test to determine such a thing from you physical appearance alone. Yet the fact remains that he is a lawyer, substantially, not physically. So too is Christ substantially present as the bread and wine, not in the bread and wine and the bread and wine retain their physical characteristics.

As True Bob (#691) points out, a corpse is no longer a lawyer, and lawyer-ness can be determined empirically from a person's behaviour and history. But that's not the only thing wrong with your analogy. A lawyer still isn't a lawyer substantially - he/she is a lawyer accidentally. One can be a person (living or dead) without being a lawyer, but in order to be (or have been) a lawyer one needs to be (or have been) a person. Or to put it another way, the category "person" is ontologically prior to the category "lawyer", not the other way around. And the point about a substance (in the metaphysical sense) is that it is ontologically prior to the properties ascribed to it.

So if anything, the relationship between lawyer-ness and person/corpse is the opposite of the alleged relation between Christ-ness and host.

Furthermore, the problem of determining the former occupation of a corpse is a problem only in practice - it might be difficult, but it is still possible in principle, because there are potential facts open to empirical discovery. In the case of the host, there is no means of determining the "substantial presence" of Christ as a matter of principle. There are simply no empirical facts that one could discover that would confirm or disconfirm it.

So your analogy is unsound on at least two counts.

I cannot demonstrate to you, in a combox, why I believe the witness to Christ's real presence to be accurate, but it's akin to why I believe Jefferson owned slaves. I can only go on the written word, passed down from generations that document his owning of slaves.

Again, a poor analogy. Believing that Jefferson owned slaves is reasonable because there are multiple lines of evidence to support that he did (including his own writings). There are also multiple lines of evidence that many people in his culture owned slaves, and it is an empirically demonstrable fact that slavery existed (and in many ways still exists) as an institution. Consequently, even if there were no historical records supporting it directly, the claim that Jefferson owned slaves would still have some prima facie plausibility, because it simply asserts a particular occurrence of a well-verified phenomenon.

None of this applies to the transubstantiation of the host during communion. There is no background of empirical knowledge that establishes transubstantiation as a real phenomenon (or as a plausible hypothetical instance of a real phenomenon). There are no witnesses to Christ's "real presence" in the host, since it is not something one can observe. (And if you're using the special Christian sense of "witness", in the sense of expressing one's faith, then I'd just point out that this is very different from the evidential sense of reporting an observed occurrence.)

I don't believe in ghosts. Or zombies. The jury is still out on vampires.

Uh, what?

Posted by: SEF | July 18, 2008 10:30 AM

It can't be theft if it was freely given away. It can't be theft if it's supposed to be a person, viz Jesus-god, since people can't be property in the US any more.

Furthermore, it can't be kidnapping if it's Jesus-god because that particular god is already alleged to be everywhere (omnipresent) and fully able to take care of itself (omnipotent). Part of the Jesus story is about the character willingly going to be crucified to serve the highly dodgy purposes required of the plot. So the (omniscient and omnipotent) character is hardly going to be fooled into being forced out of a church, cunningly disguised as a wafer (despite already being omnipresent), unless that was also part of some "mysterious ways" plot.

The religious folk simply have no genuine faith in their religious fairy-tales or gods at all. If they truly believed (and weren't irrational, emotional idiots), they wouldn't make a fuss.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 27, 2008 10:01 PM

Posted by: Paul W. | July 17, 2008 8:08 AM

Several of the things you say are things I've been saying lately, though less confidently. Maybe you're agreeing with me, but it sounds like you're disagreeing. Or maybe you're just disagreeing with my lack of confidence in things that I'm somewhat tentatively or "mostly" agreeing with?

to reiterate:

I don't think P.Z. is breaking any law....and I think agree that it doesn't apply to crackers because they're not "real property."

I did perceive your comments as advocating the protection of the wafer under the laws you cited, and in light of your reiteration, I apologize for doing so. My perception was inaccurate.