…and this is a 
Putting the cracker in context ... again
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: August 13, 2008 8:00 AM, by PZMinion
Guest blogger Sastra:
When I log into Pharyngula, as a matter of habit I usually glance at the little Recent Comment bar on the side, to see who has just responded to what. It helps to show which threads are particularly lively at the moment. Every now and then there's someone responding to an "old" post - one that's been otherwise inactive for days, weeks, months, or, in very rare cases, years. Given the recent major fuss caused by "Crackergate," we can still notice the occasional newcomer weighing in on the contents of PZ's kitchen garbage can. Presumably they've followed one of the many links still hanging around out there. The cracker threads are not quite ready to die.
I don't think the issue and its moral ramifications (or the interest in them) are quite finished and over yet, either, so - here ya go -- I'm going to bring it up again. Those who are sick and tired of the topic may lightly skip to the next post.
I have, like most (though not all) of the regular Pharyngulites, been - by and large - supportive of PZ's action, and the rationale behind it. However, I think it's simplistic to see this as a simple issue, which is easy to explain or defend. There are some good, hard, and reasonable points on the other side, as well as arguments which sound reasonable, but are only superficially plausible. But, judging by the continued reactions, our replies and responses are not always getting through, and we can't just assume it's because the other guys aren't listening. I don't know -- maybe a new approach might help.
So I thought it might be interesting then to take another stab at trying to explain the why behind it, by coming at it from a different perspective.
Context is crucial, and, as most of us have noticed, PZ's critics often leave out the context, the whole Cook/Donahue thing that started it off. They seem to have this image of PZ standing up in class one day, poking a hole in the cracker, and thence declaring that there is no God after all - just like in the infamous "atheist professor and the chalk" story, but without the happy ending where God interferes and keeps the chalk from breaking, or, in this case, I guess, makes the wafer start bleeding. A few of the atheists appear to be framing it this way as well, as a refutation of the existence of God (approvingly, or disapprovingly.) No, it's not that. At least, that's not how I see it.
One of the most common methods of trying to convince someone they've made a moral error is through analogy: how would YOU feel in a similar situation, one that was only slightly altered to fit into your own feelings and prejudices? If you would not want it done to you, then you should not do it to others. This is usually a pretty reasonable approach which most people intuitively relate to. Unless you can put yourself in someone else's place, you're not going to understand why their reasons are reasonable, for you as well as them. And, of course, Pharyngula has seen more than its share of analogies from the Catholic side - some of them downright bizarre (cough*cough*Rooke*cough) and some of them simply inapplicable. Many of them miss the point by leaving out the context.
So I'm going to try out a new analogy - a hypothetical -- which both focuses on the context, and takes the situation out of the comfort zone of the typical Pharyngulite. No, it's not the same situation in many respects - there are significant differences - but it's a similar situation with altered variables; in this case, a different sacred cow, and a different offended group. I'm curious as to whether the people here think it works, and agree with my conclusion. It would be especially interesting to see if anyone who was and is offended by the desecration now sees a commonality where they didn't see it before.
What if it had been this way:
A devout Christian student at a public university named Winslow Cork goes to an on-campus meeting of the Gay-Lesbian Support Group. He accepts the rainbow pin they give him, and then, when they ask him to tell his story, he announces that he is a Christian, and he is going to support them by warning them that homosexuality is a sin, and that those who don't repent will burn in hell. He contemptuously turns the pin upside down, puts it on, and leaves.
Reaction is swift - and intense. This particular gay support group doesn't just call him a snot and yell at him to never come back. They swing into action. Cork's name is publicized, and he is accused of being a bigot, and worse. His actions are compared to the murder of Matthew Shepard, and what the Nazis did. The argument is that people who are often victimized have been attacked, and therefore it should be treated as a serious attack. The campus gay rights activists demand that Cork be charged with a hate crime, and expelled from the university. After all, he violated the sanctuary of those who are understandably sensitive to such violations. Cork is inundated with hate mail, starts getting death threats, and returns the rainbow pin, hoping things will calm down.
Instead, a nationally syndicated gay rights columnist joins in, and, rather than expressing horror over the death threats, only escalates the matter. This kid and his disrespectful, hate-filled religious viewpoint should not be expressed in an America where all citizens respect each other. Religion should be a purely private matter, kept behind closed doors. Speaking out and hurting the feelings of those who prefer the same sex by telling them they're damned to hell is un-American. It violates their rights. This incident will be used to send a message, and hopefully get the law involved.
In another university, a humanities professor named XY Nyers reads about this, and is appalled. He's a Christian, and is furious at the over-reaction. Enough is enough. There is no right to not be offended by religion. Whether Cork should have gone into that room or not, informing gay people that the Bible condemns them should not be considered criminal hate speech, or treated like an act of violence. This point needs be made, and forcefully. He then vows on his popular website to film himself reading Leviticus out loud while he breaks apart a Gay-Lesbian Support Group rainbow pin - and he does it.
Cue more hysterical reaction from the same faction of the gay rights crowd. This professor clearly should not be teaching - how could he possibly be fair to his gay students? He needs to respect others, no matter what their sexual orientation - and that means keeping his offensive opinions private, both in class and in his personal life. There are death threats and brow-beating and people asking why, WHY this professor would do this? It's gratuitously insulting, and only makes him look like a kook, and Christians look like bigots. He knew damn well it would hurt others, and piss people off, and result in death threats. Is pissing that many people off to make his point worthwhile?
I say yes. In this case, under these circumstances, it would be worth it. And I am an atheist who is in favor of gay rights, and want people to be sensitive and respectful to different sexual orientations. But I deliberately chose a protagonist and story I have less sympathy for, to illustrate that it's not simply about rooting for a "side." You have to take context into account.
If I didn't think the over-reaction to Cork's rudeness was unjustified, and if I could not support, understand, and even respect Prof. Nyers' actions IN CONTEXT -- then I would not be doing the same for PZ Myers. And if I accept that Myers can still be a fair and respectful teacher, then I would accept the same with Nyers. Absent other evidence, and given the situation, there is no reason to think otherwise.
And it should apply both ways.
As I see it, the fundamental matter is not simply a clash of "world views." Professor Myers and Professor Nyers could theoretically both be Unitarians, with beliefs unknown - and still do the same thing, and still be right to do so. It should not be about which side is getting their ox gored, or who is getting their panties in a twist. The real issue at stake isn't crackers, or gay rights, or religion, or the importance of showing 'respect.'
It's about the importance of not always showing kid-glove respect, and of keeping our sense of proportion, and knowing the difference between someone attacking what you do or believe, and someone attacking you. And I think that's worthwhile, from every vantage point.
Comments
Posted by: MH | August 13, 2008 8:35 AM
Great news:
No expulsion for UCF student who stole Eucharist wafer
Posted by: echidna | August 13, 2008 8:38 AM
To make the analogy even closer, Winslow Cork would be gay himself, and would have been part of the gay community for a long time.
Posted by: mewletter | August 13, 2008 8:46 AM
Nice little story about a Christian & a gay-lesbian support group. You Americans are so lucky that you have a Bill of Rights, especially the Freedom of Speech. Having the Right to say out what's on one's mind without fearing of risk of going to jail or even losing own life is truly a gift most valued.
And of course I agreed whole-heartedly on the last paragraph.
Posted by: Sigmund | August 13, 2008 8:46 AM
I just wonder of PZ could have handled it in a more thoughtful manner. Whatever his intentions of showing the silliness of treating a bread product as an object to be worshiped as a God, his actions allowed a lot of people to claim he was intentionally trying to offend them.
I don't have an obvious alternative - my first thoughts were to do a DNA test on the cracker and to announce it couldn't have been a consecrated one as it failed to show Jesus' DNA.
That probably wouldn't have worked either but the objective here should have been to demonstrate to catholics the ridiculousness of the transubstantiation story, to at least force them to think about what it predicts regarding the cracker. OK, maybe the way he did it worked as well as any other way but I still have a feeling that it could have been done in a less heavy handed way and put the onus on the superstitious to make the case that the bread was God.
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | August 13, 2008 8:54 AM
Although I essentially agree with your point, I think your analogy fails in one crucial regard in so far as having those of a religious bent accept it as valid.
LBGT groups do not believe that their pins have metaphysical characteristics that make them more than a mere physical entity. Oh, they believe it is symbolic of certain beliefs, but they do not, as far as I know, ascribe any inherant properties other than symbolism. I'm sure LGBT people might feel hurt by the lack of respect but they wouldn't claim there was some great woo-powered difference that elevated the offence above an act of disrespect to desecration. They would probably think you were a kingsized fuckwit, but they wouldn't think more than that.
I suspect this is the objection that will be raised.
There will also be some people who are horrified at the notion that they and a gay person could possibly be considered similar in any regard whatsoever, but then, they're just kingsized fuckwits.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | August 13, 2008 8:57 AM
OMFSM! Nyers stole the rainbow pin! It is not just given away, you know -- you are supposed to wear it. By giving it other use, Nyers broke the implicit contract and that is actionable. Nyers should restitute the pin immediately and apologize for his insensitive behavior.
I'll organize a Gay Pride Parade for him.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 13, 2008 8:58 AM
BaldySlaphead @ #5:
Hey now! As a kingsized fuckwit, I resent being compared to homophobes!
Posted by: Mike | August 13, 2008 8:59 AM
Nice analogy. No one has a right not to be offended.
There is one small point I'd like to make, however, and that is that there is a fundamental difference between crazy beliefs in an invisible god (and his manifestation as a cracker) and sexual orientation (or, for that matter, gender, physical or mental handicap, etc).
Making fun of someone's beliefs is not in any way comparable with making fun of someone's intrinsic characteristics. The homophobes in your analogy are bigots because sexual orientation is not a belief; it is an intrinsic component of a person's real physical makeup. Being Catholic is not.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 13, 2008 9:00 AM
MH @ #1: That's excellent news. And you know what? If it wasn't for PZ' publicizing the matter, Webster Cook likely would have been expelled, because up until PZ got hold of the matter, UCF was hearing almost exclusively from people who wanted to fry Cook alive.
Posted by: Michael | August 13, 2008 9:01 AM
Another analogy, and I apologize if it's been used, is burning a flag. A flag is a colored piece of cloth. The only reason it's important is the its symbolic meaning. Certain Americans get quite enraged when they see a piece of colored cloth being burned that has the same design as their flag. Change the design, nobody cares.
As for the Catholics, to us it's a piece of bread, or a cracker as PZ calls it. To them it's more than a symbol but it's their actual God. I don't agree with it but I respect their right to believe it.
I thought PZ went over the line in this latest action. As Atheists we have to show we're better than the religious community.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 13, 2008 9:04 AM
I do like your analogy, Sastra - it at least gets close to what I suspect some (or even most) christians would have felt about the scenario. I, for one, would consider the person (in your story) rude - but in no way deserving of the vicious attacks - and I would not support the action taken against him. He physically harmed no-one nor broke any laws, and the only action the gay rights group have the right to take is to choose not to invite him to any further functions.
However, as an analogy to the cracker incident it only deals with some of what we saw here and elsewhere.
Really, I don't think I've ever seen more analogies that completely missed the point (other than those of the über-sicko Pete Rooke; that man has some issues) than those put forward by the crackerites in the wake of the Webster Cook incident - even before the Great Desecration™.
And this isn't necessarily their fault - I think that it's such an alien concept for anyone vaguely rational that there just isn't an appropriate analogy to put it into perspective for non-believers.
It wasn't the mocking of their beliefs or the fear their
antiquated ooga-boogasolemn religious ceremony would be interrupted by cracker-grabbing atheists; it was that many of them believed that both PZ and Webster Cook were capable of actually hurting jesus by taking the eucharist.The papist blogs reflected the strange desperation; one of them expressed a desire to get some hardass Opus Dei monks (like the one in The Da Vinci Code) to 'kick down the door to go rescue Our Lord'.
Mindboggling isn't a strong enough word.
In that sense your analogy - and every analogy we can come up with - is going to fall short. Because, when it comes down to it, we can't make up shit as crazy as what those people believe and have it make any sense at all.
Posted by: speedwell | August 13, 2008 9:06 AM
Oh Nooooes, Sastra, yer analigy idn't purrfeck enuff!! (heh.)
It was great and helpful and I enjoyed it very much.
Posted by: Sastra | August 13, 2008 9:08 AM
BaldySlaphead #5 wrote:
Right -- that's one of the "significant differences." On the other side, though, Catholics in the US usually don't have to talk about "being in the closet" or hiding their Catholicism lest they be assaulted or not hired for a job.
I think there were several rationales behind PZ's actions: it doesn't just reduce to this one. But it seems that too many of his critics fail to recognize that the 'protest of the protest' aspect was the catalyst, and it's one that they themselves may be able to respect and relate to, when put into another context.
Posted by: Lee Harrison | August 13, 2008 9:10 AM
That was beautifully done, Sastra - an excellent parallel case. Of course, as you undoubtedly know, it won't make a dent in the dense armour plate surrounding the minds of the Bill Donohues of the world but we can hope that it will help other, more thoughtful, people.
Sigmund - I think the problem with your DNA test idea is that it's testing a strawman. Catholics do not believe that the cracker becomes meat - it is acknowledged among catholics that the cracker is still a cracker in all physical aspects. It is the essence that becomes one with the essence of God. Of course, exactly what the fuck that actually means I have yet to hear - it's a fairly cool bit of untestable, irrefutable-by-design doublethink that can only seem plausible to people already prepared to find it so. I thinks it's a great example of the fact that just because an idea or concept can be stated in a grammatically correct sentence it does not necessarily follow that the concept actually makes sense.
Personally, I think PZ's response was as measured as necessary given the appalling behaviour of the catholics involved in the Cook incident.
MS - thanks for the link (even if I do have to wash my internet connection after visiting a Faux News site). Good to see that sense (and possibly the fear of very well publicised and expensive lawsuits?) have prevailed in the US. Would it be too cheeky for a non-US citizen to note that this seems to be an increasingly rare occurence? ;)
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | August 13, 2008 9:15 AM
Sastra, again I agree entirely with what you're saying, but I suspect that people will use the small point about these alleged trancendent, homeopathic properties of their crackers to disregard all the rest of your very sensible words.
I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: rutty | August 13, 2008 9:17 AM
A very thoughtful, and constructive, response. Thank you!
Good news about Cork, er Cook, too ;)
Posted by: bric | August 13, 2008 9:21 AM
Stephen Fry summed this up in a debate with Christopher Hitchens a couple of years ago - this was after speaking of his distress at finding his great-grandparents' graves had been desecrated by anti-semites - 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?'
Posted by: Lab Rat | August 13, 2008 9:23 AM
Wow. I am very impressed. This is a very good and very intelligent look at just how we view these things.
My only comment would be that an action like that probably wouldn't provoke quite the same amount of outrage purely because the rainbow pin is, even to the people who wear it, probably not much more than a pin. Some of the people who sent the ... oddest of the hate mail to PZ actually were adament in believing that the thing he's put a nail through actually was a bit of the bosy of their god.
To be honest though, if gods body can cope with the average persons entire digestive tract then a small rusty nail should not really be a problem.
I do agree with your conclusions though. Over-reaction against either the Pin-attacking christian of your analogy or the actual cracker-desacrating person in real life is distinctly over the top.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 13, 2008 9:26 AM
Hmm. Crackergate must be winding down. I actually get in on one of the first 100 comments.
Even better, PZ could have saved the cracker and tested it for tetanus after having used a rusty nail to pierce it.
Nice analogy, Sastra.
And yes, UCF showed some good sense.
Posted by: Blondin | August 13, 2008 9:29 AM
I think this paraphrased statement of Lee Harrison's would make a great signature line.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | August 13, 2008 9:32 AM
I think another analogy (imperfect as it is) is with the notion of "blaspheming the name of God." In a similar way as how the host is not just a piece of bread for Catholics, "God" is not just a word for many religious people, and should not be used in casual conversation. Many even avoid to write it, using "G-d" or some circumlocution instead. Sure enough, they don't like it when other people toss "oh my God"s around. But there's a difference between not liking it and accusing those other people of being bigoted and gulilty of hate crimes, and demanding that they should not be allowed to teach.
Posted by: ThatsMrKāfirToYou | August 13, 2008 9:33 AM
I think the analogy is useful, but while I would tend to agree with mike @ #8, in that no one has the right not to be offended, and about the lack of history or attributes for the Rainbow flag (Maybe a Pink triangle would be better?)
I think the main failing of the analogy is that the action of the professor in reading Leviticus and breaking badges would be neither original, shocking or even novel, and so just wouldn't cause the same level of offence or shock, we see Pulpit-screamers and politicians doing the metaphorical badge breaking on TV none stop, think the Phelps family "god hates" protests, linguistics of "gay for bad" etc.
Maybe If we were all to get ourselves consecrated crackers and play with them in our own special way, the focus of attention on each individual act of cracker abuse would be reduced, in the same way the actions of any one Preacher/teacher/politician being a screaming homophobe is.
As I re-read, I think the analogy is interesting, but no matter what it is wrong to issue any sort of physical threat. There can be no circumstance I can imagine which could Justify them!
I hope some of that made sense, Im new to Pharyngula but i'm loving the reading matter.
Dan
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | August 13, 2008 9:34 AM
A generally sound analogy, as analogies go, but it doesn't really ring true for me. Gays are an oppressed minority barely beginning to flex a bit of political muscle and gain a bit of social acceptance. The Church, despite the Christian propensity for crying persecution at the drop of a wafer, is anything but an oppressed minority. There is a huge disparity in the power relationship between the gay community and society at large and the Church and society at large. I also think that far fewer, and a much smaller proportion, of gays would react in such an ill-tempered way to "desecration" of a symbol.
On another note, the Faux news headline that Cook "stole" the cracker implies that some sort of crime was committed. He "stole" nothing. It's that sort of mischaracterization that keeps people wrongly informed of what really happened.
Posted by: Sastra | August 13, 2008 9:35 AM
Michael #10 wrote:
But what I'm curious about is whether you think Professor Nyers also went over the line, in the story? He also caused great offense, to some people (although there was no emotional investment in a symbol per se.)
The flag analogy you bring up is a good one, but with one significant difference, I think. PZ's act was more similar to burning a flag to protest a "Flag Protection Amendment," which makes burning or otherwise desecrating an American flag a criminal act. Would causing offense in that more direct protest situation be evaluated differently by you, than if someone were to offend the patriotic by burning a flag to, say, protest the war?
Posted by: SC | August 13, 2008 9:42 AM
Thanks, MH @ #1 - hopping good news about Cook and Collard.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 13, 2008 9:43 AM
As much as I support PZ in his actions, I do think it was better when he was only threatening to desecrate it - because that way their threats and protestations and stupid analogies and cries of bigotry were made even more ludicrous because nothing had actually happened. By doing it he gave them a level of validity they didn't have before.
Posted by: scooter | August 13, 2008 9:43 AM
It was the Gays' fault all along!!!
I told YOU!!!
God HaTES Them.
--Fred Phelps
Posted by: Cheezits | August 13, 2008 9:44 AM
To them it's more than a symbol but it's their actual God. I don't agree with it but I respect their right to believe it.
I don't respect that one bit. If you have to worship something, at least do yourself a favor and worship something that deserves it, like a transcendant God or even Jesus, not some piece of bread that any idiot can just toss in the dumpster. Christians are supposed to glorify God. How is reducing God to a cracker supposed to do that? My first thought when I saw the picture of the so-called desecration was "That's IT??" That little thing? That's their God?
People go on and on and on about how PZ "hates Catholics". He isn't the one who painted that big target on their souls, who made them believe something that is literally *unbelievable* in every sense of the word. He didn't make them so dependant on a twisted religious doctrine that we have to "respect" their beliefs lest they fall apart. If anyone hates Catholics, it's the church itself.
Posted by: qbsmd | August 13, 2008 9:46 AM
Maybe instead of just breaking up the pin, if XY Nyers had encouraged people to go to LGBT meetings, take pins, carve pentagrams on them, and then display them it would be better?
I was wondering, are you guys competing for who can start the thread that gets the most comments while PZ is gone?
Posted by: Tom | August 13, 2008 9:54 AM
I think an analogy of flag burning would bring your point across even more efficiently, though I still disagree with you. Flag burning is really something that everybody can relate to, and it can really piss people off.
Even if I see someone burning my nations flag, I really don't care, though I might not especially like it. It is their right to burn it. It's a freaking piece of cloth. Any value or emotions attributed to it, is subjective, and should not offend me.
Posted by: Lynnai | August 13, 2008 9:55 AM
I agree with you (as I believe does the law in most if not all of the western world), but would Bill Donohue? :)
Posted by: nobi yuno | August 13, 2008 9:57 AM
This was a smart and measured post. I completely agree that this is a complicated issue. I understand PZ's motivation, and yes, context is very important.
Politeness is a civic virtue, and PZ's actions were impolite in the extreme. The virtue of politeness is not always supreme, however. Many times in the past he has made clear his extreme dislike of superstition, and it's pretty clear to me that PZ's beliefs are to him no less important than that windbag Bill Donahue's beliefs are to him.
At the end of the day, the contents of PZ's message were serious and the motivation was serious. This was not a sectarian attack. Back to your point about context, I've asked myself more than once, what if it were the Star of David he had desecrated - how would I feel then? But the context is different, majorities are not minorities, and motivation matters. A Christian or Muslim professor desecrating a Jewish symbol would certainly motivate me to have him fired, because the history of antisemitism demonstrates that such acts are dangerous in and of themselves, and because an implied act of violence against a small minority is a much more dire thing than an act of desecration made by a member of a minority (an atheist) against the overwhelming majority (Christians).
Nothing about this is black and white, but I do come down on PZ's side...and I hope and expect he won't do it again.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 13, 2008 9:59 AM
It's about the importance of not always showing kid-glove respect, and of keeping our sense of proportion, and knowing the difference between someone attacking what you do or believe, and someone attacking you.
Hmmm. Maybe I am what I do or believe.
Unless...
"You do a fraction of what you are, you suffer a dreary ooze of your being into doing." - Samuel Beckett.
Posted by: agp | August 13, 2008 10:00 AM
Nice analogy!
Unfortunately your link to snopes.com got me sidetracked to a further link to Chick publications, and that caused me to waste most of my day reading tracts. Crazy stuff. But he does have one commenting on the entire eucharist issue. Not exactly full of brotherly love, but that's standard for Chick tracts I guess: The Death Cookie
Posted by: qbsmd | August 13, 2008 10:01 AM
Posted by: Mike
Making fun of someone's beliefs is not in any way comparable with making fun of someone's intrinsic characteristics. The homophobes in your analogy are bigots because sexual orientation is not a belief; it is an intrinsic component of a person's real physical makeup. Being Catholic is not.
Would you argue that people have a choice in what they believe? Anyone can choose to convert to any religion for any reason, e.g. potential politicians converting to Chrisitianity, but can people choose what to actually believe in the same way? I don't really think so; the closest people get is probably selecting what information to expose themselves to and confirmation bias.
Posted by: scooter | August 13, 2008 10:01 AM
I am making up commemorative buttons, Eucharist with protruding nail, and will be bartering them for drinks and whatever else in Long Beach, end of Sept.
I will have 2 versions.
Eucharist pierced by nail, and for agnostics: Eucharist pierced by nail, with tiny blood droplet at entrance wound.
If you're going, bring something cool to trade.
-scooter
BTW:
on the war thread:
Georgia decided to go west with their OIL, and were building a pipeline directly west from the oilfields in Ossetia, thereby cutting Russia out of the loop.
Russia staged a fake breakaway revolution, then rolled in to quell it.
I think it was somewhat naive of the Georgians for two reasons
1. To think they might get away with it, and not simply paying Russia their cut, aka corporate extortion racket reference planet Earth.
2. Assuming the West would not end up fucking them over worse than Russia in petroleum trading.
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 13, 2008 10:02 AM
Well written.
I hope the people who really need it, read it.
Posted by: scooter | August 13, 2008 10:08 AM
it's a piece of bread, or a cracker as PZ calls it. To them it's more than a symbol but it's their actual God. I don't agree with it but I respect their right to believe it.And the swastika is a revered symbol with actual mystical implications for US neo nazis. So you would disagree with somebody desecrating a Nazi Flag as a an act of public protest?
You think if a Jewish person did that they would be going too far?
Posted by: Ally McBeelzebub | August 13, 2008 10:11 AM
I like the analogy. But I disagree with the conclusion.
The moment Nyers went for his public pin-desecration it was a foregone conclusion that the action itself would entirely eclipse the preceding events in the public mind. So I don't have much sympathy with the shouts of "remember the context, remember the context".
Whether it was his intent of not, it was inevitable that he would be seen as having made a public display of gay-hatred... and even if he's not a gay-hater, you gotta say that's not a clever position to put yourself in.
If we add into the mix that Nyers is a traditional Christian with old-school views on homosexuality (less than full-blown hatred but a long, long way short of approving of gay marriage), and if he runs a blog which is very popular with genuine gay-haters who are only too happy to interpret his acts in that way, then that only adds to the suggestion that maybe his choice of protest wasn't the right one.
Put it this way: the question for me is not whether his actions were justified, but whether they were sensible or useful. I'm all for campaigning against injustice, but there are different ways of doing it, and some of them have significant down-sides.
Posted by: nobi yuno | August 13, 2008 10:12 AM
Scooter, PZ's point was was serious and important - hold nothing sacred. And he didn't just take after the cracker, he desecrated a Koran and destroyed a Dawkins book. He was making a legitimate point.
But what you're doing - if you're serious - is just infantile provokation. It is not an ecumenical assault on the idea of sacredness, but a sectarian assault on the beliefs of a specific group of people.
Grow up.
Posted by: D Duke | August 13, 2008 10:14 AM
Keep the hate alive, sista!
Don't just let it die, stir it up now and again!
Damn Catholics, jews, black, gays, whatever you don't like...
Posted by: AndyD | August 13, 2008 10:16 AM
No, sorry, the analogy is fundamentally flawed. You have tried to apply rational analogy to an essentially irrational situation. As others have pointed out, no one believes a pin is a living thing and therefore, no one believes it can be kidnapped or held hostage.
Despite the fact that billions of wafers are transmogrified, devoured, digested and defecated every year, people believe that borrowing just one of them amounts to abduction. Is there really any rational analogy you can use to explain away the consequences of such abduction?
The only people you'll convince are those who already agree with "your side".
Posted by: scooter | August 13, 2008 10:18 AM
#40
It's just a futtin' Button
Posted by: Randy | August 13, 2008 10:25 AM
It's a good analogy, I think, and Sastra is right. Anyone who is honest with themself would agree... but I somehow doubt any of the screechers are going to change their minds.
Posted by: Michael | August 13, 2008 10:26 AM
Of course it's silly that Catholics worship a cracker or that some Americans venerate a piece of colored cloth. I find the beliefs bizarre, but in a free society I must respect their right to believe it.
But Atheists must not use cheap theatrics to make their point. Why not try to ask leading Catholic politicians if they think that a piece of bread is their God and the creator of the universe. Put them on the spot and show their beliefs as the nonsense they are. (And of course it's not just Catholics).
By staging such theatrics it polarizes people, alienates potential converts to rationalism and re-inforces believers preconceptions about atheists.
As Atheists our most important action is to state clearly and rationally to anyone who will listen that there is no God (or Gods) and that it's perfectly acceptable and rational to acknowledge that. Stunts have no part in that discourse.
Posted by: Per-Erik Svensson | August 13, 2008 10:27 AM
I think the real objection here is that a cracker isn't a symbol of anything since it's just a cracker. A pin with a certain coloration and form on the other hand is a symbol.
There just isn't anything special with a cracker. A flag is something special. Both in the fact that it symbolizes something in the real world and in the fact that it is distinguishable from other pieces of cloth. A pin also symbolizes something real, in the example, a group of people. It is also distinguishable from other pieces of pin-shaped metals.
The analogy would be better if it wasn't a pin but say a bucket of water that the people at the meating saw as "blessed" because some certain homosexual had touched it. There just is now way to distinguish that certain bucket of water and any other bucket of water. It's impossible to distinguish because the symbolism lies in the superstitious delusion that this bucket of water is special.
Of course we can now argue about the Quaran bit of Myers act. This is kind of bad style whichever book you take. Not because this book is "holy" or "special" in any other way than The God Delusion, but because books often stand for a set of ideas that should be kept intact, although we should always meet them with scepticism. Destroying books isn't bad because it's insulting, it's bad because we just don't burn books.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 13, 2008 10:31 AM
Destroying books isn't bad because it's insulting, it's bad because we just don't burn books.
Is it ok to put them in the recycling bin? I've had old versions of textbooks, water damaged books and others that weren't re-sellable, not very useful, and that I certainly wasn't going to be keeping as I moved from one apartment to the other. I tossed 'em in the recycling bin; I threw them away. Enough with the fetishism.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 13, 2008 10:33 AM
I have an analogy: suppose a particular cult gets started that believes chunky peanut butter, when spread with a silver butter knife that a priest has chanted magical words over, becomes more than just chunky peanut butter; it becomes the golden, nuggety life essence of one's ancestors. When consumed with pure, whole milk, (that has also been chanted over) this magical nuttiness imbues one with the wisdom of the ancients. (And if not properly eaten, the ancestral spirits will writhe in pain.)
The ceremony of Sacred Chunkiness is purposely violated by an uninitiated heathen, and outrage and death threats follow.
What actions would be taken to put a lid on such obvious nonsense and keep it from spreading? Heh
You don't want to actually hurt them; they are deluded and not thinking straight. They have fallen prey to charismatic charlatans. But if left unchecked, the "Nutters" will try to infiltrate science and teach peanut butter instead of physics. They will try to get us into a war with those who think smooth peanut butter is more sacred. Something has to be done, but what?
One way is to poke the beliefs with a stick--without harming anybody real, or threatening harm in any way. Throw some Sacred Chunky Peanut Butter in a garbage can and let the cult's ensuing reaction speak for itself, so that all can see how ugly and silly and medieval the whole thing is.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | August 13, 2008 10:34 AM
Michael @10,
To [RCs the wafer is] more than a symbol but it's their actual God. I don't agree with it but I respect their right to believe it
You're entirely right, and Cheezits @28 has misread you. But have you thought through what your words imply? They aren't really an argument against sticking pins through wafers.
What you haven't said is that you respect RC beliefs about their wafers. You've said that you respect their right to believe those things. Very different proposals altogether.
Respecting the right of others to believe (or not believe) as they see fit is fundamental to a liberal, pluralist political order. There are few institutions I detest more than the RC church, but in the extremely unlikely event that a government tried to enact laws (say) denying the vote to people who refused to renounce RCism, I would object very strongly, and I hope everybody else here would as well.
Respecting the beliefs themselves is another matter. To respect another's beliefs, one must share them, or at least think them a sort of "honourable error". There are some religious beliefs I'd class in the latter category. For example, Christians (or at least some of them) believe that by working self-sacrificingly to allevate the plight of the poor and sick, they participate in Jesus's love for mankind. I think that belief wrong, because I don't believe that Jesus has any love for mankind or anything else, though possibly he did before he died a couple of millennia ago. But, though I think the belief wrong, I can see that it is motivated by a desire for the good, and that it can inspire objectively good acts. So yes, it merits some respect.
By contrast, believing a wafer turns into God Almighty Himself -- and in a way that by definition can never, in any way, be observed or verified empirically to boot! -- is just plain stupid. (Indeed, it's not only unworthy of respect from a non-religious perspective, it's off the reservation even from the perspective of almost all non-catholic Christians.) It is a belief on par with the conviction that stepping on a crack will break your mama's back, and worthy of exactly as much respect.
The more difficult question is the one that falls in between those two. Can we respect people who hold beliefs that we can't respect? I don't think there's a single answer here. It comes down to whether the respect-worthy stuff outweighs the ludicrous stuff. But in any case, one doesn't respect the ludicrous stuff itself, whilst one does respect the person's right to believe that sort of thing if they want to.
Posted by: ryanb | August 13, 2008 10:35 AM
I'll admit I went to UCF. When I was there we had a tradition, "speaking on the green". In the front of the school, near the admin building and big fountains, anybody could set up shop, and scream whatever they wanted at the top of their lungs. To a kid getting out in the world for the first time it was quite exciting. You got to here all kinds of different extreme views.
Needless to say I sat through many a diatribe about how, "gays are looking to infect you.", etc... One day there was a group with aborted baby fetus pictures 6+ feet tall. Several of them. I heard many dialogs about how we were all going to hell, etc. Satan wanted us to use condoms, masterbation is a deadly sin. You name it, some preacher would go to the green and say it.
What I'm getting at is they loudly professed all kinds of "evils" of gays/lesbians. Most the students just stood around giggling at the stupidity pouring from these people, but I never saw any real reaction.
I think your analogy is only apt in that it shows how over the top ridiculous the religious are being. They already do the exact thing they are insinuating this kid *MAY* have been doing. When it's their bigotry, they are fine with it. It's only bigotry against them that they have issue with.
Posted by: nobi yuno | August 13, 2008 10:36 AM
Parts of this conversation - especially Scooter's - reflect little more than a deliberate embrace of ignorance. That's a trait I usually associate with conservatives.
Scooter, and PZ actually, are you denying that human beings engage in abstract thought and think symbolically? Do you deny that symbols exist? Does it surprise you that a discrete thing can come to represent a large and complex set of views?
Look, you cannot have it both ways. You can use the power of symbols to make your point - abusing a cracker, making juvenile buttons of the eucharist - and then, when somebody objects, pretend to be surprised and say, hey, it's just a cracker or a button.
Don't be coy. You know exactly what you're doing.
I'm an atheist too. PZ was right that sacred thinking is dangerous, and it ought to be countered. But this deliberate embrace of ignorance, where we're all supposed to pretend that only fundamentalists think symbolically or attach importance to certain objects, is just retarded.
I visited a former slave shack in South Carolina a few years ago. The shackles were still attached to the walls - that's an image I will never forget, and it's hard to describe the impact those objects had on my psyche, but trusts me. And I saw some teenagers goofing around with them, and I wanted to deck them. Physical violence was not justified and I didn't do anything of the kind, but the reaction I felt was profound - it was because those dumb kids were disrespecting an important symbol, sacred in a human sense if not a supernatural sense.
I'm not talking about whether they had a right to do what they did, I'm talking about whether you're too dense to understand that symbols matter. You apparently are.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 13, 2008 10:38 AM
Nicely done, Sastra, although I would add that your story provides a lower bound rather than an analogy - at every step, the actions of Webster Cook and PZ Myers were at least as justified as the actions of Winslow Cork and XY Nyers, and most of them were more justified. I could argue every detail of that with confidence, but I don't want to preach to the choir here.
I brought up the analogy with gay rights early on, at the end of this post, but from a different perspective. The point I was making was that it is unacceptable to argue that an act can be unethical because some people get upset (or even pained) by mere knowledge/awareness of it:
This goes to the heart of the "I am offended" argument, to which a lot of liberals are unfortunately very receptive.BTW, I wrote several other posts on the Wafergate issue, and I would be very interested in your comments.
Posted by: Iain Walker | August 13, 2008 10:40 AM
Michael (#10):
There's respect, and then there's respect. Catholics may have a right to believe as they do, and I imagine that most of us here would defend that right (and also the right to practice the rituals that revolve around their beliefs, where said practice does not infringe on the rights of others). That's one form of respect, and one to which they are entitled.
But they're not entitled to respect for their beliefs if "respect" is meant to entail exemption of those beliefs from criticism. Nor are they entitled to "respect" for their beliefs if that is meant to entail that their beliefs be taken seriously - that kind of respect needs to be earned, by showing that those beliefs are at least vaguely reasonable.
One could argue for civility even when criticising unreasonable beliefs, if only to maintain an atmosphere in which reasoned discourse is possible, and there's certainly something to be said for that. But in a situation (e.g., Crackergate) when one's opponents have no apparent desire to engage in reasoned discourse, then it's not clear that civility is always going to remain one's best option for making one's point, or even for getting heard.
That was my initial reaction during the early stages of the affair. But then came the real outpourings of sanctimonious, hysterical, knee-jerk Catholic group-think (not to mention the threats), and when PZ did get round to The Great Desecration, it wasn't gratuitous or desecration for the sake of desecration - he used it to underline a worthwhile point. So in my book, PZ comes out well ahead.
Posted by: Lee Harrison | August 13, 2008 10:41 AM
Per-Erik Svenson @46
I have to disagree - anything can be a symbol. You say later that a flag is a symbol because it symbolises something special - is this because people have taken the time and effort to design and colour it, as with the pin? If so, what about a white flag? Its symbolism is well known but no one had to make it special - it's a symbol of surrender or parlay because enough people have agreed that it is so to make it generally recognisable as such.
The issue isn't whether a cracker is a symbol or not because it clearly is for a lot of people wether we share that symbolism with them or not. The question is - so what if it's a symbol?
Posted by: Moses | August 13, 2008 10:41 AM
There's one deal-breaker in the analogy: People don't choose to be gay (or black or any other oppressed racial/gender group based solely on the accident of birth). Now, maybe if you used the Young Republicans, or Communists, or Libertarians it might of worked out better. After all, being a one of those is a choice.
But once you equate matter of choice with matters of birth, you're going to fall flat on your face.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | August 13, 2008 10:42 AM
The question; "Could PZ have been more thoughtful" invites an irrelevant truism. Of course he could have been more thoughtful, more sensitive, gentler, kinder, etc. It is to insist that he be someone else, that he do what I would do, that there is one, single right answer to the question of "how to protest?"
But protest is by nature disruptive, confrontational, offensive. To be effective protest has to cross lines. Lots of good people won't "get it" but it carves out space for people who are afraid to express their doubts. It lets the worst offenders know they don't have a free pass. You don't hack a road through the jungle with a nail file; you use chainsaws. Somebody else will pave it later.
(Less ecologically harmful analogies than the jungle road one are welcome.)
Posted by: Mike | August 13, 2008 10:45 AM
@35
Yes. One is free to choose what god(s) one believes in. One is not free to choose skin colour, physical or mental handicap, gender, or sexual orientation. They are not comparable.
Belief in a particular god or gods is no different than support for a particular political party or sports team (actually, it's LESS consequential because political parties and sports teams actually exist!). I am not expected to cherish other people's political views; no one would call me a bigot for ridiculing someone's fiscal policy, for example. But for some reason, calling a cracker a cracker is "offensive"? Give me a break.
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | August 13, 2008 10:47 AM
I disagree with the analogy, because the 'Christian' character carried it farther than Cook did. If it were a bit closer of an analogy (Goes in, takes the pin, doesn't don it, and is kicked out because people think he might be a bigot, blah blah blah), then sure, I'd support "Nyers" for demonstrating the ridiculousness of the entire affair.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 13, 2008 10:47 AM
Michael:
There is a big difference between respecting the right to believe something and respecting the belief itself. I agree with you that we must respect their right, but that in no way implies that we shouldn't ridicule their beliefs. Respecting the right to believe simply means that we don't discriminate against the people who hold those beliefs or treat them worse for those beliefs outside the context pertinent for the discussion of those beliefs.
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 13, 2008 10:48 AM
I think analogies don't help in this situation. It should be simple. Death threats are several orders of magnitude worse than mere rudeness or insult. To criticize the insult and ignore the threats is absurd. Particularly when the insult was a response to the threats.
Posted by: Susan | August 13, 2008 10:51 AM
You left out the part where they physically assault Cork to try and get the pin back. That helps with context because you see how both how important the symbol is to them, and the initial boundaries of civility they crossed to enforce their views.
Posted by: Laser Potato | August 13, 2008 10:54 AM
...this whole incident has got me thinking. How would they respond if you asked them to reccomend a good cheese to go with the cracker?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 13, 2008 10:55 AM
I have to agree with moses on this one. I like the analogy but I think it has issues in that choice to believe vs. born "that way" makes a big difference.
Maybe not to the people being offended, but to reality.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 13, 2008 11:12 AM
I understand this "other side" analysis of Crackergate. I would say that given such a situation where a GLBT group came down hard on someone like that, and tried to get them exposed and expelled would be an overreach. A person who did such would not be someone I'd necessarily trust given his/her actions, but it's not like he/she was committing violence. And the disruption, though unfortunate and insensitive, would be just one of those unfortunate things that many a group has to deal with.
We see this in many facets of political debate. The "Nazi" argument has become the debate strategy de jour for many people, and the "communist/socialist" charge is nearly as common. Other words that are thrown around with abandon are "anti-semite", "bigot", and a few obvious others. These are all seemingly easy things to throw around. I'm not sure why it is this way, but I'm inclined to take stock in the explanation that says it's partly due to a lack of civics instruction in school. The stratification of the political landscape in America that's been happening since the mid 60s has a lot to do with it.
Another way of looking at this scenario would be, what would you do if someone called your mother a whore/slut/fill-in-the-blank to your face? Would you get violent? Would you say "whatever" and walk away? Would you laugh and point? What would be your response? If someone created effigies of historical figures you admired, what would be your reaction? I think it's rather easy to consider other forms of this scenario, and make a reasonable determination on our individual reactions, and what responses would be/not be warranted.
Posted by: uncle frogy | August 13, 2008 11:13 AM
I appreciate the effort of trying to bring out the context as important. but I found the analogy of gay rights group vs christian not so good flags maybe . It seemed to unlikely the reaction of the gay community would be that extreme and maybe a little insulting to imply that they would react that way.
it is picking and choosing which details you want to consider that causes the biggest problems and that I think is what you were trying to get at we must look at the whole thing including the history. I would not have used a nail myself but might have included some worms and snails or roaches to bring it down to earth.
a further thought on religious images and confusion.
In the ancient days the teachers used riddles to teach religious truth more. people were more unfamiliar with them . Modern "americans" do not use riddles to teach or to play with much at all the abramic religions seems particularly maladapt and rely on the literal meaning and mystery with out using reason to try and solve the riddles
Posted by: scooter | August 13, 2008 11:17 AM
#51
That would be language
is that a trick question ?
Yeah, Does it surprise you that a discrete thing can come to represent a large and complex set of views?No, a symbol is an abbreviation, I see the Olympic symbol I know what it references, same with the NASA Logo and the cross w/ jeusus=Catholic, cross, no-jesus = protestant.
You really missed the point on that one, not the least bit surprising to me. An a