…and this is a 
It actually feels kind of good, considering that my job is secure, and that these critics are looking increasingly rabidly insane. I just sit back and watch their hysteria grow. Case in point: Rod Dreher, who seems to be crawling the walls and screaming right now. In his 'review' of the desecration issue, nowhere does he mention the cause: the violent over-reaction of Catholics to a student in Florida walking away from Mass with a communion wafer, and the subsequent uproar calling for expulsion and punishment from Bill Donohue.
His parting shot to believers: "Nothing must be held sacred."
He doesn't believe that, of course. The hateful Dr. Myers and his spittle-flecked supporters insist that their right to profane symbols that Catholics and Muslims hold most sacred is absolute and sacrosanct. To be sure, there's little doubt that what he did - obtaining a consecrated Host and a copy of the Quran and defiling them - violates no criminal statute.
No, actually, I do believe that. Nothing is sacred; nothing receives its value from an imaginary connection to a deity or supernatural force. Objects and people gain importance to us from their human connections. But yes, I insist that no one can be forced to bow down to the symbols and dogma of a religion, especially a religion to which they do not belong. Jews cannot tell Catholics that they can't eat ham, Catholics can't tell Muslims to worship their cracker, Muslims can't tell me to pray 5 times a day. When a religion oversteps its bounds and starts ordering people to respect their foolish rituals, it's time for people to step up and demonstrate that no, they can't do that. You can believe your god is a cracker in your church, Mr Dreher, but you can't tell me that I must honor your crackers in my home.
Dreher thinks this is the first step in the destruction of society.
But his audacious act of sacrilege crossed an important moral, social and psychological line, one that calls up metaphorical demons that, once summoned, are difficult to control. It is one thing to say that belief in God is foolish and wicked and that Catholicism and Islam deserve scorn. It is quite another to physically desecrate the artifacts believers hold sacred.
Talk about hyperbole…this is a classic religious defense. Why, if we don't keep cutting the hearts out of sacrificial victims, the sun won't rise tomorrow. You want the sun to rise, don't you? Throw a cracker in the trash (an act I did not consider audacious at all, but entirely trivial), and the entire social fabric will crumble! We must stop him!
It's also supremely hypocritical. Only a few weeks ago, what was Dreher saying?
If P.Z. Myers had any guts, he would put out a call for someone to send him a Koran so he could blow his nose and wrap fish in it. After all, it's nothing but frackin' ink on paper, right? So what's stopping you, Big Man? It's easy to shit on what Catholics regard as sacred. But just try doing the same thing to what Muslims regard as sacred. Let's see what you're made of.
What? Mr Dreher! I thought that physically desecrating the artifacts believers hold sacred would cross "an important moral, social and psychological line, one that calls up metaphorical demons that, once summoned, are difficult to control". Apparently, this is only true of the artifacts Dreher reveres.
Dreher is not alone. I've got way over 10,000 emails from devout Catholics shrieking the same old message — that Eucharist is literally the body of my god! You hurt me when you hurt that cracker! Here's a Koran — destroy it instead! I want you to lose your job! I want you to die! You're going to burn in hell! The monster from the id is out and exposed, and it isn't the atheists who have crossed the line.
Here's another example of an obsessed Catholic kook who has spotted a witch. He actually went through all of my posts from Spring term and noted the date and time.
When considering only the days UMM was in session for the spring semester of 2008 and cross-referencing these with standard university hours (8a.m. to 4 p.m.), during this time Myers posted 334 times to his blog. That is Three-Hundred Thirty-Four Posts! He averaged close to five posts a day to his blog during university hours. Note to the chancellor: This information was there for the taking. I did not even have easy access to his Internet records as the university does.
Now, this gets a little more interesting when looking at Myers' class assignments. Many times Myers posts just before class as well as in-between classes. Frequently there are posts during a three-hour biology lab that Myers was in charge of. Sort of, "I'll keep the students busy and post on my blog." His professional duties obvious were secondary to supporting his hobby and hate-mongering.
Oh, my. What a remarkable exercise in futility. As I'm sure all of you other university faculty know, there is no such thing as 8-4, 5-days-a-week schedule for us. I've spent many weekends and late nights with my head buried in papers; even more time in prep work for lectures, which, when you've got 8am classes, gets done at all hours of the day; and as a developmental biologist, I am at the beck and call of embryos that develop on their own schedule that isn't always in sync with mine. The university is not going to want to open the can of worms that would involve defining exactly when their salaried employees are on the clock and when they're not — if professors could bill for overtime, universities would go bankrupt.
And, I'm sorry to say, I'm apparently much, much smarter than a certain devout Roman Catholic and social conservative. I know the stats on traffic to blogs: they peak in the early afternoon, my time. I know that to maintain interest it's a good idea to have new posts up when people are looking in. And I also know how to use the post scheduling feature in MovableType to have articles magically appear without my immediate intervention at times when I am not online, such as when I'm in a lecture or lab.
I'm sorry to disillusion everyone who noticed the occasional nod to Oceania with posts appearing at 1 or 2 or 5am my time, and thought I was the Sleepless Brain, but those are scheduled, too.
Oh, well. They can keep on exposing their ignorance with their rants. I'm having a grand time, while they stare at the kerning in my articles.
Education & Careers
Comments
Posted by: Rodibidably | August 4, 2008 10:05 AM
Just wanted ytou to know there are some positive "reviews" of your involvment in this whole f'd up situation.
http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/cracker-gate-just-another-opinion-piece/
Posted by: Allytude | August 4, 2008 10:10 AM
And you are "spittle flecked" no less... this godless spittle-flecking is totally inappropriate
Posted by: valor | August 4, 2008 10:11 AM
I like how he fails to mention the atheist work you also "desecrated" (although technically you can't desecrate an atheist work.....).
Posted by: Randy | August 4, 2008 10:11 AM
Oh, Ron... you had me at "spittle-flecked".
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 4, 2008 10:12 AM
Oh, no -- I'm not spittle-flecked. It's you people.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 10:12 AM
Oceania? OCEANIA?! We have always been at WAR with Oceania!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 4, 2008 10:17 AM
Check to see if Mister Dreher has "Bell & Howell" tattooed on his ass, because damn if he isn't a world-class projector.
Posted by: Ron | August 4, 2008 10:19 AM
But you didn't address Dreher's suggestion; you just made fun of it. Why would you not subject the Koran to the same kind of treatment you did to the cracker? Although it doesn't affect my question, I'm a atheist and generally don't care much about religion one way or the other, as long as it doesn't get in my face. His point is easy: that you are not afraid of insulting Catholics but you are terrified of Muslims Of course that doesn't affect your basic argument, that to you, it's just a cracker; but then, too, to you, the Koran is just a book.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 10:19 AM
LOL. Thanks, Randy. dirka dirka mohammed jihad
Posted by: Einherjar | August 4, 2008 10:19 AM
Bob, it doesn't matter who we're at war with. just as long as we're at war.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 10:20 AM
DAMN YOU sacrilegious intellectual types and your magical time measuring devices!!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 4, 2008 10:20 AM
Oceania? OCEANIA?! We have always been at WAR with Oceania!
Nah, we're actually the ruling chunk of Oceania, with the former UK being Airstrip One. It's Eastasia we've always been at war with.
Gotta go, the clocks are striking thirteen...
Posted by: Zeno | August 4, 2008 10:21 AM
The poster at Vive Christus Rex is undoubtedly proud of his painstaking research into your posting schedule. Although his own blog is on Blogger, which makes it extremely easy to make posts appear at specified times (by merely setting the post's time stamp), he thinks he's caught PZ working on posts during university lab hours. In a way, this reminds me of theologians: They work ever so hard to build a logical, structured argument without seriously considering the biases and weaknesses in their initial assumptions.
All fall down.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 10:22 AM
Ron, didn't you see what happened to the Koran some christer sent him? Please try to keep up with the group - the guide is the one with the tentacular umbrella.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 10:23 AM
Ron are you not paying attention?
Posted by: Hedgefundguy | August 4, 2008 10:24 AM
The only bad publicity is no publicity! Soak it up, PZ. Soon there will be a piece on Fox News!
Posted by: Geolub | August 4, 2008 10:25 AM
A dressing down of Dreher at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub:
Partisan says get a grip, stop religious violence; Rod Dreher disagrees (?!)
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 10:25 AM
Rev BDC, what's KoT? K-nigets of Theonomas?
Posted by: jmartin | August 4, 2008 10:26 AM
So much for my altar offerings to the Brain-in-the-Jar.
I had so loved the thought of a sessile deity, after a Catholic childhood of parsing the DSMish Trinity. My parents had raised in radio's heyday, which added to the muddle. Did the Holy Ghost employ a Shadow? And how did the Shadow Know?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 4, 2008 10:26 AM
Ron, what kind of idiot are you? Obtuse, clueless, or dishonest?
I gave pages of the Koran and The God Delusion exactly the same treatment I gave the cracker.
Posted by: Dennis | August 4, 2008 10:28 AM
Wow, computers can be programmed to do things at different times. Who knew.
Ron@ #8 if you read the post about the treatment of the host you would have seen that he indeed treated the koran the same way. Along with an atheist book some hold sacred.
Posted by: marc buhler | August 4, 2008 10:29 AM
Post #3...
I like how he fails to mention the atheist work you also "desecrated" (although technically you can't desecrate an atheist work.....).
Posted by: valor | August 4, 2008 10:11 AM
That gave me a laugh! (As do crediots.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 10:29 AM
King of Typos. It's necessary. I suck at the whole preview / proofread thing and I type at 1000 words minute without any accuracy.
Posted by: Janine ID | August 4, 2008 10:30 AM
PZ! Do not let facts get in the way of an incoherent dressing down.
Ron, this is Rod Dreher. Ron Dreher, this is Ron. I think you two might have a few things in common.
Posted by: Wayne Walker | August 4, 2008 10:30 AM
"The militant atheist photographed his sacrilege..."
If you're a "militant" atheist for merely poking a cracker, what is the term for Christians who send threats of violence and/or death in e-mails...?
I propose: "nuclear Christians"
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 10:33 AM
THX Rev. Next time someone says they are king of typos, I'll be able to reply with "I've read the King of Typos. You sir, are no King of Typos".
Posted by: Chris | August 4, 2008 10:33 AM
With respect to "posting time" -- maybe someone might want to explain to Dreher the concept of "delayed posting" -- that is, write a post, then configure it to appear later, at a specified time...
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 10:34 AM
As far as atheist hygiene, if everybody would stop spitting on us, we wouldn't be so flecky.
No such thing as bad publicity dept: You Tube Eucharist Challenge, mentioned in Dreher's psychotic shambling zombieRant picked up 500 hits yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq_XZuF6Vsk
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 4, 2008 10:36 AM
What goes well with spittle-flecks? I'd like to know, in case I am someday spittle-flecked. A beard, maybe?
Other than that, let me say that this is a very, very tired issues.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: zer0 | August 4, 2008 10:36 AM
Ba-duh-dum-chhhhh
Classic!
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 4, 2008 10:36 AM
It's not magic, it's technology.Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 10:38 AM
You think Ron is a...(gasp)...TROLL?
Posted by: SC | August 4, 2008 10:39 AM
I actually wrote this comment several hours ago. It's appearing right on schedule.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 10:39 AM
Fixed that for you.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 4, 2008 10:43 AM
Reginald #31: This is a case where Clarke's Third Law applies. (Then again, considering people like Mr. Dreher, I begin to wonder if a *book* is "sufficiently advanced technology"...)
Posted by: Ricardo Silvestre | August 4, 2008 10:43 AM
Another sappy and uninspired critic of a sappy and uninspired columnist. And notice that Dreher "conveniently" left out of his description of the picture Richards book page. Typical.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 4, 2008 10:43 AM
-But his audacious act of sacrilege crossed an important moral, social and psychological line, one that calls up metaphorical demons that, once summoned, are difficult to control. -
He means of course christian control. Absolute control of what people think and do. As far as i'm concerned a line has been crossed that should have been scuffed into oblivion long long ago.
Posted by: Tim | August 4, 2008 10:44 AM
What's a bit worrying is the willingness of believers to embrace intolerance. Historically, intolerance doesn't just stay with one set of victims, folks who get in the habit of despising one group may find adding another is easy, and so many believers have a long list of people they're sure are going to hell. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 10:46 AM
First they came for the atheists...
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Dreher is a columnist in Texas, of course. Sometimes it's humiliating to live here. We are well in the top 5 Wingnut laden states in the US.
Posted by: Capital Dan | August 4, 2008 10:47 AM
How about "spittle-flecked, nuclear Christians?"
I'm just tossing that out there.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 4, 2008 10:48 AM
Harrumph! I'm almost never "spittle flecked"!
Posted by: Cardinal Shrew | August 4, 2008 10:48 AM
All that spittle flecking is why I have started wearing a rain coat when I come in here.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | August 4, 2008 10:50 AM
Grrr. The lesson learned from my last (@42) is that one should never underestimate the blinding speed with which comments accumulate here....
Posted by: S.Scott | August 4, 2008 10:50 AM
@ 23 - Rev. BigDumbChimp,
I can't let this one go. It's K-night! Not K-nigets. :-)
Posted by: Rick R | August 4, 2008 10:51 AM
"The hateful Dr. Myers and his spittle-flecked supporters insist that their right to profane symbols that Catholics and Muslims hold most sacred is absolute and sacrosanct."
Shows you what these flag pin-wearin', god soaked 'Murricans REALLY think of the Constitution...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 4, 2008 10:51 AM
Hey, at least they're recognizing your desecration of the Qu'ran now. That's at least a little progress...
Posted by: SteveM | August 4, 2008 10:53 AM
Seeing how often christians comment here that it is only because of Christianity that they aren't out raping and murdering, do you really think it would be a good idea to free them from religion? Those "demons" may not be so metaphorical after all.You want atheism? They can't handle atheism.
Posted by: karen | August 4, 2008 10:54 AM
How do you control metaphorical demons?
With your cyberpistol, naturally.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 10:54 AM
Every time I see someone use the 'Muricans thing I can't help but think of merkins. And then start laughing all over again.
Posted by: szqc | August 4, 2008 10:56 AM
@True Bob #6
No! We have always been at war with Eastasia. Room 101 for you.
Gotta go - got spittle on me.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 10:58 AM
Surrounded by patriotic Merkins, Bush is invisible.
Posted by: Cardinal Shrew | August 4, 2008 10:59 AM
Anyone know how to get spittle out of cashmere?
Posted by: Ron | August 4, 2008 11:00 AM
I am obtuse, clueless, and dishonest; and perhaps at times even spittle-flecked. I did not realize you gave the same treatment to the Koran as to the holy cracker. Apologies. Just as long as you respect the Holy Name of SpaghettiOs®, I am happy.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 4, 2008 11:01 AM
Ron hte utter moron @ #8:
Epic fail on your Koran envy, asshat. He DID subject the Koran to the exact same treatment as the cracker. It's in the fucking picture! So are you blind, stupid, or a liar? Or maybe all three?
Posted by: speedwell | August 4, 2008 11:01 AM
I'm a bit confused here. I had got the impression from somewhere that "spittle-flecked" referred to the hapless audience being spit ON. No?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 11:02 AM
Oh great. Thanks Bob. Now the ladies across the hall came to check what that loud snorting and coughing noise was.
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | August 4, 2008 11:02 AM
Isn't it revealing that this hysterical asshat neglected to mention the pages of "The God Delusion" you included in your "desecration", PZ?
Aside from that, I love the way his rage makes him stupid and inattentive enough to not notice blatant hypocrisy such as the following:
"What we are bound to do, especially in a pluralist democracy, is show basic respect for the human beings who hold beliefs we don't respect..."
Followed, a short sentence later by:
"There's something about these new atheists, for whom P.Z. Myers is a folk hero, that's profoundly inhuman."
And they wonder why we often impugn their intelligence?
Posted by: SteveM | August 4, 2008 11:02 AM
I can't let this one go. It's K-night! Not K-nigets. :-)
S.Scott, I am being especially dense this morning and not cathing the joke. "K-niggets" was the way the silly french knights pronounced it before debating the lifting capacity of african and european swallows.
And I thought it was M. Night not K. Night, or is it K-Pax, or Pax Romana, ahh Ramana .... where was I? where am I? oh, never mind...
Posted by: Hans | August 4, 2008 11:02 AM
Wait... there's significance to the kerning in your articles? Dammit, I knew I was squinting at the wrong things!
Posted by: Ron | August 4, 2008 11:04 AM
And one thing needs to be made very clear: I am not now and never have been Rod Dreher, at least as far as I know.
Posted by: qbsmd | August 4, 2008 11:04 AM
I propose "jihadists". It seems more accurate and more likely to annoy them. It also goes well with the fatwa envy the others demonstrate.
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 11:04 AM
# 53
Yeah, put nuclear weapons on both sides of it, then simmer
Posted by: Janine ID | August 4, 2008 11:05 AM
Ramana...Ramona...Lalla Ward...Richard Dawkins...The God Delusion...Koran and cracker. It all comes around.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 4, 2008 11:06 AM
...And God bless you.
Posted by: Capital Dan | August 4, 2008 11:07 AM
Dammit. How do I get ladies across the hall?
I'm in a tomb. They don't let us see the light of day. We're like salt miners without the joy.
Posted by: S.Scott | August 4, 2008 11:07 AM
@ 59 Steve,
I k-now. LoL :-) You silly English K-night! Now go away before I taunt you a second time! (jk);-)
(some people just don't get the joke)
Posted by: SteveM | August 4, 2008 11:07 AM
No! We have always been at war with Eastasia. Room 101 for you.
but War is Peace, therefore we've always been at Peace with Eastasia. Right?
Posted by: Janine ID | August 4, 2008 11:07 AM
Ron, I never said you were Rod Dreher. Just that you you should meet. But you apologized so I take back that suggestion.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 4, 2008 11:08 AM
By the way, check out this nifty quote of Abraham Lincoln's on the scientific method, taken from a lecture he gave on same:
Posted by: Aaron | August 4, 2008 11:08 AM
OK. So this guy left out important details. His article lacks any depth of investigation into the issue. Instead, it is an op-ed article that is looking for something to get offended about in order to advance a culture war agenda.
Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | August 4, 2008 11:10 AM
He can make blog posts appear when he's not behind a computer! He's a witch!
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 11:10 AM
#62
with a slight southern twist:
Yeee-hadists
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 11:10 AM
RAmen, Janine ID.
Posted by: jfatz | August 4, 2008 11:10 AM
>> Oh, no -- I'm not spittle-flecked. It's you people.
Of course you are, PZ. The vitriol in your Inbox is proof enough of that.
Posted by: S.Scott | August 4, 2008 11:11 AM
@ 73 - LMFAO!!
Posted by: Ron | August 4, 2008 11:13 AM
I'm not sure why I would want to meet a spittle-flecked lunatic like Dreher. It's because of people like him that I thank God I'm an atheist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 11:17 AM
I'm doomed today.
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 11:18 AM
So what I take from this is that, contra PZ, there are indeed some things to be taken as sacred--in particular, the right to free speech, seen here as the right of tenured professors to act with all of the emotional maturity of a 12-year old without having to face any consequences, despite his bosses being put into the embarrassing situation of having to find a way to defend this childish behavior. Now that is something to hold sacred!
So is what we can expect for intellectual discourse from the professoriate in the great state of Wisconsin?
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 11:22 AM
or in Minnesota, as the case may be...
Posted by: IasonOuabache | August 4, 2008 11:22 AM
LOL! Fail troll is fail!
Posted by: Bob L | August 4, 2008 11:23 AM
#25 @ I propose: "nuclear Christians"
Talibornagain is also used to describes them
Posted by: MissPrism | August 4, 2008 11:23 AM
Sam #79 - you know, I'm sure I've seen "consequences" used in the sense of "theocratic punishment I would like to inflict" somewhere before.
Posted by: Mold | August 4, 2008 11:23 AM
For those not as old as I, even in the Dark Ages known as the 1970s one could defer transmission of data to off-peak times. Wonder what the standards are for this KKkristians edumacation? Were they home skooled?
As a student at many universities, ranging from small private colleges to huge land-grant sports schools, I have yet to see any professor avoid their lab duties. Don't whine to me about furrin' TAs. You should RTFM.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 11:25 AM
I'd love to hear what your understanding of the whole incident is.
Care to give us a short rehash of what happened?
Posted by: 2-D Man | August 4, 2008 11:26 AM
But didn't you see his point, PZ? He made it perfectly clear that it is impossible to post in MovableType at 10:43AM. What a gaffe! How were you not aware of this?
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 11:26 AM
Miss Prism #83--I'm not sure that I follow you (clearly not being as bright as most of the folks posting here)--care to elaborate?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 11:27 AM
Ah, so blinded is Rev. Myers and his faithful army of acolytes that they remain unable to grasp the enormity of his actions. This despite the fact that even his own kind has started to turn him after these events -
( scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory ).
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
The numbers of heretics are growing each day as was forecast but I would urge all of you not to take refuge in the false comfort of consensus that is so apparent on this site.
Here are the analogies I developed over the course of the previous threads which will perhaps illuminate those who are not being intentionally obstinate:
1) Suppose you were a milkman with rotting teeth and cankerous lips. Before delivering each milk bottle you would take a swig and place it on the doorstep. You continued to abuse you privileged access to other people's milk for years. Then one day you decide to retire. Before you leave however, you let all of your customers know what you've been engaged in by letter while also leaving a picture of your cankerous mouth under each bottle. You have gleefully proclaimed your actions to all who will listen. No one was physically harmed and yet every customer (read: Catholic) affected feels deeply violated and abused. PZ Myers is effectively that milkman.
2) Suppose your are an embalmer. You are busy embalming a person for an open coffin ceremony and you decide to pilfer there lush locks of blonde hair for the construction of high class wigs (a business you have going on the side).
This person happens to be a Sikh. In order to hide the fact you have stolen their hair you then purchase a cheap synthetic wig and replace it. In the small print of the contract (which the distraught family don't read carefully enough) you make mention of this.
After the event you then decide to publicize this gleefully on a blog. No physical harm has been done to either person and yet I would argue that this is equivalent to PZ Myer's theft and subsequent desecration of the Eucharist publicized on his blog (of which extra web traffic generates money).
3) Young ladies like to wear an item of clothing called a mini-skirt these days. The material is often sheer and by its definition does not even come close to covering the knee roll.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniskirt)
Now if someone chooses to wear such an item it does not in the least bit make rape and sexual abuse permissible despite the fact that the odds increase exponentially. In both the eyes of the secular law and of my religion the assailants are still just as culpable.
So merely because Catholicism may seem like a remarkably soft target for PZ Myers (he has since been roped into desecrating the Koran) he is still as culpable as someone who chooses to attack say the more benign and watered down religions of Quakerism/Unitarian-Universalism.
4) Suppose you had a very sacred book outlining your philosophy on life. This book also happened to be stitched together and bound in the skin and flesh of a loved one who had recently passed away.
Now desecrating the Eucharist would have the same effect as desecrating that book and posting the evidence in glee.
A new and more watertight 5th analogy as requested:
5) I am a KKK leader. I burn gigantic crosses into the wilderness surrounding various suburbs. These crosses happen to appear behind a larger predominately black community. A history of the town is compiled and various aerial shots are taken at great expense. These are then placed in a time capsule. After burial I gleefully proclaim what I have done. No physical harm or damage has been caused and the documents in the time capsule are correctly historical. Nevertheless, the people of the community have been violated and abused. It is a hate crime. This is perfectly comparable to what PZ Myers has engaged in.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 4, 2008 11:28 AM
Who was it who said, "Lord let my enemies be ridiculous"?
One prayer that actually comes true...
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 11:30 AM
"I propose: "nuclear Christians""
CMD? Christians of Mass Destruction? Well, okay maybe that might be misinterpreted.
Posted by: Jason | August 4, 2008 11:30 AM
Is it too much to hope that by reading all of your old posts someone, at least one, might take a step back and say, "Shit, I was wrong"...
Some of us atheists pray too. ;)
Posted by: JD | August 4, 2008 11:32 AM
PZ wrote,
He said he was a theist, thus it's a given that all those descriptions of him apply.
Posted by: Allytude | August 4, 2008 11:32 AM
This spittle flecking is inappropriate- the fleckers and the flecker-inspirers. PZ you are also guilty of causing spittle fleckification.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 4, 2008 11:32 AM
I call Poe on Pete Rooke.
He also proves my previous post (#89)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 11:35 AM
Pete
Analogies, you're doing them wrong.
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 11:35 AM
Pete Rooke, in this country we are to respect your right to believe in stupid things. We are fully free to point out that they are stupid things.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 11:36 AM
JD, Ron already posted his mea culpa, and he wrote "a atheist (sic)".
Besides, who left the damn door open? That loony Rooke fantasist is back.
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2008 11:36 AM
I wouldn't call the US constitution exactly sacred. It is however, far more important than your right to be a christofascist, hunting down witches and heretics, and then burning them at the stake.
These days are not kind to the wannabe Inquisition. There are still places in the world where people are stoned to death or murdered by religious fanatics. Third world hells like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Sudan. Rather than recreate them here, why don't you just move there?
Posted by: JoshS | August 4, 2008 11:36 AM
OMG, #88, Pete Rooke, the cut-n-paste troll is back! Is there a special subset in the taxonomy of trolls for those who cut and paste. . . their own posts from other threads? At least three times?
Just what is it with you and rape and corpses?
Posted by: Ponder | August 4, 2008 11:37 AM
>S.Scott, I am being especially dense this morning and not cathing the joke. "K-niggets" was the way the silly french knights pronounced it before debating the lifting capacity of african and european swallows.
Tut tut sir. The French Taunters did NOT discuss the swallows (african/european), that was the two castle guards at the start of the film. The Taunters were later, at the castle of Guy De Liombard and at the end of the film at Castle Aaaargh! And it was the silly English K-niggets.
How dare you so profane the most holy words of one of the sacred movies of the Church of Python!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
Your
Posted by: MissPrism | August 4, 2008 11:37 AM
Hahaha! Those young ladies these days and their mini-skirts! Exposing their tantalising knees!
And Sam - no. You'll have to think.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 4, 2008 11:38 AM
No, nothing is sacred. Free speech is just a really, really good idea.
If you have any more difficult questions you want answering just let us know.
Posted by: JY | August 4, 2008 11:38 AM
Pete Rooke == Larry Fafarman?
The writing style and general obtuseness is reminiscent.
Posted by: Iain Walker | August 4, 2008 11:39 AM
JD (Comment #92):
Er, no. Ron said he was "a [sic] atheist and generally don't care much about religion one way or the other, as long as it doesn't get in my face". (Comment #8)
He also acknowledged his mistake re PZ and the Koran in #54.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | August 4, 2008 11:40 AM
I once attracted the ire of a usenet group resident troll, who apart from coming very close to stalking me wrote a letter to the head of the institute computing dept complaining that some of my usenet posts were in 'work time' and using the university server (the idea that by carrying the group the university thought it ok seemingly didn't occur). However it happened that the computer guy and I were on good terms (I had run Mac support for our group, on an unpaid voluntary basis freeing them to handle everything else) and we consulted and he wrote back essentially making the same points PZ does. I was formally contracted for 37.5 hours per week and officially subject to the European Working Times directive to boot. Yeah right. So it was okay that I should post to a usenet group in the odd spare couple of minutes while waiting for something to cook in the lab or some such.
I was so close to going to law for an injunction...
Posted by: LynstHolin | August 4, 2008 11:40 AM
Um, Mr. Rooke, what is a 'knee roll'? Because I don't think I have one. So is it okay if I wear miniskirts then?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 11:40 AM
Oh fuck. The nutbag Rooke is back.
Killfile engage!
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 11:41 AM
Glory be, Pete Rooke is back.
Now we get more S&M porn comments!
Posted by: hahahahah | August 4, 2008 11:41 AM
zombie flesh crackers, whose follower's drone mindlessly never to allow a subject to die.
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 11:42 AM
Big Dumb Chimp #85--in a nutshell, going out of his way to offend a very specific group who, so far as I can tell, actually did him no harm. This is something that 8th graders do, not tenured professors. It was a peevish, childish act, for which he hid behind the "sacred" tenet of constitutionally guaranteed free speech in this country. This apparently is one thing, at least, that the good Prof. Myers holds sacred.
Again, I ask--is this what we can expect for intellectual discourse among professors in this country, and in the State of Minnesota?
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 4, 2008 11:43 AM
Dr. Myers, I'd still like to have you post those two letters you received from Catholics who decried the Eucharist fixation of the religion. Would you consider it for a future post, please?
Posted by: Maria | August 4, 2008 11:43 AM
Pete, the main difference between your analogies and what PZ did is fairly obvious:
Hurting people is different from hurting symbols.
If you don't understand this... Well, who would you save from a burning church: the people in attendance or the stack of just-consecrated wafers?
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 11:44 AM
Sam, is there a way to mock something and point out what you believe is worthy of mocking without being called an 8th grader?
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2008 11:44 AM
Rooke and his obsession with rape and corpses is clearly lacking major parts of a normal personality. I would not want to be riding on a bus with him across the prairies of the midwest.
We have found the inspiration for Hannibal Lector.
Posted by: SteveM | August 4, 2008 11:44 AM
How dare you so profane the most holy words of one of the sacred movies of the Church of Python!
Geeze, it was an innoscent mistake, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! ...
:-)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 11:44 AM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 11:46 AM
grrrr
botched blockquote tag. Should have ended at Minnesota?
KoT
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 11:47 AM
Yeah, poor Pete Rooke repeats the same creepy quasi-analogies over and over again. It's as if there is a Department of Religious Ghouls Department of Redundancy Department and he's the press secretary.
Pete has issues and I'm not confident meds would help much. Perhaps Risperdal and Depakote would take the edge off.
Posted by: John Robie | August 4, 2008 11:48 AM
Is it strange that the thing I find most troubling about Dreher's rant is that he's apparently a fellow frackin' Battlestar fan?
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 11:50 AM
Fixed that for you, Sam.
Posted by: Maria | August 4, 2008 11:52 AM
Sam,
All this got started out of the acts of Phil Donahue and the Catholic league, who in the name of Catholics everywhere initiated the persecution of two students. This was offensive to many people, and PZ decided to "protest" against that act. No Catholics defended the students, to the best of my knowledge.
There's nothing "sacred" about it. It's a right. It should be respected. It's a purely human construct. The fact that the Constitution protects speech means PZ can face no legal consequences for what he's done. It has nothing to do with sacredness or sanctity. It's a right.
Posted by: S.Scott | August 4, 2008 11:52 AM
Let's put an end to this "K-night" debate!
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 11:54 AM
BigDumbChimp--Yes, I read that, fascinating stuff that it was. It seems that Prof. Myers was offended by the actions of some Catholics in Florida. I still fail to see in what way Prof. Myers was harmed by this action to the point that he needed to go out of his way to retaliate. It comes across as the act of an extraordinarily immature man; as I say, something that an 8th grader would do, not a tenured professor.
And I reiterate--whether or not one agrees with the tenets of the Catholic Church, or of the responses by Catholics around the country, is this the kind of intellectual discourse that we can expect from tenured professors?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Maria:
Well, who would you save from a burning church: the people in attendance or the stack of just-consecrated wafers?
The people of course, I am not some type of psychopath that the less charitable here would have you believe I am.
@ LynstHolin
I am not your husband or father and it is not therefore for me to decide what you should wear. As to a "knee-roll" it is simply a term used on the ranch which describes a saddle device that cushions the knee.
However, I would want to remind you you of what is said in the bible:
Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
Posted by: MissPrism | August 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Google fails to find any part of the female anatomy called a "knee roll." It seems to be part of a saddle though, so presumably Pete is thinking of a favourite picture from HORSES IN SKIRTS magazine.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 11:55 AM
"Jews cannot tell Catholics that they can't eat ham, Catholics can't tell Muslims to worship their cracker, Muslims can't tell me to pray 5 times a day."
You drooling maroon, Jews, Catholics and Muslims actually do NOT insist on these things. What planet are you from, anyway?
Jeebus Crow, are you retarded.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 11:56 AM
Maria, that was priceless. It was BILL donohue, not Phil Donahue
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 4, 2008 11:56 AM
Pete Rooke #88,
I'm a bit slow and have to confess I did not understand your point. Please provide another analogy, in graphic detail, for all of us to ponder. Please?
[Please feel free to use any of the following words: anal pear, chlorophilia (sexual attraction to plants), incest, foot of a corpse, Iron Maiden, interracial cannibalism, and Aztec human sacrifice rituals]
Posted by: Nerdette | August 4, 2008 11:57 AM
Whoa whoa whoa... wearing a miniskirt makes me the target for rape? Wow, I totally thought it only made my likelihood to be cat-called go up (along with my boyfriends libido).
On another note, it amuses me that the posting on the ViveChristusRex blog has to be monitored first before being actually posted. We'll see if my post outlining some of his many straws will make it!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 11:58 AM
Yes, when someone sees a wrong being done as long as it doesn't affect you you should ignore it.
Oh I think he made his point very well. He wanted to show the utterly idiotic and completely irrational response of the Catholics involved and the ones that found out about it.
I think he did that quite well.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 11:59 AM
@ Miss Prism
Please see my previous post for an explanation.
Posted by: MissPrism | August 4, 2008 11:59 AM
So if you were Lynst's father or husband, it would be your decision what she wore, rather than hers? Wow.
Can men wear miniskirts if their fathers agree? Do men have knee rolls?
There's so much to learn.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 12:01 PM
Different kind of witch hunt going on:
Merkin Terrrrsts
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 12:01 PM
# 123
I hope so, but I'm an optimist.
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2008 12:02 PM
You are making a few simple errors. Professors are not clones and, in fact, they are all individuals with individual styles and viewpoints. As far as I know, PZ is in a class by himself.
Similarly Rooke is not your typical catholic*. There probably aren't many Zombie catholics lurching around babbling about "brains", dead bodies, and rape.
*Well I hope so anyway.
Posted by: Maria | August 4, 2008 12:03 PM
@Bob: Heheh. I think I'll just change out of my miniskirt now.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 12:03 PM
Jew can eat ham? Muslims don't pray 5 times a day?
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 12:03 PM
Fallacy #12: There is no good reason to ridicule another's beliefs.
Really, haven't you people come up with anything new yet?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 4, 2008 12:07 PM
When religion neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I'm content to leave it alone. When it comes out of the churches raging for targets for persecution, when it demands that students who do not respect its doctrines must be expelled, when it inspires violence and death threats, then I'm afraid it is no longer an innocuous force and someone must mock and fight back...and that's precisely what academic freedom is for, to protect people who challenge the received wisdom.
The people who whimper that such action is inappropriate for a college professor are really saying that NO ONE must question their faith.
Posted by: watercat | August 4, 2008 12:07 PM
Face the consequences..? Are you suggesting that PZ should be made President?
Posted by: MarkW | August 4, 2008 12:08 PM
Dav Laurel at #126:
Good luck trying to get a bacon sandwich next time you visit Mecca.
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 12:08 PM
# 123
I hope so, but I'm an optimist.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 12:10 PM
Miss Prism:
So if you were Lynst's father or husband, it would be your decision what she wore, rather than hers?
I'm not a control freak and she would be free to wear anything feminine she liked within reason.
Can men wear miniskirts if their fathers agree?
I assume this is some type of perverted joke.
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
Posted by: MaryM.MOJ | August 4, 2008 12:11 PM
I wouldn't worry too much about Rod as he doesn't seem to be able to settle on a religion in any case...
sorry lifted direct from wikipaedia
Raised a Methodist, he later converted to Catholicism. On October 12, 2006, he publicly announced his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy.
plus can someone explain this for me "Birkenstocked Burkeans"
Posted by: qbsmd | August 4, 2008 12:11 PM
Closely related to fallacy #7: respect is a human right.
Posted by: Sam+ | August 4, 2008 12:12 PM
Prof. Myers #139--Most adults of a certain level of intellectual maturity find age-appropriate ways to protest perceived wrongs, and to challenge the beliefs of others. Is this the intellectual legacy that you wish to leave, going out of your way to mock, rather than to engage others at the level of reason?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 4, 2008 12:12 PM
By the way, I did a radio interview a while back (I don't know if it aired or not), in which the radio guy tried to tell me that the host was so precious that firefighters were known to risk their lives entering burning churches to rescue it.
To which I replied with some incredulity, "You have got to be kidding me." Firefighters are important people who work to protect important things...and the church is brainwashing them so badly that they are risking death to save crackers? Burn a billion crackers before one human being is so much as singed, I say.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 12:14 PM
OHHHHHHHHH I understand now.
So you're an asshole?
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 12:14 PM
Hear that ladies? Skirts only, and men, no kilts. So it is written, so it is hooey.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 4, 2008 12:15 PM
Sam,
In answer to the question at the end of #123, YES, it is. Now STFU, you unmitigated bore.
Posted by: SC | August 4, 2008 12:15 PM
I assume this is some type of perverted joke.
You're the perverted joke, Rooke.
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
You have seen the Pope, right?
Posted by: Brian G | August 4, 2008 12:15 PM
I prefer "speckle flitted" instead.
Posted by: MissPrism | August 4, 2008 12:15 PM
Right - so you think people shouldn't even be allowed to dress themselves as they please, yet you come here banging on about showing respect for other people's beliefs?
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 12:15 PM
Concern troll.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 12:17 PM
Raven:
Similarly Rooke is not your typical catholic*. There probably aren't many Zombie catholics lurching around babbling about "brains", dead bodies, and rape.
*Well I hope so anyway.
You continually mock and insult me. I understand that part of what you say may be in jest and part may be in anger but please treat me with the same respect and common courtesy I have shown you.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 4, 2008 12:17 PM
If you buy the party line, then Jesus had to die. His terrible, horrible, no good very bad weekend was part of God's plan. Why isn't nailing a wafer to a wooden plank part of every Easter celebration?
Posted by: MissPrism | August 4, 2008 12:18 PM
You've shown me no respect at all, Pete Rooke. You've said my father should have right of veto over my wardrobe.
Posted by: godlesstim | August 4, 2008 12:19 PM
Good job PZ. I have your back just in case some Dawkinites decide to enact some type of revenge on you for desecrating their Holy book the god delusion. Hmmmmmm, I guess I'll be waiting a long time as atheists don't seem to be as deluded as christians or muslims. Once again Canadian Atheists are proud to have you in our corner. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 12:20 PM
I wonder if Peter Rooke has ever had shellfish.
The Bible is pretty clear on shellfish: It says it should not be eaten.
Do you think he pickets restaurants selling lobster or crab ?
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2008 12:20 PM
Hey moron, what do you call:
1. At least a hundred death threats from deranged homicidal wannabe catholics? Do you think an anonymous nut threatening to beat his brains in is benign?
2. Donohue's Catholic Inquisitors and Torture league spend a lot of time harrassing PZ and trying to get him fired.
3. Not succeeding at that, they are now publishing incomprehensible rants about something or other involving Myers.
Myers didn't get really ticked off and crackericidal until the wingnuts went all terroristic.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 4, 2008 12:20 PM
PZ said
By the way, I did a radio interview a while back (I don't know if it aired or not), in which the radio guy tried to tell me that the host was so precious that firefighters were known to risk their lives entering burning churches to rescue it.
To which I replied with some incredulity, "You have got to be kidding me."
I'm having the exact same reaction right now. This guy was serious?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 12:20 PM
Sam, if you read THE GREAT DESECRATION, you'll see it's exactly the kind of discourse you would expect from a rational intellectual supporter of outspoken atheism.
Where is it written that college professors have to be neutered and mild mannered on their own time?
Posted by: Josh | August 4, 2008 12:21 PM
Prof. Myers #139--Most adults of a certain level of intellectual maturity find age-appropriate ways to protest perceived wrongs...
You mean like the rabid Catholics screaming for him to be fired? You mean those adults?
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 4, 2008 12:21 PM
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw, a thoroughly unreasonable man himself
Posted by: Brian G. | August 4, 2008 12:21 PM
In other news, it always amuses me when people use the bible as a way to convince non-believers of something.
Don't you understand? They don't believe in it. Repeating the things that the unicorn told you over and over isn't going to make me believe that you have a unicorn.
Posted by: MaryM.MOJ | August 4, 2008 12:22 PM
Prof. Myers #147 - just give them an extinguisher and let their faith in God save them from the flames.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 12:22 PM
I think I'm suffering from an irony overdose. First we have Dreher saying this:
"What we are bound to do, especially in a pluralist democracy, is show basic respect for the human beings who hold beliefs we don't respect. People don't lose their dignity because they believe implausible, even offensive, things."
Okay. Great. With you there, Rod. I do believe that, no matter how vehemently I disagree with someone's ideas, I should afford them the basic respect of acknowledging that they're still a human being.
Of course, then Dreher immediately...in the very next sentence...follows up with:
"There's something about these new atheists, for whom P.Z. Myers is a folk hero, that's profoundly inhuman."
So we need to show basic respect for human beings with whom we disagree...but, since atheists aren't really human, I guess that doesn't apply to them.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 12:22 PM
Pete, an analogy:
Once upon a time, some impoverished, primitive, illiterate subsistence farmers and other ne'er-do-wells knew this guy, and they followed himj around, like Chuck Manson. He was executed for crimes against the state.
This guy, now dead, was zombified by a witch-doctor. His followers became cannibals, inspired by the zombielicious lifestyle.
How could we neutral observers tell the difference between that insane cult, and modern devout catholics?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 4, 2008 12:23 PM
I'd save them with my spittle flecks.
Course, that might not be as appreciated as I might wish.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 12:23 PM
Peter Rooke,
Respect is earned. One way of not earning it, in fact of bringing about disrespect, is making bad arguments invoking even worse analogies. You did not seem to bother making decent arguments, and treating people here as intelligent. Why should they offer you respect in return ?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 12:24 PM
Miss Prism:
Right - so you think people shouldn't even be allowed to dress themselves as they please, yet you come here banging on about showing respect for other people's beliefs?
I am not asking for you to respect my faith but rather making the case that it was both criminally and morally wrong for PZ Myers to encourage the theft of the Eucharist and then to desecrate it. His actions should be treated as a hate crime.
And please note that PZ Myers did not treat Islam and Catholicism equally in that the Koran was presumably a gift whereas the Eucharist was stolen.
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 12:25 PM
Rete Pooke:
What about all those old men in skirts and dresses at the Cracker Store?
Posted by: freelunch | August 4, 2008 12:26 PM
Like identical twins, we feel very upset when you can't tell us apart.
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Blake #156: "If you buy the party line, then Jesus had to die. His terrible, horrible, no good very bad weekend was part of God's plan. Why isn't nailing a wafer to a wooden plank part of every Easter celebration?"
If the Pope (y'know, that guy in a dress) initiated such a ceremony, Catholics would follow his orders unquestionably. Religion: it's not about reason, it's about authority.
That's why religious people tend to score highly on the right-wing authoritarian scale.
Posted by: Andrew | August 4, 2008 12:28 PM
His lumping in Islam as one of the "desecrated" religions reminds me of the way Christians and especially politicians pandering to Christians talk about "our Judeo-Christian heritage." They can't come out and say what they really mean, "our Christian heritage," so they add in the "Judeo" to sound inclusive. "I'm not advocating that the government subscribe to just one religion--we'll include Jews too!"
He didn't just desecrate a Catholic symbol--he also desecrated a Muslim one! (Yes, we specifically dared him to do that to prove he wasn't an anti-Catholic bigot, but see that's... look over there!)
Posted by: SteveM | August 4, 2008 12:28 PM
... whereas the Eucharist was stolen.
No, it was re-gifted. The Church hands them out as gifts everyday, so someone took that gift and re-gifted it to Myers.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 12:28 PM
@ Mr Matt Penfold
I wonder if Peter Rooke has ever had shellfish.
The Bible is pretty clear on shellfish: It says it should not be eaten.
Do you think he pickets restaurants selling lobster or crab ?
I believe that not only have I explained my ethical vegetarianism on this blog before but that I have actually had the conversation with you.
Posted by: Kari Kounkel | August 4, 2008 12:28 PM
I'm not interested in reading the entire issue; I've never felt called to explain or defend faith.
I am curious about one paragraph: When a religion oversteps its bounds and starts ordering people to respect their foolish rituals, it's time for people to step up and demonstrate that no, they can't do that. You can believe your god is a cracker in your church, Mr Dreher, but you can't tell me that I must honor your crackers in my home.
If you -- or a college student -- had a consecrated host in your possession, you must have received it from its home, the Church. Taking the host from its home to yours is either theft for the purposes of sensationalizing your point or... what?
I would never suggest that I'm smarter than a certain college professor because of the way I choose to spend my time, nor am I a person who engages in hysteria or hate-mongering. I am a person who believes in the power of prayer, and you're in mine.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 4, 2008 12:29 PM
Must-see art, right in PZ's back yard:
Vatican Splendors St. Paul, Minnesota, to Feature Rare Art, Pope Relics, and Underground Catacombs
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 12:29 PM
So have PZ pressed on charges for receiving stolen goods.
How much is a cracker worth anyway? .5¢?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 4, 2008 12:30 PM
Matt Penfold #159,
"I wonder if Peter Rooke has ever had shellfish.
The Bible is pretty clear on shellfish: It says it should not be eaten."
My guess is he sodomizes them while whistling old show tunes and then uses that as an analogy on blogs.
Honestly, Pete Rooke is either the funniest Poe or the creepiest troll.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 12:30 PM
No you have not.
Is this your example of showing me respect ? By lying ?
Posted by: Mena | August 4, 2008 12:30 PM
Why is "militant" one of the favorite words of the reactionary right? It's kind of funny since they don't seem to really know what that means. They think that it's just someone who disagrees with what they believe in, like militant gays thinking that they should have the same rights as everyone else. Last I saw, it wasn't the "militants" threatening violence or introducing legislation to deprive people of their rights.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Pete, nothing can be desecrated. Nothing is sacred, see? So nothing can be desecrated.
Show us the crimes, man. Any evidence? And for bonus points, scale these crimes:
Theft of item w/negligible cash value, freely given away
Physical assault
Death Threat
Threat of physical violence
Creating jihad to scuttle someone's career
And really, post some evidence. Really.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | August 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Is it strange that the thing I find most troubling about Dreher's rant is that he's apparently a fellow frackin' Battlestar fan?
He didn't realise that the Cylons represent America .... :-P
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 4, 2008 12:32 PM
Ummmm, how is the Koran presumably a gift? And yet again, PZ didn't steal the cracker. People sent him crackers. If you read his earlier posts, some Catholics even sent him crackers they claimed to have poisoned.
Pete, I've met your like before. The Old Testament is important when it gives you power over those around you, but do you follow all of it?
Do you wear clothes of two different fibers? Do you have tassels at the four corners of your garment? Do you consume pork? Shellfish? DO you shave your beard? If you don't follow these aspects of the law, please explain to me which verses are True™ and how you come to that conclusion.
Posted by: Whateverman | August 4, 2008 12:32 PM
"Prof. Myers #139--Most adults of a certain level of intellectual maturity find age-appropriate ways to protest perceived wrongs, and to challenge the beliefs of others. Is this the intellectual legacy that you wish to leave, going out of your way to mock"
That you choose to repeat the Immaturity argument while failing (with appropriately increased concern) to admonish those Catholics who sent death threats to the student involved reveals you own lack of maturity, Sam.
I understand that you're not going to agree with this. However, your willingness to sacrifice your intellectual honesty for the sake of maintaining the divinity of a cracker makes this lack remarkably obvious.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 12:34 PM
It's a sensational point! No cracker is sacred.
Posted by: SC | August 4, 2008 12:34 PM
What about all those old men in skirts and dresses at the Cracker Store?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W08pTLDPEFI
"Queen, please."
Posted by: Boosterz | August 4, 2008 12:35 PM
"I propose: "nuclear Christians""
It's simpler to just call them crackerpots.
Posted by: Kobra | August 4, 2008 12:35 PM
Quoted for the sake of my own amusement.
Don't you love it when people are inconsistent hypocrites?
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 4, 2008 12:35 PM
I wonder if Peter Rooke has ever had shellfish.
The Bible is pretty clear on shellfish: It says it should not be eaten.
Do you think he pickets restaurants selling lobster or crab?
There's actually been much discussion on this in Christian theological circles over the centuries.
On the one hand, Jesus said straight up that he wasn't here to overturn Mosaic law or the old commandments, but to uphold them (Matthew 5:17-20), so that would indicate that the ban on eating shellfish AND PORK was still in effect.
But then Matthew later quotes Jesus as saying not to worry about whether what goes in the mouth is unclean, as it's what comes out that's unclean (Matthew 15:11). Later on, Saul/Paul would expand upon this in Romans 14:2-4.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 12:38 PM
"I would never suggest that I'm smarter than a certain college professor because of the way I choose to spend my time, nor am I a person who engages in hysteria or hate-mongering. I am a person who believes in the power of prayer, and you're in mine."
You would, however, engage in fairly heavy-handed paralipsis, apparently.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 12:38 PM
MarkW:
Would you expect to find bacon sandwiches for sale at Mecca? Does the fact they aren't cause you pain? Does that infringe upon your rights in any sense?
No sane person cares if Jews and Muslims won't eat pork, Hindus won't eat meat, Catholics and Lutherans take Communion, and Mormons abstain from alcohol. All they ask is that we respect the choices they make, a respect that I, as an agnostic, am perfectly willing to grant.
Only a drooling maroon, offended by the actions of some Catholics, goes out of his way to offend all of them.
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 12:38 PM
Kari #178, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that you are in our prayers too.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 12:41 PM
Oooh, good word. It's mine now.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 4, 2008 12:41 PM
Shorter Kari K.:
"I'm not interested in knowing that PZ is protesting the imminent expulsion of Webster Cook from a secular, tax-funded college for the 'crime' of using a cracker to point out that a religious institution is illegally using school grounds to hold religious ceremonies. I want to save my limited capacity for empathy for wheat gluten, not actual living breathing humans."
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 4, 2008 12:41 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT @ # 23: King of Typos.
Tremble before the might of Tyrannosaurus Rev!
Posted by: Qwerty | August 4, 2008 12:42 PM
From Wikipedia on the flag desecration amendment:
The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
(It is amazing that they use the word "desecration" in this amendment. Desecrate - from Webster's - "to violate the sacredness of." It is almost as if supporters of this amendment treat the concept of freedom as a religion.)
If Bill Donohue and his "ilk" think this is so all-fired wrong of PZ to nail a cracter; then, perhaps they should get their friends in Congress to propose "the cracker desecration amendment."
I can almost see it: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of consecrated crackers.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the same people who find PZ's behavior so offensive would also find flag burning offensive. After all, it is just a piece of cloth.
How little did Webster Cook know the thousands of emails, web posts, and letters his little act of defiance would generate.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 12:43 PM
Part of what PZ was responding to was a physical assault on Webster Cook. That assault was carried out by a Eucharist Minister. In otherwords, an official in the Catholic Church. It was an action of the Catholic Church to assault Cook. If Catholics were not demanding she be dismissed from her post, and her actions reported to the police, they were condoning the assault.
Posted by: Minneapolitian | August 4, 2008 12:43 PM
"Again, I ask--is this what we can expect for intellectual discourse among professors in this country, and in the State of Minnesota?"
I certainly hope so, this is one of the many reasons why I live in this great state.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 12:46 PM
Dav, it's so nice to hear the voice of reason once in a while. I presume you are among those who believe whatever the local church custom is, is OK. Like stoning unbelievers? Stoning sass-mouthed young-uns? Physically assaulting someone not properly working a ritual?
Your concern has been noted and filed. In the shitcan.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 12:46 PM
Why would they be offended that a non-Catholic doesn't think their sacred crackers are sacred unless they think everyone should?
Posted by: phentari | August 4, 2008 12:48 PM
...and, as a side note, the use of "maroon" in place of "moron" is only amusing when done by Bugs Bunny. I know Bugs Bunny. Bugs Bunny is a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Bugs Bunny.
Posted by: LynstHolin | August 4, 2008 12:48 PM
The Rooke said:
I am not your husband or father and it is not therefore for me to decide what you should wear.
That cracked me up. I wonder who would tell a widowed orphan what to wear.
You'll have to excuse me--I'm off to dress myself in a pair of pants I got from the mens' section of Target--without consulting my husband.
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 12:49 PM
"Only a drooling maroon,"
yea, that's an inspiring argument. Very Christian like.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 12:52 PM
I think it's a stretch to say Cook was "physically assaulted", Matt.
I'd expect to be physically detained myself if I tried to remove something as highly valued as a communion wafer. Just what did Cook think the reaction would be to his actions, anyway?
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 12:52 PM
Lynst, if I remember the babble correctly, the widower's brother-in-law (husband's brother) gets/has to marry her and tell her what to do.
I can only pray that those pants are of a single fabric.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 12:54 PM
Fallacy #27: The response was expected and, therefore, right.
Posted by: Whateverman | August 4, 2008 12:55 PM
"Why would they be offended that a non-Catholic doesn't think their sacred crackers are sacred unless they think everyone should?"
Well, it's obvious that the vocal Catholics involved do think everyone should.
However, I intially agreed with Dav's point of view (though not his tone) - I felt it was like kicking the pathologically insensed right in the sacred spot; easy target.
I'll admit, however - the continued idiocy coming from said vocal minority has changed my opinion. The kick was well deserved. I also know some Catholics following this story, none of whom feel mortally insulted...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 12:56 PM
Cracker was given to him. He took it to his seat to show his friend where he was physically assaulted in the legal definition. After the assault he left.
Posted by: Minneapolitian | August 4, 2008 12:57 PM
#194 All they ask is that we respect the choices they make, a respect that I, as an agnostic, am perfectly willing to grant."
Yeah, tell that to a person who happens to be gay (not by choice even) and see the respect they get from the majority of the religious community. Respect goes both ways and it is earned, not just granted because they say so. The religious community is far from respectful of others and until they change their ways the old saying "what goes around comes around" is fitting.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 12:57 PM
No, he was assaulted. He had taken the wafer back to his seat. Something that is not unknown in Catholic Masses. As he did so someone tried to pry the wafer from his hand. It was only following this assault that he left the hall, with the wafer.
Clearly you think assault is acceptable behaviour. I guess honesty is also something you think optional, since you chose to lie about the events.
Posted by: BobC | August 4, 2008 12:57 PM
Rod Dreher wrote:
Human beings? Nobody ever talks about chimpanzee beings.
I am bound to respect insane religious assholes? I don't think so.
Posted by: watercat | August 4, 2008 12:58 PM
Wrong. This got started when Michelle Ducker assaulted a fellow Catholic over how he was following their ritual. Then when he pressed charges, other members of her cult joined her in a campaign of harassment. After that, Donohue et al joined in.
People keep claiming the cracker was stolen. I asked a lawyer. He told me that once it was in Cook's possession, Ducker no longer had a claim on it.
Furthermore, once Ducker assaulted Cook, his right to defend himself overrides any property issues anyway.
Posted by: Jason | August 4, 2008 12:59 PM
What a bunch of whining, lunatic, tantrum-throwing babies.
Not to mention that demanding respect is something that I won't follow through with, I'll simply tolerate your ridiculous belief that your lord and savior is in a cracker, and I'll respect your right to hold that belief. But I don't need to respect your completely absurd belief.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 12:59 PM
Dav, did you come in late? Aw who fuggin cares, you big old concern troll.
"Physically detained"? Really, you'd expect that? Because the Catholic involved (Cook, remember?) did NOT expect that*. "Highly valued". That appears to be based only on certain venues/parishes. Many catholics have expressed surprise at the assault. And yes, physically grabbing someone or trying to pry something from their fingers IS assault.
Now...PRAY OFF!
*nor did he expect...
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 1:00 PM
To all the Catholics.
This should answer all your questions about god and how atheists think about religion.
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 4, 2008 1:00 PM
It's occasionally amusing when it's done appropriately and accurately in a manner that conjures up in the mind the voice given to Bugs by the great vocal talent of Mel Blanc, as in a well-placed "Wadda maroon!"
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 1:01 PM
Bob said: "I presume you are among those who believe whatever the local church custom is, is OK. Like stoning unbelievers? Stoning sass-mouthed young-uns? Physically assaulting someone not properly working a ritual?"
Israelite rules apply to Israelites alone (I don't believe they stoned unbelievers, but if they did, they certainly shouldn't have).
What current relgion engages in these practices?
Posted by: Todd | August 4, 2008 1:02 PM
Only a drooling maroon, offended by the actions of some Catholics, goes out of his way to offend all of them.
Dav, you wouldn't happen to be related to this idiot.
Posted by: Brian G | August 4, 2008 1:03 PM
Man, I have to return all of these miniskirts?
I was even going to shave my legs.
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 1:04 PM
Dreher and Peter Rooke are of a paradigm where they can't conceive that not only do atheists reject the whole transubstantiation thing, but most protestants do too. They also do not understand that many, if not most of us, came from religious backgrounds.
Their indoctrination into Catholic rhetoric and liturgy blinds them to the fact that, outside of ceremony and ritual in the church during communion, a mass produced wafer is only that, no matter what incantations are intoned over it. If a communion wafer falls on the floor during a Baptist ceremony, it's simply swept up later and thrown away - no harm, no foul. They understand it is symbolic.
Dreher and Rooke assume that we have never been a part of that paradigm and cannot conceive that a more rational new paradigm rejects it out of hand as an atavistic cautionary tale.
I am guilty of redundancy myself on this issue,(mea culpa) I keep reiterating my grasp of the obvious and I've been cudgeling that old ex-mare as much as anyone, but Dreher and his ilk won't let it die. I don't hate religious people; I hate stupid religious people.(sigh)
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 1:06 PM
tsg said: "Why would they be offended that a non-Catholic doesn't think their sacred crackers are sacred unless they think everyone should?"
They don't ask you to worship the crackers, just to repsect the fact that they do. And as granting such respect imposes absolutely nothing on anybody, why should any sane person object?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 1:08 PM
Dav Laurel do you eat beef?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 1:09 PM
I will never respect anyone's religious beliefs. I will only tolerate them. Object? Because there's no evidence of any gods. Is that hard to understand?
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 1:11 PM
"They don't ask you to worship the crackers, just to repsect the fact that they do. And as granting such respect imposes absolutely nothing on anybody, why should any sane person object?"
Because sane people object more strongly to those that with one hand propagate the idea that killing is immoral, and with the other send death threats to those that do not adhere to strict eucharist dogma.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 1:11 PM
Dav, apparently Catholics practice that last one.
A recent post from PZ highlighted a (civil?) case where the standards of conduct were established by the church involved (in said case). The extreme interpretation would then permit believers in stoning to go ahead and stone "their" sinners.
Besides, for the sake of argument, it doesn't matter. If the True Followers agree, who are we to opine on their sacred beliefs, no matter how secularly horrific they might be?
"All they ask is that we respect the choices they make, a respect that I, as an agnostic, am perfectly willing to grant."
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 1:11 PM
Rev, I think it's been established that the Hindu's don't deserve the same respect at Catholics. Try to stay current ;)
Posted by: sfatheist | August 4, 2008 1:12 PM
BD@89: This may be the quote you were looking for:
Voltaire: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 4, 2008 1:14 PM
I was more surprised to read this op-ed in the Minnesota daily, PZ's own university paper, which was very negative of PZ's actions :
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/07/30/72167583
"PZ Myers' Catholic insults do harm to everyone"
What I find strange is that they write this, but it is so obviously one sided : he wants skeptics and believers to reach a consensus on the role of religion, but that's quite impossible when the religious have such an inflated role for religion, and when most skeptics see very little or no role for it. Also, what about the role of non religious people in society ? When so many religious Americans have so little respect for non believers, that so many would gladly not consider their right to be citizen or be candidate for public office, or consider the USA a "Christian Nation", it's quite clear that the author is only considering one side of this debate, side that has NEVER before demonstrated any tolerance for non christians.
So why should skeptic now bow to their demands, just hoping that they will become more tolerant ? That will achieve nothing.
What terrible article. I think it demands a response by PZ himself.
Posted by: Steve in MI, SfS/PZM | August 4, 2008 1:16 PM
Ah, finally, I've found my calling. I've never written well enough to claim the Order of the Molly (OM); and I don't actively contribute to the field of biology enough to feel justified claiming even the "Friend of Charles Darwin" (FCD) honorary. But THIS is one I will not hesitate to claim as my own. A spittle-flecked supporter of PZ Myers. If that ain't poetry...- Steve in MI, SfS/PZM
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 4, 2008 1:16 PM
Matt Penfold @ # 182 - You're missing the point!
Pete Rooke @ # 177 said:
The first two words are the ones that matter.
So long as Pete Rooke believes it, you (and I and professors and everybody) are not allowed to question or debate it.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 1:16 PM
And a self-selecting one. This is my position, very simply: those who are offended by the desecration of a cracker deserve to be. Their offense is entirely of their own doing and entirely due to their intolerance of others not holding sacred the same things they do. Period.
In the one of the umpteen crackergate threads, someone made the analogy "how would you feel if I wiped my ass with a picture of your mother?" My response: "Go ahead. I'll send you one. It's only a piece of paper. There is nothing you can do to it that will harm my actual mother. And it can only harm me if I value your opinion of my mother. I don't because you don't know her and, more importantly, I know you're only doing it to piss me off. I can disarm you completely by doing one simple thing: not letting you."
I'll give the people who are offending by PZ's treatment of the communion wafer the same advice: don't let it bother you. Stop caring that others don't hold sacred the same things you do and it will not matter in the slightest. You can prevent him from offending you by one simple act: not letting him. That's what this is about. You can't stand that others don't think this cracker is sacred. They don't have to. That is your intolerance. That's the point.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 1:19 PM
Ahh damn I missed that. Oh well.
I guess I probably could have figured that out...
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | August 4, 2008 1:19 PM
#144 MaryM.MOJ | August 4, 2008 12:11 PM
can someone explain this for me "Birkenstocked Burkeans"
Burkean as in Edmund Burke. Ron Dreher is a conservative columnist, and Burke was an English conservative who marched out of step with his fellow Tories by championing the American Colonies in the punch-up that led to the Revolutionary War. Dreher's conservatism is, well rather less flamboyantly nutty than that of most American conservatives.
Birkenstocks are posh sandals, and Dreher is a bit of a green. He owns chickens, grows his own vegetables, and so on.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | August 4, 2008 1:20 PM
TrueBob @#133 Oh dear, if that particular disease is now going to bombs on your side of the pond you have my deepest sympathies. Things have been quiet here in the UK since the govt passed some new specific laws and put a pile of the usual suspects in jail.
It may seem the authorities are overreacting but believe me they are not. It is a little known fact that the animal rights movement has been responsible for more individual acts of terrorism on the British mainland than the IRA, they just kill and hurt fewer people, though not through lack of trying.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 1:21 PM
@ Brian G
Man, I have to return all of these miniskirts?
I was even going to shave my legs.
Even though this is a joke you've summed up why I feel a duty to continue my quest to inform and educate those of you who simply don't know any better. Now of course there are the heretics among us here who do know better and still choose to act out their various perversions. For instance, I am sorry to have seemingly insulted both Lynst Holin and Miss Prism but at least they can no longer feign ignorance.
@ E.V.
I am quite aware that most of the world doesn't believe in transubstantiation. Indeed, it's hard to believe but there are some "Catholics" who do not believe in transubstantiation. However, I refer you to one of my previous analogies (comment 88, no. 2):
2) Suppose your are an embalmer. You are busy embalming a person for an open coffin ceremony and you decide to pilfer there lush locks of blonde hair for the construction of high class wigs (a business you have going on the side).
This person happens to be a Sikh. In order to hide the fact you have stolen their hair you then purchase a cheap synthetic wig and replace it. In the small print of the contract (which the distraught family don't read carefully enough) you make mention of this.
After the event you then decide to publicize this gleefully on a blog. No physical harm has been done to either person and yet I would argue that this is equivalent to PZ Myer's theft and subsequent desecration of the Eucharist publicized on his blog (of which extra web traffic generates money).
Now it's fair to assume that to most of the world the beliefs that Sikhs hold are utterly insane. And yet, it is clear to every person of right mind that the theft of the hair and the violation of trust is wrong despite this. PZ's actions with the stolen Eucharist is every bit as damnable and despicable.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 1:21 PM
AHHH his blog name "crunchycon" makes sense now.
Posted by: qedpro | August 4, 2008 1:22 PM
#62.
I propose
jihadachrists.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 1:24 PM
No, they are pissed off because someone who doesn't follow their belief system didn't worship the cracker and, instead, threw it away.
Stop eating pork and beef. Don't operate light switches on the Sabbath. Pray to Mecca five times a day. Sweep the ground in front of you so you don't kill any insects. Because these are all beliefs held by other religions and by not observing them you aren't respecting them. And, by your logic, it won't impose anything on you.
Freedom of Religion.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 1:25 PM
Hi Peter,
They've been over here for a long time, just haven't been bombing, that I know of. Mostly they've vandalised buildings, "freed" research animals, etc. I'm all for them exposing the BS that factory farming has become, a la The Jungle, but IMHO this is terribly dangerous, and as many of their efforts, ineffective.
Posted by: oldtree | August 4, 2008 1:26 PM
crackergate continues as catholics spin out of control for want of a tasty treat. Can't get enough meat so they have to eat their favorite guy? This is about eating a person?
If that isn't enough, it is a cracker to which they equate the person.
Please, do not make vegetables and grains into dead animals. The thought is disgusting to those of us that don't kill beings to eat. catholics will apparently eat garbage.
Posted by: Whateverman | August 4, 2008 1:27 PM
"Stop caring that others don't hold sacred the same things you do and it will not matter in the slightest."
This is true about life in general: you give your enemies power when you let their opinions of you have an impact. Believe it or not, the last time I'd heard this idea was from a 1993 audio book series by Dennis Miller called "The Rants".
So yeah, I agree with you. Life's rough - wear a cup.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 1:34 PM
tsg, please detail the injuries sustained by Cook during the "physical assault", the medical treatment he required, and the legal action he took in response to this "crime".
The explorer Richard Burton once entered Mecca in dusguise, knowing he'd have been killed on the spot if he had been detected. Doesn't make such killing "right", but he understood the risks and accepted the possible consequences.
Chimp: "After the assult he left". Yes, but with what? I eat beef, pork and shellfish, what's your point?
Minneapolitian: I understand your feelings, but the state cannot dictate church policy towards gays (or African-Americans, for that matter).
Bob: There are obviously limits on what a secular state will tolerate. Iran hangs gays, we don't. It seems disingenuous to equate Communion with stoning.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 1:34 PM
I learned this early on. My secret to happiness is: "Who are you that I should care what you think of me?"
Posted by: SC | August 4, 2008 1:35 PM
I still think there's a good chance these "Pete Rooke" posts are some kind of experimental art piece.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 1:36 PM
If my answer to this is "nothing" what do you think it proves?
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 1:37 PM
Pete, since yopu came back, please help me with this conundrum (reposted from 168):
Once upon a time, some impoverished, primitive, illiterate subsistence farmers and other ne'er-do-wells knew this guy, and they followed him around, like Chuck Manson's family. He was executed for crimes against the state.
This guy, now dead, was zombified by a witch-doctor. His followers became cannibals, inspired by the zombielicious lifestyle.
How could we neutral observers tell the difference between that insane cult, and modern devout catholics?
Posted by: Thomas Langham | August 4, 2008 1:37 PM
All these Christians contacting you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam. The fact is that there is no physical equivalent of the Eucharist. Indeed, Islam specifically prevents the creation of idols, which are worshipped in place of Allah. So, when a Christian compares the cracker to a Koran, they are completely misunderstanding the relationship between Islam and their holy book. I suppose if a knowledgeable Christian wanted to dare PZ to attract rage from a certain type of Muslim, then they would ask him to depict Muhammed or Allah.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 1:39 PM
The point is you think people should be bound to treat a cracker as sacred but not have to respect the beliefs of other religions. It means you are a hypocrite.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 4, 2008 1:40 PM
Even though this is a joke you've summed up why I feel a duty to continue my quest to inform and educate those of you who simply don't know any better.
Self-righteous much? Again, do you wear clothing made of two different fibers? Are there tassels at the four corners of your clothing?
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
I've read the whole Bible. I don't need you to "inform and educate" me because I have critical thinking skills and know that an ancient book might not be the best guide on how to live my life.
I'm off to wear *sheer* miniskirts while eating bacon cheeseburgers. I might even covet my neighbor's stuff (he has a really nice flat screen TV).
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 1:40 PM
"please detail the injuries sustained by Cook during the 'physical assault'".
Injuries are not required for a charge of "assault" to be legally valid. I can throw a knife at your head and miss, and still go to jail.
In this case, Cook was "manhandled" for lack of a better term. From memory only, I believe he was grabbed and restrained to some extent. Charges probably could be filed, but I doubt it will happen. Of much more significance are the death threats...
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 1:41 PM
# 220 Dav on stoners
All of them. They use small leaden stones at high velocity.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 1:41 PM
I see another thousand-comment thread in the making.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 1:41 PM
Why do you desecrate the sacred cow of Hinduism? Do you not respect them?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 1:42 PM
@ True Bob
I read your "analogy" the first time you posted it and I don't see the relationship. Catholicism is not a cult.
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 4, 2008 1:43 PM
Kinda sad that he has to describe the demons as metaphorical, lest his audience be confused and think he is discussing "real" demons.
/sarcasm
Posted by: BT Murtagh | August 4, 2008 1:43 PM
Hey! I barely started reading and I'm already flecked- flecked with spittle!
Who flecked me with spittle?
Harumph. This could be the beginning of a testy relationship.
Posted by: six7s | August 4, 2008 1:44 PM
I propose: "nuclear Christians"
Firing bullistic massiles?
Posted by: apk | August 4, 2008 1:44 PM
If we're spittle-flecked, it's only because the rabid xtians have been screaming at us.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 1:44 PM
Pete @257:
Please demonstrate objectively the difference between Catholicism and a cult.
Posted by: Epikt | August 4, 2008 1:44 PM
John Robie:
I'm guessing he likes the fact that the monotheists destroyed a competing civilization with nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 1:45 PM
As far as I know he suffered no injuries, but then one does not have to suffer injury to be the victim of assault. Physical injuries will simply increase the severity of the assault, the lack of them does not mean no assault occurred.
As for legal actions, he made a formal complain to the university.
I think you are suffering from the fact you are talking out of your backside. Clearly you have no idea what constitutes an assault in law.
In addition you have already condone the assault on Cook, so we know what sort of person you. Ethical and moral behaviour would seem to be an alien concept to you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 1:46 PM
Why?
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 1:46 PM
"Catholicism is not a cult. "
Oh great, here we go ......
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 4, 2008 1:47 PM
Catholicism is not a cult.
Yes it is.
Some definitions of "cult" from Dictionary.com
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
There ya go. Catholicism is clearly a cult by definitions 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 4, 2008 1:47 PM
Pete Rooke,
you are quite something of a particularly obtuse insipid idiot to repost this pathetically wrong analogy of the dead sikh's hair.
There are more than a billion catholics worldwide, so I think there are at least several billions absolutely identical and replacable consecrated Eucharists handed out at mass each month, litteraly without any control. That a few catholics actually think this whole cracker worshipping business is ridiculous and kept it and sent at least one to PZ doesn't seem surprising, and he didn't steal anybody's Eucharist. It was sent to him generously.
In the case of the Sikh's hair, you are talking of someone who deliberately steals someone's property, without his consent, and moreover something that is not easily replacable by the billions, like the Eucharist.
So absolutely nothing in your pathetic analogy works, but as an idiot who can't seem to grasp the difference, you have stuck with it for more than a week, and you seem to think anybody is impressed ? Only by your stupidity.
Posted by: six7s | August 4, 2008 1:48 PM
Of much more significance are the death threats...
What sort of death threats would Jeebus make?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 1:48 PM
Assault has its origins in Common Law.
A definition of Common Law assault is "A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault."
It would seem Dav Laurel needs to go away and learn what assault is.
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 1:48 PM
Dav #245 wrote "Chimp: "After the assult [sic] he left". Yes, but with what?"
With the cracker. Like everyone who participated in that ritual, he left the ceremony with a cracker. The difference is that he left with it in his pocket, and everyone else left with it in their stomachs. For such a 'crime', he faced death-threats and calls to expel him from the university.
Does that seem right to you?
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 1:48 PM
From Dictionary.com, Pete. Check elsewhere, some use the first definition here, as second, third, etc definition. All religions are cults*.
cult /kʌlt/ -noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
-adjective
9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.
*"Mythology is the sacred religion of the vanquished. Religion is the superstitious tripe of the victors."
- Me, occasionally
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 1:48 PM
I think it's a fair question. The word "cult" has a variety of definitions in common usage; most of those unquestionably apply to Catholicism, and the remainder arguably do.
I'm curious as to whether any rational argument can be advanced to defend the proposition that Catholicism is not, in fact, a cult.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 1:51 PM
@ Lynst Holin:
That cracked me up. I wonder who would tell a widowed orphan what to wear.
You'll have to excuse me--I'm off to dress myself in a pair of pants I got from the mens' section of Target--without consulting my husband.
It is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing to the extent that what passes for menswear could equally pass for womenswear. Nowadays it is quite common to see so called "businesswoman" in suites with close cropped hair. Stick a pen in their pants pocket and they might as well be men. These feminists want to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes and the roles they have played and should continue to play in society.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 1:51 PM
Pygmy @267:
Given the number of fundamentalists who decry Catholicism as pagans and "not real Christians," I think we can safely apply definitions 6 and 7, as well.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 1:52 PM
Now suppose I'm an exotic dancer. I've just purchased a new headdress, with lots of really nice feathers from a bird that's on the endangered species list. The...
No, wait.
Support I'm a dental hygienist. To save my employer money, I've decided to covertly reuse strands of dental floss. Everyone knows that dental floss is a renewable resouce, so...
No, no, that's not right.
Some guy sticks his tongue out at me and mocks the small golden Orthodox cross I have hanging by a fine chain around my neck - the one my grandmother left me. I threaten to beat his brains in with a hammer if he doesn't quit his job and go into hiding. Yeah, that's it. A hammer! Clearly I am in the right.
See, Peter? Analogies aren't so tough!
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 1:53 PM
"Nowadays it is quite common to see so called "businesswoman" in suites with close cropped hair."
Suites can have close-cropped hair? I've seen suites with shag rugs before, but...
Posted by: CJOO | August 4, 2008 1:53 PM
A religion is just a cult with an army.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 4, 2008 1:53 PM
Phentari,
You're right! I wasn't thinking religulously enough. :)
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 1:54 PM
# 123
is this the kind of intellectual discourse that we can expect from tenured professors?
-------
I hope so, but I'm an optimist.
-----------------
Scooter #134--Wow. I guess that we should give up hoping that our professors use reason and sensibility. I don't know, I guess that I just have higher standards than to think that 8th grade stunts are the best that we can expect a professor to muster.
Posted by: CJO | August 4, 2008 1:55 PM
And CJOO is just CJO with too much coffee.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 1:55 PM
Wow you really are a 16th century jackass aren't you?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 1:55 PM
I am glad you are disturbed. I hope it keeps you up at night.
Meanwhile the rest of us are quite happy that women feel free to wear whatever clothes they feel comfortable in, and wear their hair in any style they choose. If that upsets misogynists bastards like you, even better. I hope you for the rest of life you are surrounded by woman wearing mini-skirts, skimpy tops with short-cropped hair.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 1:56 PM
"Why is it not a cult?"
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/isitcult.htm
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 1:56 PM
Concern noted. Now go away.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 1:57 PM
Hoo-boy. You're one of those, eh, Pete? Join the 20th century, please; it's a short hop from there to here.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 1:57 PM
The hammer isn't these. The hammer is my penis.
Posted by: Josh | August 4, 2008 1:58 PM
Sam, I presume you're leveling the same criticism at the remarkably mature Catholics who are filling PZ's inbox with notable examples of Christian love and forgiveness?
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 1:59 PM
Matt #283 "I hope you for the rest of life you are surrounded by woman wearing mini-skirts, skimpy tops with short-cropped hair."
My idea of heaven!
Posted by: jagannath | August 4, 2008 1:59 PM
Oy, I wear a kilt (skirt) so are you going to spout something about it, Rooke?
Posted by: Whateverman | August 4, 2008 2:00 PM
Sam @ #280 wrote "I don't know, I guess that I just have higher standards than to think that 8th grade stunts are the best that we can expect a professor to muster."
I was willing to entertain the notion that you might have interesting ideas worth reading. However, you appear to be sticking to one argument out of some notion that you've hit a nerve of some kind; you haven't.
By repeating the immaturity charge while ignoring the death threats sent by faithful members of your own religion, you betray your own immaturity - and intellectual cowardice.
Cheers
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 2:00 PM
tsg (and Chimp): The various religious strictures you list in #241 are binding on the believer, not the unbeliever. That's Religion 101. Respecting the beliefs of others in no sense obliges me to do as they do.
I respect their belief if they respect my non-belief.
If Cook sustained no injuries, then you are exaggerating in calling it a "physical assault". I think shoplifters are forcibly detained, too.
Frankly, I suspect the outrage over Cook is completely insincere, exploited by Myers as a means of garnering publicity.
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 2:00 PM
Myers didn't get really ticked off and crackericidal until the wingnuts went all terroristic.
Raven #160
Actually, Prof. Myers went irrational well before anyone went after him.
You're into the position of saying "it wasn't my fault--he started it!" How far did that get you when you were 12 years old?
Shouldn't we expect professors who claim to live a life of reason, to use reason in confronting claims with which they disagree? Is our model of opposition to claims which we feel to be unjust to be to go straight for the emotional, rather than to make a sustained, rational argument?
Posted by: CJO | August 4, 2008 2:01 PM
I guess that we should give up hoping that our professors use reason and sensibility.
PZ evidently throws his garbage in the garbage. What are you on about? Where do you throw your garbage? And just how is it a "stunt"? The degree of difficulty is pretty low. Some people sure are easily impressed.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 2:01 PM
Continuing on - to call it a cult in general usage is misleading because of the negative value judgement that accompanies it. You might as well declare the monthly town hall meeting that begins with the pledge of allegiance and has a shared and stated code of behaviour/judgement a cult.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 2:01 PM
To support your insistence that Catholicism isn't a cult you reference a cult member?
Is this your standard of evidence?
Posted by: Sven | August 4, 2008 2:02 PM
Hi Pete, I simply don't know any better. Can you please continue to inform and educate me on the subtleties of what I'm supposed to wear and how?
- I'm a swimmer. Is it ok for me to shave my legs so that I swim faster?
- I'm a cross-dresser. Is it ok for me to shave my legs so I look good in my mini-skirt?
- I'm a cross-dressing swimmer. Is it ok for me to wear my mini-skirt since I just happen to have a smooth pair of legs to go with them?
- I'm an actor. Is it ok for me to wear a mini-skirt while playing the part of a cross-dresser?
- I'm an actor. Is it ok for me to enjoy wearing that mini-skirt?
- I'm an actor. Is it ok for me to enjoy wearing a mini-skirt whilst playing the part of a cross-dresser in a church-funded movie explaining the problems with mini-skirts in today's increasingly dysfunctional society?
- I'm a swimmingly good cross-dresser acting the part of a player. Is it ok for me to be confused about my role in society?
Please inform and educate me.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 2:03 PM
Pete, I'll entertain your notion that the catholic church is not a cult. Now how do I tell the difference between the Legitimate Religion and the crazy cult o'cannibals?
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 2:03 PM
And a non-Catholic not eating a communion wafer is different how?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 2:03 PM
Satan is my motor. Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell.
[Err... what?]
Posted by: Josh | August 4, 2008 2:03 PM
Actually, Prof. Myers went irrational well before anyone went after him.
I would be interested to see your time line here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 2:04 PM
He wanted to show by example how irrational the response from the catholics was and could get.
And that he did, in spades.
Perfectly reasonable.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 2:05 PM
Concern noted. Now go away.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 2:05 PM
I don't see any evidence that PZ wasn't rational. Throwing out a cracker that means nothing to him is quite rational. That it means something to the Catholic cult is precisely the point.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 2:05 PM
"See, Peter? Analogies aren't so tough!"
That was meaningless dribble. Please try harder, unless that was the intent.
Posted by: DSimon | August 4, 2008 2:06 PM
Yeah, of course you're not the Sleepless Brain. I'm the Sleepless Brain. And don't you forget iZzzzZZzz...
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 2:06 PM
Dav @ #292 wrote: "Frankly, I suspect the outrage over Cook is completely insincere, exploited by Myers as a means of garnering publicity."
How is it insincere to express concern at death threats sent to a college student as a result of religious intolerance?
I'm serious.
Or, is it more difficult to be respectful of opinions you find distasteful, while asking others to respect yours?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 2:07 PM
**drivel (see previous)
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 2:07 PM
# 253
Just to clear things up a little assault is the threat of violence, battery is physical violence.
They are usually combined as a charge. There is some variation State to State, but not significant.
A tussle or shoving, etc where there are no injuries is a misdemeanor, if there is an injury, it is a felony. What occurred in the church when Cook was grabbed would be considered a misdemeanor battery in most courts.
Most simple assaults are misdemeanors. If you threaten to kick somebody's ass, then do a decent job of it, that's your classic Felony Assault and Battery.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 4, 2008 2:08 PM
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 2:08 PM
Dear Pete,
How long should a skirt be? Does it depend on how tall the wearer is? What fabrics should it be made of (or not be made of)? What colours and patterns are acceptable/unacceptable?
Thanks.
Posted by: qbsmd | August 4, 2008 2:08 PM
I see this as an opportunity for consciousness raising: calling these people jihadists makes it clear that they are terrorists, they are criminals, they are no better than Islamists who behave similarly. I think that might make some people open their eyes and understand the problem with religion, while trying to add humor detracts from that.
Posted by: Allytude | August 4, 2008 2:09 PM
Good atheists do not spittle-fleck, they drool, rather they froth.
PZ, you are breaking the tenets of atheism.
Tenet 1 Froth not spittle fleck
Tenet 2 Eat Babies
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 4, 2008 2:09 PM
Pete Rooke, the Hannibal Lector wannabe, said # 274,
"It is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing...."
Really? The guy who brings up stealing parts of corpses, girls in miniskirts getting raped and books made of the skin of loved ones is disturbed by unisex clothing?
Posted by: Natalie | August 4, 2008 2:11 PM
The various religious strictures you list in #241 are binding on the believer, not the unbeliever. That's Religion 101. Respecting the beliefs of others in no sense obliges me to do as they do."
Exactly. Thus, PZ is perfectly free to throw a communion wafer in the garbage.
"If Cook sustained no injuries, then you are exaggerating in calling it a "physical assault". I think shoplifters are forcibly detained, too."
First of all, shoplifters are physically detained by police officers - most stores won't allow their employees to physically detain a suspected shoplifter because they are concerned about liability. A police officer has a particular societal role that allows them to use force to enforce the law. Even then, we have put limits on what police officers can do.
Secondly, Webster Cook is not a shoplifter. The wafer was given to him. At that point, it legally became his to do with as he saw fit. Physically assaulting someone because they are handling their property differently than you think they should is completely out of line.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 2:11 PM
Pete, I'll entertain your notion that the catholic church is not a cult. Now how do I tell the difference between the Legitimate Religion and the crazy cult o'cannibals?
It's a value judgement. As with my previous example it can be applied to virtually any group. Provide a more technical definition of a cult and it would be more meaningful.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 2:11 PM
Pete, all of this talk of attire has me curious as well.
Is it appropriate for me to wear my bearskin thong and viking helmet with my Doc Martins. And should I be brandishing a socket wrench?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 2:12 PM
MH: "For such a 'crime', he faced death-threats and calls to expel him from the university. Does that seem right to you?"
No. Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 2:13 PM
"No. Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?"
Seems fine to me.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 2:13 PM
Sam's one of those intellects whose only argument consists of insinuating that his opponent is still in middle school.
Joe Blow - is that you?
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 2:14 PM
Sorry Kseniya. It may be off the toobz now, but check here or here.
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 2:14 PM
#280-Sam
You certainly are guessing
Posted by: Michael X | August 4, 2008 2:14 PM
"Cult" is what you call a small group who believes absurdities. A Religion is what you call a large group who believes absurdities. The only difference is the number of people.
And by the way, in reference to the article, I'm getting sick of people not understanding what "sacred" means, and confusing it for a synonym of "important". I suppose (to continue the Orwell references) these people really do think Ignorance is Strength.
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 2:17 PM
Pete,
If I was a double X chromosome male, would it be okay for me to wear a skirt? If I was a double X chromosome male and had a sex change (ie. I'd be genetically and physiologically female), would it be okay for me to wear a skirt?
Finally, if you were president of the U.S., would you enact laws to ban women from wearing trousers/men from wearing skirts?
Thanks.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 2:18 PM
Exactly. I supposed I should have labeled it for the irony-impaired.
You, however, useless freak that you are, somehow seem to have missed the painfully obvious implications of the third one.
Hmmm. I think I'll go get my hair cut today...
LMAO
Posted by: Whateverman | August 4, 2008 2:18 PM
Dav #318 wrote: "Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?"
It seems neither.
Sending death threats to a college student is definitely Not Right, however.
Posted by: YetAnotherKevin | August 4, 2008 2:18 PM
Just one comment for Pete Rooke:
WTF is up with you and the "knee roll"?!? I had never even heard the term before.
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 2:19 PM
BigDumbChimp #302--
He wanted to show by example how irrational the response from the catholics was and could get.
And that he did, in spades.
Perfectly reasonable.
----------
And yet, we're led to understand that the response to Webster Cook on the part of Catholics, before Prof. Myers involved himself, was irrational. That irrationality had already been shown and proved. What then was the point of Prof. Myers' in carrying on his rant, if his point had already been made?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 2:19 PM
tsg: "And a non-Catholic not eating a communion wafer is different how?"
No difference. Not eating one makes me neutral on the subject. Driving a nail through one, on the other hand...
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 2:20 PM
MH:
"How long should a skirt be? Does it depend on how tall the wearer is? What fabrics should it be made of (or not be made of)? What colours and patterns are acceptable/unacceptable?"
Again it's a value judgement. Perhaps some people do not believe that dressing like a whore is a problem. I for one do.
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 2:20 PM
Dav #318 "Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?"
Pssst... you can buy them at grocery stores.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 2:20 PM
I don't have a problem with it.
Posted by: watercat | August 4, 2008 2:21 PM
Dav; Are you twelve? You're arguing that people don't have to obey the law.
Ducker's assault is detailed in the incident report.
http://www.wftv.com/download/2008/0714/16880943.pdf
The law states that once a cracker is in your possession it belongs to you. You can't steal a gift.
What you can do, if one is an asshole such as yourself, is blame the victim.
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 2:22 PM
Kseniya , it's the 21 century ;)
Posted by: CJO | August 4, 2008 2:23 PM
Does acquiring a communion wafer, which could only have come about under false pretenses, driving a nail through it, placing it among garbage and posting a picture of same on a blog seem right to you?
I'm okay with it. The nail was a little more of a flourish than I usually go with when I'm throwing out the garbage, but, hey, different strokes and all that (and he explained the rationale there, too)."False pretenses" is just laughable, too. A dude in a dress hands you a cracker in a public setting, and you take it. Who's pretending anything?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 2:23 PM
You know what's interesting? Even though I long ago killfiled both Rooke and Dav, it's still no trouble at all to follow this thread. The choicest nuggets of Stoopid get quoted, and I need not risk retina-burn by reading the original posts. I recommend it!
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 2:24 PM
Does making "MOCK apple pie" from Ritz Crackers seem OK to you?
Seems like an abomination to me.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 2:26 PM
Kevin:
WTF is up with you and the "knee roll"?!? I had never even heard the term before.
Lets try not to be profane. In answer though:
http://horses.about.com/od/partsofanenglishsaddle/g/kneeroll.htm
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 2:26 PM
Pete #330 "Again it's a value judgement. Perhaps some people do not believe that dressing like a whore is a problem. I for one do."
But how short does a skirt have to be in order for you to dictate that the wearer is "dressing like a whore"? Also, why is "dressing like a whore" a problem?
Posted by: Leonard Pinth-Garnell | August 4, 2008 2:27 PM
Rod Dreher is well known for being a raving right-wing sociopath, seeing evil behind every non-Christian non-Republican thing.
If there was a way to program my RSS reader to ignore anything he posts, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Honestly, PZ, he's not worth your oxygen.
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 2:28 PM
# 317
If you are choosing the Viking Helmet, you must brandish old school SAE sockets in your wrench, or risk committing a hideous fashion faux paux. Metric goes with spear-top helmets, ala german WWI and goofy bikers, with an elegant polished black leather thong and garish eye-patch
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 2:28 PM
So, no one should be allowed to drive a nail through a cracker?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 2:28 PM
whateverman: "How is it insincere to express concern at death threats sent to a college student as a result of religious intolerance?"
I don't believe myers WAS sincere, but if he was, and if he had done nothing more than express such concern in a rational way, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
By the way, I've visited Pharyngula for years, more for my amusement (since Myers and I are on the same page with regard to evolution), but never read enough to have a sense of what he was really like. In the wake of "crackergate", I've come to see him as, essentally, a wise-ass. The cartoon posted this morning is typical.
He'll never attain the status of Dawkins or Hitchens, but I guess he's content with that.
Posted by: thalarctos | August 4, 2008 2:28 PM
If that's true as far as you're concerned, then please deliver my condolences to Mrs. Rooke.
Posted by: qbsmd | August 4, 2008 2:28 PM
Actually, it is a site by a fundy christian who redefines "cult" to mean "religion I don't agree with" specifically so he can conclude that catholicism IS a cult. I just skimmed it and read the conclusion; Pete managed an impressive fail.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 2:28 PM
Dav can't tell the difference between an act that is offensive to some people, and a death threat.
Folk. Don't cross Dav, whatever you do.
Posted by: Minneapolitian | August 4, 2008 2:29 PM
"Minneapolitian: I understand your feelings, but the state cannot dictate church policy towards gays (or African-Americans, for that matter)".
#245 Dav, this has nothing to do with the state dictating anything, my post was about respect, and respect is something that it is earned, its not a given. I will respect anyone beliefs who is clearly respectful of mine and my family. The majority of the radical religious community shows little respect for others who are very different from themselves. If they want my respect and respect of people like PZ they in turn need to show us the same respect. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
Posted by: Nate W | August 4, 2008 2:29 PM
Whatever motivated you do the stupid thing you did is completely irrelevant. The fact is that you responded to the initial overreaction with an overreaction of your own. Instead of demonstrating the superiority of your position by responding with maturity and civility, you chose to act like a child and go out of your way to offend Catholics everywhere and alienate yourself from them. Catholics (and other religious believers) and secularists alike can for the most part come together in condemning whatever bad behavior got this whole thing started, but by your own bad behavior you've basically spit in our faces and told us that you don't give a damn about us or what we might have to say on the matter. There's no doubt that the existence of intellectual frauds like you is a threat to mature, civil public moral discussion.
And as a PhD student planning to reside permanently in academia, I have to add: Shame on you, Professor (if you even deserve that title) Myers! Averagle folk already look upon academics with enough suspicion that we certainly don't need to obnoxious behavior of people like you making things harder for us. I would be ashamed to be your colleague.
Posted by: CJO | August 4, 2008 2:30 PM
Lets try not to be profane.
Lets just be really, really creepy instead.
Posted by: Patricia | August 4, 2008 2:31 PM
Ahh, another happy Monday on Crackerville. I did two chicken abortions this morning, ate the results for breakfast, and now I'm going to commit sloth. For fun I'll be a militant, wanton abomination while I'm at it.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 2:31 PM
Concern noted. Now go away.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 2:31 PM
Pete @284:
"Because a Christian website says so" isn't exactly convincing evidence...particularly when that website admits that, by most definitions, Catholicism (like any other religion) is a cult.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 2:31 PM
I think you'd better read my comment again.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 2:32 PM
Thanks, Pete, for confirming what I wrote about nyths and religions. Value judgment.
Since you cannot articulate a means of telling the difference between catholics and kooks, I assume you can't tell them apart either.
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 2:34 PM
""False pretenses" is just laughable, too. A dude in a dress hands you a cracker in a public setting, and you take it. Who's pretending anything?"
Even though the "false pretenses" and "theft" allegations are bullshit, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate those points... because even then their argument is STILL stupid.
If you DID take a cracker under false pretenses and then disrespect it publicly, at most the due "punishment" should be to banned from future cracker giveaways.
I mean, seriously - suppose a someone came into your house at your invitation, and while you were in the bathroom they LITERALLY stole a triscuit from you. Not accepted under false pretenses, but brazenly went into your cupboard, opened the box, and stole one cracker and posted a picture of it being thrown away with extreme prejudice... you might think "um, that guy's a little weird." Which could mean you might not invite him in in the future, or it could mean you'd give him a call and invite him to your next party to see what he does next.
But would you call the cops over the stolen cracker? Would you lose a moment's sleep? Would you reply on his blog with outrage?
Not if you were sane you wouldn't.
OK, maybe that's not a perfect analogy... let's make it better. Suppose the guy who stole your triscuit was wearing a leather thong and you were dressed as a Catholic schoolgirl.
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 2:34 PM
Okay, Pete what about kilts? ( I won't even bring up genetic gender ambiguity, Kleinfelter's Syndrome, etc) What about roman peplums? Depending on the century, what was gender appropriate is no longer so. So do we go back to the garb of 2000 years ago"
Are women sinning because they're in pants? But what about the pantaloon-like wear for women in Persia worn back a couple of millenia?
Earrings and makeup were acceptable for men in different societies, in fact that defined the male ideal until it fell from fashion.
Your little bible is so subjective and relative to the peoples who wrote it.
One more question (and I know I'll regret asking): How does one ranch and and be a conscientious vegetarian?
......................................................................................................................................
Q:
Oh get a life. You can start by understanding the value of levity.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 2:34 PM
Pete @284 again:
It's particularly unconvincing when the website you link wraps up its discussion in the following manner:
"Conclusion
There are other evidences of cultism in Roman Catholicism, too numerous to mention here. One significant consideration: any religious group that threatens damnation and/or excommunication to any segment of its membership for eating, drinking, marrying, or failure to attend religious rites is a cult."
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 2:35 PM
Matt: "First you claimed Cook was only stopped from leaving the hall (it was not a Church), but you got caught in that lie."
I did? Cite the post number, please.
I don't deny Cook was technically assaulted. And I suppose, technically, Clinton did sexually harrass Paula Jones. But I think in both cases, the respective charges were/are exaggerated to serve propagandistic ends.
Posted by: Matt | August 4, 2008 2:36 PM
Rooke.
Your analogy might have worked, if the Sikh's family was handing out locks of the deceased person's hair to everyone at a funeral open to the public. Then, yes, you could take some home, and do whatever you wanted with it. And if they were offended with what you did with it, that would be tough luck.
And yes, this is analogous to what happened with the Eucharist. It is a small bit of food, handed out for free to members of the public who can come into a Church if they like. No crime is committed by not eating a bit of food that has been given to you.
But I'm pretty sure that this is just another gruesome fantasy of yours involving corpse hair, so don't worry about it too much.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 2:37 PM
So, Nate, where are these Catholics who condemned what initially happened to Cook, AND the subsequent targeting and demonization of Cook by their batshit insane co-religionists?
Because unless you can point to any substantial response of that kind with which secularists could possibly "work together", you're full of crap.
Posted by: qbsmd | August 4, 2008 2:38 PM
I don't think it's wrong.
Since you obviously do, a more relevant question is: Do you believe that they are EQUALLY wrong? Because things christians on these threads have said implies that.
Also, do you believe two wrongs make a right?
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 2:38 PM
Pete @305:
"That was meaningless dribble."
"Drivel." The word is "drivel." If you're going to try to talk down to people, please take the time to do so properly.
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 2:39 PM
So, enlighten me, what bad behavior would you be referring too? If you mean the absconding with the wafer, then believe me, most secularists, and non-catholic believers for that matter, don't give two shits. If you mean the death threats sent to Cook, then I suggest you ask Donahue, a Catholic, if he condemns that.Posted by: Canuck | August 4, 2008 2:39 PM
I'm not going to read or get involved with this thread, but I did want to weigh in and say that as a faculty member at a university I can attest to the insanely long hours we put in during the school year. Long days, evenings, weekends. It never ends from early Sept. until early May. I hardly get to do anything with my children for those 8 months. It's a long, hard grind. No university admin in it's right mind would try to log our hours. They would be embarrassed, given what is expected of us.
And for those who think we "have the summers off", I can tell you that it's not at all the case. Summer means we don't work evenings and weekends. This summer is the first time in 7 years that I will get to use all of the vacation we are allowed. So the moron that suggests PZ is shirking his work to post to the blog. Go fuck yourself.
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 2:40 PM
Nate W:
...and the horse you rode in on -sidewaysyou silly troll.
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 2:40 PM
Dav #343 wrote:
First, it seems to me you're blaming Meyers for being not being "rational", while overlooking the irrational response of the vocal/activist Catholic community involved.
Second, I really wish you'd check your understanding of the timeline here. Cook received death threats, and then PZ expressed anger at the reaction. At that point, no desecration had taken place (beyond what you might consider Cook's actions to have been).
When the same people began to threaten PZ and had begun a campaign to get him fired, this is when he requested a eucharist from this community.
In other words, the timeline shows without a doubt that "irrationality" had been displayed by the vocal/active Catholics long before PZ could possibly have been seen as doing the same.
... and it still continues to amaze me that PZ's critics overlook the desecration of the koran *and* Dawkins' book. The presence of these two next to the eucharist is proof that the exercise was done not to inflame Catholics specifically, but to show that he considers nothing in paper or cracker form to be sacred - including books very much supported by *this* community.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 4, 2008 2:40 PM
"He'll never attain the status of Dawkins or Hitchens, but I guess he's content with that."
Well apparently you think Hitchens is a scientist, which he is not, so I don't think PZ is really chewing on those particular heels. PZ also is not a supporter or wars ofa ggression, so there's another spot where Hitchens and noyers differ greatly.
But I like the ease of shifting from "Myers had credibility in his position until I subjectively formed an opinion on this one scenario, and now he's not worth listening to much at all". Being a "wise ass" is grounds for dismissal? Do you think that Dutch cartoonist that mocked Allah was also a "wise ass"? Because PZ did exactly what he did: take a religious symobol, mock it, point out the absurdity of the uproar from the apologists, and basically goadf them into showing themselves to be what they are: a sectarian group demanding deference for their specific beliefs by the wider public. And PZ performed his act AFTER the sectarian group in question started issuing threats against an individual, not before, and not at random.
Maybe you still think PZ's a wise ass, but you don't sound like you've examined the situation very thoroughly.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 2:40 PM
BTW
Mortal sin for cracker ruination? How many confessions to get that off the permanent record? Too bad they don't do indulgences like they used to. Ka-ching! ABSOLVED!
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 2:40 PM
# 349
Lets just be really, really creepy instead.
No kiddin
That's a hell of a request coming from a guy who saddles up women YIKES!!!
Posted by: CJO | August 4, 2008 2:41 PM
now I'm going to commit sloth
We want to know, Patricia: is the sloth wearing a miniskirt?
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 2:41 PM
"That was meaningless dribble."
Yay! New eggcorn!
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 2:41 PM
Pete @330:
"Perhaps some people do not believe that dressing like a whore is a problem. I for one do."
There we agree. I would have a significant problem with you dressing like a whore.
(I also notice that you corrected your mistake. Good for you! It works better, though, if you use the correct word the first time around.)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 2:42 PM
Hmmm, that may be a problem. Academia is far, far away from where you currently reside, which I take to be either the Vatican or the Zone of Medieval Delusion, and you'll need to get a green card. And by the way, when you're studying up for your citizenship test here in Academia, you'll learn that anybody who is employed as an Associate Professor of Biology does, indeed, "deserve the title" of Professor. Someday, when you move here permanently to reside, perhaps you too will deserve that title. Until then, though, you're still just a student (of what? wait, lemme guess: Theology? Philosophy? Dipshit Studies?), and you probably have, like, studying, or "research" you should be doing, no?Posted by: Paul Thoreau | August 4, 2008 2:42 PM
PZ Myers has committed the perfect crime. After all, PZ Myers Has Killed Jesus Christ, and seems to have gotten away with it.
Posted by: RobinSV | August 4, 2008 2:45 PM
"It is one thing to say that belief in God is foolish and wicked and that Catholicism and Islam deserve scorn. It is quite another to physically desecrate the ARTIFACTS believers hold sacred."
ar·ti·fact
-noun
1. any object made by human beings...
So we all agree, it just a frick'n (man-made) cracker!
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 4, 2008 2:45 PM
"And yes, physically grabbing someone or trying to pry something from their fingers IS assault."
I can only imagine that if I was in Cook's situation, I would have reacted the same way. Some time in college, it dawned on me that I was an adult, and I wasn't going to let other adults cow me with displays of authority, unless perhaps they had a police badge or a military uniform on. In other words, I wasn't going to be treated like a kid anymore. Grabbing, prying, that is disrespect. So to all the people on these threads who apparently live or die over whether "respect" is given to them, or their beliefs, look to the pious church people who see you as a "flock" and want to rap you on the knuckles for any perceived transgression.
"Wow. I guess that we should give up hoping that our professors use reason and sensibility."
This ain't no Algonquin Round Table, but look at who and what we have to work with.
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 2:45 PM
Oh, and regarding trousers and the bible, that particular item of clothing wasn't invented until about five hundred years ago. At the time of Jebus, everyone wore skirts.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 2:46 PM
True enough, but to be fair, Peter did correct that error himself a few minutes later.
Posted by: Donnie B. | August 4, 2008 2:47 PM
OK, maybe that's not a perfect analogy... let's make it better. Suppose the guy who stole your triscuit was wearing a leather thong and you were dressed as a Catholic schoolgirl.
... For The Win.
Posted by: unicow | August 4, 2008 2:48 PM
Sam,
That irrationality had already been shown and proved. What then was the point of Prof. Myers' in carrying on his rant, if his point had already been made?
Tell me, how many people had heard of the plight of Webster Cook before PZ got involved? How many people would have sent a letter to his school in his defense?
Anyway, PZ's "point" was made in the original post about Cook (or do you think he should have kept his mouth shut about that?). Everything since that time has just served as proof that the point he initially made was correct.
Personally, I strongly suspect that were it not for the insane overreactions among Catholics for the mere threat of desecrating a wafer, this whole thing would have quickly faded into the background. Had nobody gotten all riled up, there would be little reason to ever bother to go through with it. It's not like it was a terribly exciting activity.
However, once people started going apeshit it became necessary to go through with the desecration in order to show the lunatics that they can't control other people just because those people don't subscribe to their superstitions.
Had PZ not gone through with the cracker desecration, it would have just proved that the threats of Donahue and his goons worked. It would have encouraged them to keep up that kind of reprehensible behavior.
The desecration could have just been a bit of rhetoric, but once the Catholic League and the armies of inquisitions got involved PZ had little choice but to go through with it. Not doing it would have been a blow against not just rationality, but public discourse.
Posted by: watercat | August 4, 2008 2:48 PM
Fine. Let's all come together and condemn DUCKER'S ASSAULT ON COOK.
Posted by: Josh | August 4, 2008 2:48 PM
Averagle folk already look upon academics with enough suspicion that we certainly don't need to obnoxious behavior of people like you making things harder for us.
And you inspire just as much ire by labeling non-academics as "average folk." Talk about making life more difficult for us. Thanks. Were you serious when you wrote that? Good job on trying to call someone on being a jackass while simultaneously planting the mantle square on your own shoulders. Let me guess, you're a first year, right?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 2:49 PM
Acutally, I think PZ is a wiseass. And I mean that in the most complimentary way possible. The wiseass is an absolutely essential social role in a healthy society; he or she mocks and punctures pretensions that need to receive that treatment for sanity's sake. As shown very clearly by the volume of literally insane responses to the cracker business. Craziness like that needs to be smoked out of its hiding places, and the wiseass is just the person for the job because such crazies always take themselves and their delusions very, very seriously.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 2:49 PM
Kseniya @378:
Very true, and I gave him due credit for that in a later post. I was playing catch-up and responding to posts as I saw them.
I eagerly await his explanation of why, in defense of the proposition that Catholicism is not a cult, he cited a website that says "Catholicism is a cult."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 2:49 PM
[three days later:] In Stunning Reversal, DA Drops All ChargesPosted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 4, 2008 2:50 PM
William Donohue has now included UMN Chancellor Johnson on his fatwa list.
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1469
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 2:52 PM
@ Phentari
The Phentari race is the most mistrusted, disliked, and feared of all the known races. They are bipedal squid-like beings with generally nasty dispositions toward life and are sometimes called names like Grim Reaper, Cold Death, Demon Spawn, and Soul Sucker. Phentari are indigenous to the methane planet Phena in the Tau Ceti star system. They are typically evil, but a few have been known to be good.
Members of the Phentari race are not liked by most other races who view them as evil and treacherous. This suits the Phentari just fine for he holds all weaker beings in utter contempt anyway. Many Phentari follow the philosophy that, "All fear me. Those who don't, I have already disposed of!" The squids understand their own version of persuasion which is coercion. Why would there be any other method of getting someone to do something for you? The only races that the Phentari actually like are Orions and Tza Zen Rigeln. Phentari do respect those who are powerful, but they deplore cowardice.
Sounds about right.
As to the others here rambling on about various chromosome abnormalities - there is no correct answer or one size solution.
Self-reflection and a personal relationship with God should help you a great deal with any trouble. I would also see a priest or another senior member of the church who will know far more about these issues than me. You have to live and make do with the hand your dealt with.
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 2:52 PM
Gah! More on the cracker! This is getting ridiculous.
To all those who quote a bible or say they'll pray for us or PZ:
This is a blog by an atheist. Many of the people who comment in the treads are atheists.
You are the cyber equivilent of door-to-door religion sellers/missionaries. We have seen your beliefs and found them lacking. Go away. You do not contribute anything meaningful.
To Pete:
I don't need analogies to understand events, I understand things as they happen. Go away. You do not contribute anything meaningful.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 2:53 PM
By the way, re post 373, I meant no disrespect to my esteemed colleagues over in Dipshit Studies. I just realized I may have inadvertently tarred them with the same broad brush meant for Theology and Philosophy.
Posted by: John Pym | August 4, 2008 2:54 PM
Speaking as a Godly man, desecration of a host is a blessed act. All Godly persons must resist such symbols of Popery and turn from malignancy to the True Protestant Religion. The actions of the multitude of Papists, these Satanic adherents of Rome, in condemning the desecration is plain. They wish to impose their heresy upon the Godly. We must preserve ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and destruction. We must endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues.
To these Papists I say: in the bowels of Christ I beseech thee, GO!
Posted by: Nate W | August 4, 2008 2:55 PM
Steve, I'm a Christian. I'm at a Catholic university. I'm surrounded by Catholics and other Christians--some of them quite prominent in the Catholic/Christian community--all the time. Never have I met one who defend a person making threats of violence against someone for sacrilege. No doubt there are some out there, but it's nowhere near the Catholic mainstream. It's not part of Catholic doctrine. There's no reason that Catholics in general need to be targeted because of the actions of a few Catholic individuals.
If Myers actually wanted to do nothing more than condemn the initial actions of a few individual Catholics, then he would have done something to draw attention to those actions, and the majority of Catholics in this country would have agreed with him that the actions were out of line, and they would have reemphasized that Catholicism is not about violence, and the world would have moved on. Instead, Myers has acted stupidly and drawn all the attention to his own actions, which are nothing short of a slap in the fact to ALL Catholics, not just the ones who are guilty of any misbehavior. So what, now all Catholics deserve to be punished for the actions of a few? Now all Catholics have to watch their most sacred artefact be desecrated just because a few idiots out there can't control themselves?
Get real. Myers isn't changing any hearts or minds by his profoundly idiotic behavior. How the hell does this supposedly intelligent man think that descrating the Host is going to leave any positive mark on anyone other than those who are already virulently anti-Catholic?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 2:58 PM
Phentari:
I eagerly await his explanation of why, in defense of the proposition that Catholicism is not a cult, he cited a website that says "Catholicism is a cult.
Again I am quite happy to accept that Catholicism is a cult. What I will not accept is the negative value judgement that accompanies that. I mentioned previously how a town hall committee meeting might equally be seen as a cult. I would not however what to imbue the sinister connotations that "cult" reflects onto that meeting whether technically appropriate or not.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 2:58 PM
That's not what I asked, Nate. Which of them have spoken out PUBLICLY in condemnation of the crazies? Because only people willing to do that can possibly be "worked with". The others are part of the problem.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 2:59 PM
Pete,
Full points for actually figuring out the etymology of my username! It's obscure enough that it's a pleasant surprise when someone does. (I'll also point out that Phentari are more-or-less humanoid squids; I thought it was an appropriate nickname for this blog on that basis.)
Now, that being said, the ad hominem attack--and I'll grant you that it was a fairly clever one--in no way answers the questions posed to you.
How does a website that concludes that Catholicism is a cult in any way support your premise that Catholicism is not a cult?
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 3:00 PM
Pete #387 "As to the others here rambling on about various chromosome abnormalities - there is no correct answer or one size solution.
Self-reflection and a personal relationship with God should help you a great deal with any trouble. I would also see a priest or another senior member of the church who will know far more about these issues than me. You have to live and make do with the hand your dealt with."
Translation: Oh no, you're making me think. My brain is overheating! Where's my security blanket? Somebody in authority tell me what to do!
Epic Fail.
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 3:00 PM
Nate wrote:
Considering the way the vocal/active catholic community continues to respond to this situation, I'd say you're doing more for the Anti-Catholic viewpoint than they could have dreamt possible.Posted by: Eric Saveau | August 4, 2008 3:03 PM
@Sam
Is this the intellectual legacy that you wish to leave, going out of your way to mock, rather than to engage others at the level of reason?
Point of order here, Sam: Reason is something that only works when BOTH sides engage in it. The Crackurbation Jihadists have gone to great lengths to AVOID using anything even remotely resembling reason, and so the mockery in PZ's posts is not only appropriate, it's the absolute best course of action. As Thomas Jefferson famously said "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligble propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
So, feel free to contribute something reasonable to these threads. Otherwise, continue as you have and be responded to appropriately. Your choice.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 3:04 PM
Pete @392:
Okay, fair enough; I didn't see that response until after I'd completed my post at 394.
We agree, then, that by most definitions, Catholicism is a cult. You dislike the connotations of cult; I can understand that.
The problem, of course, is that those connotations are very subjective. Hence, claiming that it's not a cult based on subjective connotations puts you about on the level of the individual whose website you linked--the one who is arguing, essentially, that Catholicism is a cult, but his particular brand of Protestantism is not.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 3:04 PM
If they were offended it's because they believe everyone should hold sacred the same things they do. That's makes them targets.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 3:04 PM
Kind of like the Moe of Science.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 4, 2008 3:04 PM
#126 Dav Laurel
Are you still here?
I hosted a pre-wedding party for about 40 people and I was asked not to serve pork by the Mother of the Bride because her boyfriend is Muslim and he would have to leave the party if there was pork on the buffet table.
Seriouly thought of putting some bacon fat in the salad dressing
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 3:05 PM
a. Answer to your first question: No. No Catholics have been punished in any way. Not one. (Except for Webster Cook, who is being punished in a very real way by people who agree with you). A bit of dried wheat-paste was punished. Yes, I know, you Believe that the bit of wheat-paste was actually a Holy Consecrated Artefact that contained some Ineffable Essence of your Holy Lord and Savior etc. But you know what? It didn't. It was just a bit of wheat-paste, nothing more.b. Answer to your second question: No. Catholics are free not to watch. Catholics are free to shrug it off and think that "that guy's nuts." Catholics are NOT free to think that everybody in the world has to follow or even respect their stupid medieval rituals.
Hope that clears things up. How's the PhD going?
Posted by: cubefarmed | August 4, 2008 3:06 PM
I've been lurking awhile, and just wanted to add in a few cents worth of discussion.
Dear Pete Rooke,
I sincerely hope that you work at the same company I do. And if you do, I hope that you see me every single day wearing PANTS because my fat ass (that I don't apologize for) just doesn't look good in long skirts and dresses. And, I find pants more comfortable.
I also hope you're fully aware that I'm a devoted mother, who works full time while my husband (a devoted father) is a stay at home dad. I know - give yourself a moment to stop your little world from spinning. Imagine it! A woman wearing PANTS working FULL TIME and also pursuing her degree who has a husband that STAYS HOME!!!!!!111!!1!ELEVENTYONE!!!
I'm also a godless liberal by the way. I know, you're truly shocked. But you know what really tipped the hand? What really convinced me that there is no God? People like you. If God created 'man in his own image' and we wound up with you, that's no god worth worshipping even if he did exist. You, sir, are proof that Intelligent Design is a bunch of hogwash. No Omniscient Intelligent Creator could possibly set in motion anything that would create a misogynist douchebag like yourself. No, only sheer, dumb, rotten luck could account for you.
Sincerely,
An Atheist Feminist (ie - Your nightmares come to fruition).
Posted by: Nate W | August 4, 2008 3:07 PM
Steve, every Catholic I've ever encountered who knows about the incident has condemned it, in blogs, fora, and a numerous other types of discussions.
What do you want, the Pope to buy time on national television and condemn the actions? Why would that be necessary? Catholics are already being taught that threatening non-Catholics with violence is against the spirit of modern Catholicism, and that point is so patently obvious that most Catholics, at least in the civilized world, have no sympathy for religious violence. Most of us have other things to do besides going public to restate the things that we all know already.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 3:07 PM
Phentari:
Right, just as I'm playing leap-frog here in this fast-moving thread. In the time it took me to read the most recent comments and post about Peter's self-correction, you'd already caught up to it and posted an acknowledgment of it, then subsequently commented on my acknowledgment, a comment to which I am currently responding, and... I think you'd better not respond to this, or we'll be leap-frogging for hours! :-D
Peter wrote:
He's either a master of subtle satire - though I can't say we've seen any evidence of this thus far - or he's profoundly irony-impaired. I suspect the latter.
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 3:07 PM
Nate W:
Read the cracker threads from the beginning. It's been hashed and rehashed. Why do you feel your point of view is worthy of consideration? Call someone an idiot on their own blog and then demand respect? Go fuck yourself Nick. You're a rude pretentious prick so I feel no compunction about sending right back atcha.
Come back when you're over your delusions.
Posted by: Maria | August 4, 2008 3:08 PM
He wanted to do more than condemn. He wanted to expose the sheer ridiculousness of it all. Which I think he has.
Posted by: jagannath | August 4, 2008 3:08 PM
Okay Nate W, like hell they would have condemned anything.
The same thing that many accuse muslims of is as prevalent in other major religious faction. The utter inability to proclaim clearly that the radicals are not representing us and then condemning their actions with words and actions.
The majority of assumed faithful are unable to utter coherent words against the more radical segments or gods forbid even act against such groups of their own faith as they lack conviction. They are scared that next target of radical behaviour would be they.
The histories of faiths are full of dog eating dog behaviour which take care of those who dare to actually follow the tenets of their faith instead of the leadership of the most prominent, popular and/or powerful grouping within the faith.
If a member of your group acts against tenets of your faith, why do you wait until outsider has to point out the wrong-doing? Because you agree with the radical but are not confident or (scary music) not faithful enough to your religion to really care one way or another?
The silent masses are silent as they follow the tenets of the three monkeys instead of their claimed faith.
But if you too equate a cracker being more important than a human life then I suggest reading that bloody book again and again until you get what the teachings of jesus were.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 3:10 PM
"Seriouly thought of putting some bacon fat in the salad dressing"
Honestly, even as a Catholic the contempt and sheer nastiness your attitude displays makes me sick. As a Samaritan on the road to Jericho I can imagine you spitting upon the wounded stranger as you jaunted off to take part in other despicable acts.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | August 4, 2008 3:11 PM
Again I am quite happy to accept that Catholicism is a cult. What I will not accept is the negative value judgement that accompanies that.
Well, of course you wouldn't! What reasonable person could possibly accept a negative value judgement with regard to an organization that devalues women, promotes superstition, and shields child molesters from the law while threatening their victims?
Oh, wait...
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 3:11 PM
Cubefarmed, a high five to you and your excellent pants-clad hard-working educated fat arse!
Posted by: frog | August 4, 2008 3:12 PM
The underlying problem is the concept of evangelism, not kooky beliefs. Who (should) care about the Santeria-ists, the Wiccans, or the Buddhists?
The religions that cause the primary pragmatic problems are the evangelistic religions -- the ones that not only believe they have the truth, but demand that the whole world accept. If you were to pee on a Buddha in your home, or use a saint candle in your bathroom, who would care? Not most members of those religions --- since they don't care what you believe.
But Christianity and Islam? They care about "desecration" because it is an explicit and unavoidable statement that you don't believe. That is unacceptable to religions that believe that the goal of creation is to force you to submit.
I give a crap about fundamentalism --- if you keep to yourselves, believe that the earth is literally flat. But the moment you start to believe that I must accept your reality, you've become a danger, no matter how "moderate" you think your beliefs are.
It's evangelism -- a cancer on the human race. God, what a mistake the Roman empire was!
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | August 4, 2008 3:12 PM
Nate W,
You seem to think PZ's confrontational style doesn't help anyone. I beg to disagree. When I started reading Pharyngula (three years ago) I was still a weak theist/deist unable to completely jettison the religion of my youth, but suffering extreme cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile how the world works (as revealed by science) with what my religion told me about the universe. PZ and all the other commenters here showed me that religion was silly and that clinging to it because it made me feel better was stupid. After I decided atheism was the way to go, the cognitive dissonance disappeared and took my frequent headaches with it. I'm much happier now.
I'm an atheist because of this blog and all the wonderful people here who showed me that atheism wasn't as bad as I'd been told.
Thanks Y'all
Posted by: cicely | August 4, 2008 3:12 PM
Here now! Dr. Chuck Jones wrote the book on situations like this! Ah'll have you know that "maroon" is the correct usage. "Moron" is an inferior variant, suitable only for use in describing inferior maroons!
Any Orthodox Bugist knows that!
Posted by: Nate W | August 4, 2008 3:12 PM
E.V., since when has Myers done anything to earn respect? He's become a celebrity precisely by disrespecting others, so why shouldn't he expect to be met with disrespect by the very people he has gone out of his way to offend in the deepest way possible?
The fact of the matter is that Myers has no interest in respectful discussion. That's why he's a threat to democracy, to academia, and to peaceful society in general. If he wants respect, he should learn to show it.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 4, 2008 3:13 PM
Liveblogging the Dawkins Darwin show:
10 minutes in and Dawkins is trying to engage a class of London schoolkids, many of whom reject evolution because of their religious upbringing. They offer the defence that people should be allowed to believe what they wish to believe. So Dawkins is taking them out on a field trip to go fossil-hunting...
Next, we get Darwin's early life. Beagle. Rhea varieties. Galapagos...
Posted by: wa | August 4, 2008 3:13 PM
@ 403
Cubefarm FTW I can so use that.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 3:13 PM
Nate. The whole point is that Catholics find that dumb cracker as the most sacred thing in the world. It's stupid. No one is trying to win anyone over.
It's frackin cracker. PZ said that and the Catholic League went after him so, he asked for crackers to show that he would treat one as just that.
This didn't all start with PZ. It started with Catholics freaking out over a cracker and harassing a student.
Get the fuck over it.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 3:14 PM
So Nate, where is the official condemnation of what Donohue is up to? Where are the statements from bishops that he's not entitled to speak for the church and should not give his organization a name that suggests he's doing just that?
[crickets]
Posted by: watercat | August 4, 2008 3:15 PM
@ 403
Cubefarm FTW I can so use that.
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 3:16 PM
@ Pete #409,
Gah, you're doing it again. You are comparing a Muslim unknowingly ingesting some porcine lipids to a guy in need being spat upon.
Are you naturally shit at analogies or do you have to work at it?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 3:19 PM
I'll answer that one.
1. Being an excellent science blogger. I was trained in developmental biology and can testify to the outstanding quality of his posts on that subject, especially the masterly summaries of important papers. It's not at all easy to do that well when it aims at being understood by a general educated audience.
2. Being an important and influential voice against religious insanity in a country that reeks of same and desperately needs airing out.
Your turn. What have YOU done to earn respect? Internet trolling?
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 3:19 PM
Cicely, I had to imagine your post in the voice of from Foghorn Leghorn
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 3:19 PM
Fallacy #27: The response was expected and, therefore, right.
Throwing away a cracker is a threat to democracy, adademia and society? Overreact much?
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 3:19 PM
And talking of the parable of the good Samaritan, this might lift the mood a little. :-D
Posted by: john | August 4, 2008 3:20 PM
Your job may be secure...for now. Time will tell for how long. This is FAR from over.
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 3:20 PM
Poor Pete grew up with parabel and religious analogies so was not socialised to reality like the rest of us. He's much like Romulus and Reamus or the chick in the movie Nell. He can't help it.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 4, 2008 3:21 PM
I am against spittle-flecking since it is icky and often makes people uncomfortable. Surely there's a way to frame the spittling in order to avoid the flecking.
signed
Concern Ilk
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 3:21 PM
More Christian love apparently...
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 3:22 PM
Ooh, a SCARY troll! I'll bet PZ is trembling in his boots.
Gad, these people are pathetic losers. I hope you choke on a Cheeto, dumbass.
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 3:25 PM
Kseniya, OK, I admit, I'm too sloppy a reader.
Posted by: Bee | August 4, 2008 3:25 PM
"It is disturbing to note the increasingly homogeneous nature of clothing to the extent that what passes for menswear could equally pass for womenswear. Nowadays it is quite common to see so called "businesswoman" in suites with close cropped hair. Stick a pen in their pants pocket and they might as well be men. These feminists want to deny the intrinsic differences between the sexes and the roles they have played and should continue to play in society." - Posted by: Pete Rooke
Why in the name of suffering humanity would you find such minutiae as what a woman or man might care to wear 'disturbing'?
For the protection of those around you who might be deletoriously affected by your being set off in some kind of violent, religiously induced rage, DON'T ever visit Nova Scotia during Highland Games or Tattoo season, as you'll be assaulted constantly by the horrifying sight of men in tartan skirts and blouses, many of them also wearing funny hats. Women in pants, too.
If the kind of clothes a person wears prevents you from telling whether they are men or women, and this also bothers you, you'd best stay out of Canada and anywhere particularly Northern all winter, since it's pretty difficult to discern gender under the parkas, scarves, hats, mitts and boots.
I question as well why you even think you need to know whether a specific individual is male or female unless you're planning to have sex with them, an unlikely circumstance given short hair and a suit makes it so difficult for you to tell the difference. FYI: neither head hair nor fabric coverings are secondary sexual characteristics.
"These feminists"... followed (and here preceded) by a misinformed negative rant marks the typical misogynist, clinging to an outdated and ridiculous collection of patriarchal religious codes that have no meaning whatsoever in the real world, where most men and women of good will are striving to enshrine gender equality, as is right.
You, Peter Rooke, instead, choose to whine and nitpick about what women wear (as if it is any of your business under any circumstance, unless it regards safety standards in a factory setting), since you can't manage to find an actual valid reason for objecting to what PZ has done. Clue: there is no valid objection. PZ did the right thing in the circumstances. The howling subset of Catholics who don't see that (check mirror, PR) are an embarassment to the ones who do see it.
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 3:25 PM
John #426, you forgot the "Muhahahahahahahahahaha!"
It's like you're not even trying.
Posted by: BobC | August 4, 2008 3:27 PM
It's interesting that Catholics, who think they have a monopoly on moral values because they belong to the "only true religion", would assault a person for not eating a cracker. They should have been arrested and put in jail for assaulting Cook.
#348 Nate W:
Nate W, Ridiculing the stupidity and the immorality of Catholics like yourself is not bad behavior. Your religion (and all other religions) must be completely eradicated. The only way to get rid of religious insanity is relentless ridicule.
Religions are good for nothing but slowing down human progress, mental child abuse, violence, genocide, ignorance, and ruined lives. All religions must be stamped out.
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 3:27 PM
High five to Bee.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 3:31 PM
I've said this before but whenever I'm among such hatred and loathing I remind myself of the old Negro spiritual:
"Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last."
And I thank God I live in a nation that mandates my right to practice Catholicism.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 3:31 PM
If you guys would shut the hell up it would be over.
Do you really think a bunch of shrieking Catholics are going to get a professor fired over a cracker?
It's too absurd.
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 3:32 PM
Nate spake thusly:
Honestly, if you had spent any time here, you'd have noticed that not everyone agrees with PZ. The blog was popular long before Crackergate came along, and this was (imho) partly due to the interesting scientific information, the wry sense of humor, and the biting criticism of various religious activities.
Only someone who hadn't read PZ would feel that his popularity is due to his "disrespect". To the contrary, it's his blog, and I'm pretty sure he'd write regardless of what other people felt.
It's is popular only because so many enjoy feeling like they're being persecuted. The real question is: why do you care what he thinks about your religion?
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 4, 2008 3:32 PM
And if anyone knows how to wage a grand crusade, a beautiful inquisition, a lovely hanging, a wonderful burning, a rousing drowning it's the martyr john and the "Christian warriors."
On the other hand, the guy they call Heysoos the Christ would likely approve of PZ's challenge to the authority of the church and the worshipping of idols. Clearly john does not understand the words of the Heysoos.
So PZ, are you and Heysoos in cahoots?
Posted by: Nate W | August 4, 2008 3:32 PM
Steve, being good at what you do doesn't earn you respect in a public discussion. Myers could be the best scientist who ever lived, but if he has no clue how to conduct himself civilly in a discussion (or worse, if he just doesn't care), then that doesn't mean anything.
This is a fact: Myers performed an action than any informed person should have known would be considered an act of desecration by anyone who believes Catholic dogma, an act that is bound to earn nothing but disrespect from Catholics everywhere. Be reasonable. If you want to inhabit a moral space with other people, you need to observe some basic standards of respect for them, or else expect to be condemned in return. Myers has shown no interest in living peaceably alongside Catholics, so he shouldn't be surprised if Catholics return the sentiment.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 3:34 PM
Thank the founders that we live in a country where I can laugh at people freaking out over a cracker.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 4, 2008 3:35 PM
I guess that guy has never heard of blog software that allows you to post-date posts... thereby permitting a bunch of posts to be pre-written and then posted over time, as if skipping work to do it.
It's a feature I use on my own blog quite often.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 3:37 PM
Fallacy #27: The response was expected and, therefore, right.
"and respect my right to be unreasonable."
"by allowing them to force their religious views on other people"
You forgot "who insist that others follow their belief system."
That the response was expected doesn't make it right or reasonable.
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 3:38 PM
Pete, you have the right to believe whatever you want. I do not have to agree with them, respect them, or change anything in my life because of your beliefs. I can also laugh at your beliefs. Ha ha ha!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Horseshit, it most certainly does. Somebody with PZ's public accomplishments has earned a presumption that what he says is worth considering whether one initially agrees with it or not. Some random jerk like you? Not so much.Never in their long history, by the way, have Catholics (with individual and honorable, but rather rare, exceptions) shown any sincere interest in living peaceably alongside others. They only pretend to do so- as long as they don't have the power to do otherwise. My interest in "dealing with" them is limited to insuring that they continue to lack access to that power.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 4, 2008 3:40 PM
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 3:42 PM
John the Pius at # 426 decreed menacingly
Apparently John is unaware of the Almighty News Cycle
Posted by: raven | August 4, 2008 3:42 PM
Ooohhh, scary John is making threats. Anonymously on the internet like a coward. He didn't even have the nerve to put in a cheery "kill" or "bash your brainst in". Even George Bush could figure this one out. "They hide in caves and try to scare people. They are terrorists."
The Catholic church has tried to move beyond their "lets kill everyone and let god sort it out" heritage. This being the 21st century and all. Apparently the johns haven't heard that the Dark Ages are over.
Posted by: Tom L | August 4, 2008 3:43 PM
While I was out on the street, some character handed me a sheet of paper. It was a coupon for 25 cents off my next purchase of pizza at a particular restaurant, just down the block. I pocketed it and continued on my way.
Later that day, I ended up using that piece of paper to write down an email address. That evening I transferred the address into my computer and threw the coupon away.
Clearly, I did not use the paper for the use that the giver intended. Was that a theft?
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 4, 2008 3:43 PM
So Nate, you do realize that Heysoos the Christ showed no interest in living peaceably alongside the Pahrisees and showed a mighty disrespect for the blind adherence to the dogma of the day. It's rumored that he even worked on the Sabath. I wonder what he was trying to tell us. Something about inner.....inner something.....inner..... Oh well, I guess we'll never know.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 4, 2008 3:44 PM
#409 The Rooke
Why am I feeding the troll?
Forty people at the party, all of them like pork including the bride, groom and their parents. Only this boyfriend considered himself the dictator of the menu.
Does this sound like Bill Donohue? He publishes e-mail addresses so that his minions can harrass PZ and now Chancellor Johnson. Have you noticed that he does not publish his own e-mail?
Posted by: Maria | August 4, 2008 3:44 PM
Right! PZ threw a cracker to the trash. This made people upset. So these people "condemed" him... by threatening death and bodily harm to his family. Perfectly reasonable response, right Nate?
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 3:45 PM
"I've said this before but whenever I'm among such hatred and loathing I remind myself of the old Negro spiritual:"
That's an interesting fallback. Why does the fact that I disagree with you constitute "hatred and loathing?" Or the fact that I challenge you to back up what you say? Or even the fact that I'm mildly snarky with you and poke fun at you?
Hatred and loathing are awfully strong words, Pete. I wouldn't be so quick to fling them around...particularly not if you're going to turn a blind eye to similar or worse conduct from Catholics.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 4, 2008 3:45 PM
Nate, I get the opinion that your idea of respectful discussion is everybody avoiding giving you any offense whatsoever. That is asking for special privilege.
Here is a thought experiment where you can determine where a line is drawn. A couple down the street keeps a kosher household. They get upset because you don't obey the words found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. At what point in the discussion must you agree to become kosher to avoid offending them? Or, can you disagree with them, even though they are offended that you don't agree with them? How far can you go to get rid of them? Especially if they don't take polite hints?
Posted by: A. Eustice | August 4, 2008 3:46 PM
I wrote the following email to Mr. Dreher after reading his column:
Dear Mr. Rod Dreher,
I write to you not with respect to the Myers affair per se, though it is not unconnected. You and Bill Donohue have both committed a fallacy that I, both as a homosexual by birth and a philosopher by training, find deeply offensive. You two often analogize contempt for religious beliefs and practices with an irrational hatred for homosexuals, racial minorities, as well as other marginalized groups. This is obviously fatuous to anyone with even slightest respect for reason and clarity, as (1) a person cannot avoid being born the way she is, nor (2) is there anything WRONG with being born that way. The key word is "being," which is an altogether different thing from "believing." A Catholic isn't a Catholic in virtue of being born that way, she must make a conscious and ongoing choice to be a Catholic in the same respect that I have to make a conscious and ongoing choice to be an atheist, a metaphysical naturalist, and a vegetarian. That is, the predicates of the following two sentences, "I am gay" and "I am Catholic," are not predicated of the subject in the same fashion. In the first case, the predicate states who that person is in virtue of powers beyond their control and in the second it is merely shorthand for "I believe all of the following statements to be true: Jesus was born of a virgin, he died on the cross and was resurrected, he was the son of god, etc." To state it again: when someone says, "I am a Marxist" or "I am a Catholic" we do not mean that they stand in the same relationship to that predicate in the same respect that a Kurd, a Tibetan, or a homosexual does to hers. Rather, it is merely a shorthand way of stating one's beliefs by ascribing the blanket-term "Catholic" to oneself, although one does not stand in the relation to being Catholic as one is in to being a Homo sapiens, a primate, a mammal, a vertebrate, etc. The sentence "I am a Catholic" isn't in fact a sentence about what one IS at all, but just a confused and confusing way of stating what one BELIEVES. The same is true of atheists, of course; one isn't an atheist in the same respect that one is an albino. For this reason, to demean a homosexual or a black person, as a Klan member would do, is evil, stupid, and cruel. Being ridiculed for being a Catholic--i.e. holding these-and-these beliefs--is, however, merely one of the unfortunate side-effects of believing things that other people find ridiculous.
When you ask, "If Dr. Myers had carried out a similar extreme act of contempt against homosexuals or racial minorities, for example, does anybody doubt that he'd be shown the door? And should have been[?]," my answer is the same as yours, "yes." However, were one to reflect on the argument that this question presupposes, we can readily see that it is fallacious, because it depends on the hideous conflation of two completely different senses of "being." With that said, I think your analogy between contempt for homosexuals and racial minorities and contempt for religious beliefs and practices trivializes the very real dangers of racism and homophobia and all of the horrors following therefrom, such as lynching and gay-bashing. Your question is an insult to every American who has been deprived, at one point or another, of his or her civil and human rights as a result of something as surficial as skin color or sexual orientation. A young man who is beaten to death for his sexual preference isn't victimized in the same fashion as a Catholic is when someone hammers a nail through a cracker and throws it in the trash, as your idiotic analogy seems to suggest. The legitimate criticism of an ancient dogma is not morally equivalent to racism or homophobia and I hope every racial minority and homosexual in the country resists the comparison.
Sincerely & Concernfully,
A. Eustice
Posted by: Lowell | August 4, 2008 3:46 PM
#309
Thanks for that clarification. In the vernacular, people tend to use "assault" to describe what is, technically, battery.
I guess it would sound weird to say that Cook was "battered," especially with all the gastronomic jokes involving communion wafers going on around here.
If anyone's interested, below is the Florida battery and felony battery statute:
Posted by: MH | August 4, 2008 3:47 PM
Pete #436, we don't hate Catholics; we simply find their beliefs ridiculous. All the hatred (calls for physical harm and loss of jobs) has come from the Catholic side.
Posted by: BobC | August 4, 2008 3:51 PM
Nate W #440:
Why should anyone care if they are not respected by Catholic morons? There is nobody more insane and more hopelessly stupid than Catholics. I wouldn't want their respect.
Nate W, while you're here, why don't you explain why you believe in the Jebus Zombie myth, also known as the Resurrection.
Tell us why you shouldn't be called batshit crazy for believing that disgusting nonsense.
Posted by: Nate W | August 4, 2008 3:52 PM
I'm not sure why I bothered coming here. I've dealt with you militant types before, so I should have known better. None of you has the slightest concern for the opinions or cares any human being who doesn't dwell in your narrow, pathetic little world.
Have fun driving away everyone who dares not see the world the way you do.
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 3:53 PM
Sounds to me that Pete is making the classic 'I have been wronged and now I shall leave' statement.
P.S. Please excuse my naivete, I'm not from Nth America, but do people still refer to black people as negroes? Really?
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Ha! Now Nate has been wronged and is leaving. Priceless!
Posted by: BobC | August 4, 2008 3:56 PM
Nate W, before you leave, please answer my question in #458. Why do you believe Jebus was a zombie, and why shouldn't we laugh at you for believing in something that idiotic and disgusting?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 3:57 PM
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Nate. And expect to be relentlessly mocked if you show up again after the weepy curtain call.
Posted by: Sam | August 4, 2008 3:58 PM
Eric #397
Point of order here, Sam: Reason is something that only works when BOTH sides engage in it. The Crackurbation Jihadists have gone to great lengths to AVOID using anything even remotely resembling reason, and so the mockery in PZ's posts is not only appropriate, it's the absolute best course of action. As Thomas Jefferson famously said "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligble propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
----------------
Ah, yea, sure. Like that crackpot Thomas Aquinas, eh? Now there's someone who never heard of reason, never had the capacity to make his ideas distinct or create an intelligible proposition.
Hmmm. Haven't read much, have you?
Posted by: Hockey Bob | August 4, 2008 3:59 PM
Okay, so I've only been able to make it about half-way through the comments, and I have something for Sam, and Pete, and any/all other religious nutjobs.
If *YOU* want to fill your life with all the magic and fairytales of religion, go right ahead. BUT, if ANYTHING that affects MY life is tainted by said fairytales, it has got to go. You will not be forcing your phony morality, or your fraudulent BS about how I should live MY life, on to me. It's fine to be ignorant by yourself - do not, in any way, try to drag me into your fantasy, too. (By the way, that means I'm not paying for any of your crap with my taxes, either, and all of these "churches" have to give up their tax-exempt status, too. No more free rides!)
Oh, and what is it with these trolls continually spewing bible verses at us? It doesn't mean shit to me, so why keep bringing it up? Besides, nothing said here could possibly be sacrilegious, or be considered as desecrating anything - if we don't buy into the bullshit, it has no meaning whatsoever to us. It isn't sacred, so mocking is perfectly normal, and expected, and richly deserved.
For all you religious freaks, here's the Reader's Digest version of your life; you're born, you eat, drink, sleep, poop, and, if you're lucky, laugh and fuck a lot, and then you die. That's it. No 72 virgins, no heaven, no hell, and no credit card bills. No Newcastle Brown Ale, either, which makes me sad. So, instead of coming in here like a bunch of Pharisees, try to live a good life by yourself, and leave us out of it. Earn our respect, not our contempt.
Posted by: SteveM | August 4, 2008 4:00 PM
"Reasonable" would be understanding that what you hold "sacred" is not held sacred by others not of your religion. Myers demonstrated that he does not hold the wafer sacred, why can't you respect his beliefs? He did not force you to desecrate the wafer, he does not demand that you stop believing the wafer is sacred, likewise you should not demand that he believe the wafer is more than a piece of bread.
Respecting the beliefs of others does not mean you have to share those beliefs. You respect a Jew's or Muslim's prohibition to eating pork by not serving him pork, not by abstaining from pork yourself. You respect a sikh's prohibition from cutting his hair by not cutting his hair, not by being forced to let your own grow. Myers did not barge into a Mass and bust open the tabernacle to abscond with the wafers. He did not physically assualt a priest and pry the wafers from his hands. He simply demonstrated that he does not hold the wafer sacred, why can't you respect his belief that the wafer is simply a piece of unleavened bread with a "+" (or is it an "x") embossed in it?
And why should he engage in such a "pointless" display of his "unbelief"? To illustrate the hypocracy of those who demand respect for their beliefs while not respecting the beliefs of anyone else. And he got thousands of letters demonstrating exactly that. So not so pointless after all.
Posted by: sfatheist | August 4, 2008 4:00 PM
cubefarmed @403: Awesome reply. You've made my day, thanks.
Posted by: Akheloios | August 4, 2008 4:00 PM
and there's no Robbie the Robot to make us scotch!
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 4:01 PM
me #460
No
This arrogant fucktard is paraphrasing Martin Luther King in reference to himself. It's more insulting than you think.
But whenever Christards want to play the victim-card they compare themselves to the civil rights movement, and whine about how oppressed they are then drive off in their fucking Lexus.
It's disgusting
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 4:01 PM
@Me #460: No, the single word isn't used any more. The term "negro spiritual" refers to a form of music that you'll find listed in most music history classes.
Posted by: BobC | August 4, 2008 4:02 PM
Jefferson had a very low opinion of Christianity. If he lived today I'm sure he would be laughing the hopeless stupidity of Catholics who believe in sacred crackers.
Posted by: Maria | August 4, 2008 4:02 PM
Until I saw the signature I thought this was directed at the Catholic jihadists. (Crusaders?)
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | August 4, 2008 4:03 PM
@73, 62, etc. (Better late than never.)
Hee-Hawdists?
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 4:03 PM
Nate, you didn't say what your discipline is.
It is frustrating when an academic in science holds onto dogma and superstition. It is also frustrating when a theologian with a PhD holds himself as an equal to a PhD in biology, physics, etc. (yeah, I opened that can of worms)
You are offended by the desecration of the eucharist, Nate. I'm offended by government officials lying about WMDs and escalating a war. I'm offended by ID proponents who want to subvert science. I'm offended when I hear "In Jesus name we pray" at a high school football game, as I sit next to jewish friends, just a few rows from an muslim couple who flinch everytime someone asks if they're muslim. That's usually courtesy of the Protestant Evangelicals, but the Catholic Church hasa history of promoting their own brand of offensiveness to any and all who aren't -well- Catholic, but that's not your paradigm.
Worship your wafer in church, psych yourself into believing it's actually "the host" - I would never interrupt your worship services ( I only antagonise street preachers). Religion is your right (and your delusion). The wafer is a theatrical prop in a pageant, a ceremonial rite, a symbolic reminder of Jesus supposed final seder. Outside of church, it's cellulose and gluten. And one more hint, crosses don't repel vampires and holy water is just H2O - it doesn't burn demons, vampires or heretics, you need fire to do that, and the Catholic Church has lit more than its share of heretic staked pyres.
Nate, there is no magic. the laws of physics govern all material things and there is NO evidence anything else exists despite what you were programed as a child to believe (I was programed too, but I got better).
And remind me to insult you when I go to your house and then fail to comprehend why I'm getting a poor reception.
On the street, people tend to be as rude as they're willing to back it up either by wit, intellectual prowess, or by force. As my grandfather used to say: don't let your alligator-mouth overload your killdeer-fanny.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 4:03 PM
This is actually a nice example, in the opposite sense than you think. Aquinas is a perfect example of the fact- known to anyone who actually understands what "reason" is- that even the most impeccably logical argument which starts from bogus premises can only lead to bogus conclusions.Which is why modern science, in order to make progress, had to jettison the extreme rationalism of the ancient Greeks in favor of a much more empirical attitude. Reality doesn't care two hoots about what YOU think is reasonable.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 4, 2008 4:04 PM
Nate, has anybody here threatened you with physical violence, or to take away your job? Calling us militant is just a lie. Bearing false witness, a sin. See your priest for proper penance.
We do not have to agree with you. Period. End of story. You need to develop some of the tolerance you want us to have.
Posted by: Denden | August 4, 2008 4:04 PM
I am in the middle of "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, and saw a reference to this tea-pottish tempest mentioned on Alternet.com.
Coincidence? Synchronicity?
NO, NO!
Ga-awd led me to your website!
Seriously, it is high time all citizens begin to question each other about our beliefs. The same way we talk about why I think this pizza is better than that one; the way we question each other about geometry, physics, etc.
Why is it IMPOLITE and IMPOLITIC to question someone's beliefs? If your faith is so strong and your belief is so true, then what is the fear?
This kind of gut-level reaction-ism is pure fear.
And I understand fear.
Fear induced by terrorism was the primary tactic used on me in Catholic elementary school. You want to scare the wits out of 50 kids? Take a 1 X 4 board and break it over 1 student's back. The rest will do whatever you tell them to do. Really. It's very efficient.
But if the Catholic religion is so perfect and true, why do the adults have to scare the daylights out of little kids to "get it to stick"? If it is the one true way to 'salvation', then why isn't it obvious to everyone? Why do they have to terrorize children into conformity?
Well, as my third grade teacher, the board-swingin' sister Eucharista used to tell us: "You GOTTA suffer!" WHACK!
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 4, 2008 4:05 PM
Has Thomas Aquinas been posting on this blog? Sorry I missed it. But asshats like you who can't even parse a sentence? It'll be good riddance when you leave.Posted by: thalarctos | August 4, 2008 4:05 PM
How long, O Lord, are white Christian males going to continue to be oppressed and kept down in this country?
The stones cry out...
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 4:05 PM
Scooter. Cheers, I thought so but had to ask.
Posted by: BobC | August 4, 2008 4:05 PM
That's right Pete Rooke. You have the right to be a religious idiot, and I have the right to call you an idiot.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 4:06 PM
Nate W (and other Concern Trolls),
The best response the Catholics could have made was, "We don't care what you do with the communion wafer. We don't care what you think about our beliefs. Your opinions mean nothing to us."
It would have meant that PZ was wrong, that they aren't unreasonable and don't think everyone should hold their objects as sacred simply because they do.
That they were offended just shows he was right. You worry about offending a whole group of people who have no right to be offended in the first place. That is the whole freaking point.
No one worries about offending the sensibilities of racists, because the idea that some people are inferior to others is ridiculous and reprehensible. Well, the idea that everyone should be forced to treat an object as sacred just because some do is ridiculous, reprehensible and, when that same courtesy does not extend to others' beliefs, hypocritical.
Your "concern" at the reaction the desecration caused ignores, and even condones, that the reaction is unreasonable.
So don't bother me with your "concern" that PZ might have offended the sensibilities of bigots. Because if they can't tolerate the idea that not everyone holds their crackers sacred, that's precisely what they are: bigots.
Posted by: frog | August 4, 2008 4:06 PM
me: P.S. Please excuse my naivete, I'm not from Nth America, but do people still refer to black people as negroes? Really?
He was quoting MLK. Pete doesn't understand that quotation like that doesn't work unless you're Mel Brooks, or the enslaved metaphor actually works. Is Pete being beaten by Bull Conneresque atheist sheriffs? No, Pete is just a narcissistic ass, hoping that someone will crucify him to fullfill his self-importance.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 4:08 PM
Nate,
(Assuming that you're still reading)
You bring up a fair point. Of course, Dr. Myers should expect a negative reaction from Catholics upon ridiculing their beliefs. Of course he shouldn't expect them to respect him. I don't think he did.
The key point here is that there are different levels of disrespect. Many of the posters here show disrespect towards Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and members of any other religion. How many of them have threatened violence against the people they disrespect? How many of them have called for the people they disrespect to suffer sanctions?
It's not the fact of the disrespect that's the issue: it's the degree.
Personally, I think Dr. Myers' stunt was juvenile. I wouldn't have done the same myself. I suppose you could say that I don't respect his decision.
However, I can not respect his decision without calling for his firing, sending him death threads, and otherwise making myself out to be a raving psychopath.
Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 4:08 PM
Whateverman, cheers also.
Posted by: cicely | August 4, 2008 4:09 PM
True Bob:
Actually, I was going for John Crichton, but the sound on this thing is lousy!
:)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 4:11 PM
I kind of felt that way at first, but the volume and insanity of the response it called forth has persuaded me that he performed a very real public service.Posted by: me | August 4, 2008 4:12 PM
Cheers Frog too! You guys rock! See what happens (Pete, Nate, other religious quote-spilling dorks) when you ask a question nicely?! Answers! Conversation!
Sorry for all the exclamation marks. Just happy.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 4:13 PM
I can tell you why. You're a hypocritical concern troll who thinks respect for your beliefs means we all have to follow them.
The word is "uppity".
My irony meter just exploded.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 4, 2008 4:14 PM
And I am thankful that I live in a nation that mandates my right to point and laugh at the religious.
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 4:15 PM
psychological projection (or projection bias) - a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
Posted by: rmp | August 4, 2008 4:15 PM
Pygmy Loris, #413, your story is the same as mine. I wonder how many of there are?
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 4:16 PM
Steve @487:
I don't think the one precludes the other. I agree that he accomplished his objective, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with the means he used. If I form the hypothesis "Dropping my drawers and mooning the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church with the likeness of Fred Phelps painted on my pasty white buttocks will cause them to become irrationally incensed," then in all probability, acting on that hypothesis will prove it true. That doesn't change the fact that mooning people and painting my butt would be a pretty juvenile stunt.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 4:17 PM
He can't help himself. He's a weak-minded regressive who longs for the good old days when men were men, women knew their place, and everyone worshiped the same god.
Pluralism? Cultural poison! Feminism? Gender anarchy! Yet he sees himself as Enlightened.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 4:19 PM
Nate. There is no god. Religion is dumb. Am I militant?
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | August 4, 2008 4:21 PM
When PZ eventually passes away thousands will miss him. I wonder what it would take for Catholics to turn him into a cracker.
Posted by: Kim | August 4, 2008 4:22 PM
Steve_C: No. Just show me the proof that there is no God. There is just one scientific correct position you can take, and that is that we DO NOT KNOW whether there is a god or not.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 4, 2008 4:25 PM
Hey Nate, when you say militant types are you referring to Heysoos the Christ. I heard he was a pretty rowdy dude that often hurt peoples feelings by not respecting their deeply held dogmas. Some people say he had a pretty interesting message though. Maybe some day Bill and the Catholic League might look into it for us.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 4:25 PM
Shifting the burden.
Wrong. The complete lack of scientific evidence for a god means there is no reason to believe there is one.
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 4:25 PM
oh boy, here we go again
Posted by: Whateverman | August 4, 2008 4:26 PM
@ Frog #483: the quote actually predates MLK. It's taken from a mid 19th century song writer by the name of J W Work, a quote which nearly everyone at that fateful speech recognized.
Said song was a negro spiritual.
Just for accuracy's sake. I doubt Pete understood who/what he was quoting...
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 4:27 PM
The ultimate irony is the people who worship a man who was condemned to death for blasphemy condemning another man for blasphemy.
Posted by: Maria | August 4, 2008 4:27 PM
@rmp, #492: I'm on the same boat.
Posted by: Mick | August 4, 2008 4:28 PM
As someone with an autism spectrum disorder, it's Dreher's casual bigotry towards "autists" rather than his boring and nonsensical tirades against PZ and other atheists that gets me.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 4:28 PM
Kim,
"I see no evidence for God; therefore, I believe that the simplest explanation is that he does not exist" is a perfectly valid and logical position to hold. Your claim is technically true, but by the same logic, I cannot prove that little men with the ability to turn invisible don't live in my refrigerator. I cannot prove that I am not a sophisticated construct being controlled by beings from a distant planet. I cannot prove that unicorns do not exist.
Does that mean I should avoid saying "I don't believe in unicorns?"
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 4:29 PM
Kim, that's one of the most common and, I'm afraid, stupidest "objections" to atheism. We can't "prove" that phlogiston and Santa Claus don't exist either. Science simply doesn't and can't work by seriously considering the possibility that things exist for whose existence there is no good evidence.
Agnosticism is therefore just as irrational as religious belief. Its seeming reasonableness is a fig leaf. In practice, "agnostics" really leave open the possibility of existence only for the god(s) of the religion in which they happen to have been indoctrinated as a child. Just occasionally you find one who claims to be agnostic about Thor and Athena, but nobody believes them, nor should they.
Posted by: frog | August 4, 2008 4:29 PM
To me:
The psychological linch-pin (lynch-pin???) of the radical right is projection. Everything they do and say is an attempt to invert reality - they're constantly accusing minorities of being racist, women of being domineering, of atheists being intolerant.
It's whine, whine, whine from them. Once you get it, interpreting their language becomes very easy. From listening to them, you'd think white christian males were 2% of the population being denied access to education, being held in slavery, with wives who keep them barefoot and pregnant.
It's like the CEO who goes to the dominatrix to be spanked while he's in a diaper. Paging Dr. Freud...
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 4:30 PM
Wow. What a pathetic attempt to draw an equivalence between your experience and theirs. Have you no shame?
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 4:30 PM
Maaaaaaaannnn! I'll give ya a hunnert bucks. Do it dude!! do-it do-it do-it do-it DO-IT DO-IT DO-IT. AWRIGHT!(makes index/pinkie rock sign)Woohoo!!!Ahem. Perhaps that's not the best possible way to convey your sense of pique - especially since those bastards would pepper your pasty ass with rocksalt. (I'd still pay to see it, man)
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 4:31 PM
And we don't know if there's angels and demons and satan and...
Yeah. I'm not agnostic about those either. Get a grip. There's plenty of crap that religious people believe. Where does is the line between plausible and preposterous anyway?
Hint: There is no line.
Posted by: scooter | August 4, 2008 4:33 PM
I hear the thundering of Pink Unicorns, and clanking of celestial teapots in the distance.
Wish i could stay but have to go to work and batton down the hatches for this friggin hurricane.
You do realize that Hyooston has the third largest Gay population in the US after NYC and San Francisco.
Don't be surprised if we get a good flattening tomorrow. God is such a jealous drama queen attention whore.
gotta go
blub blub
Posted by: gwangung | August 4, 2008 4:35 PM
That's a more appropos description of yourself, but thanks for dropping by, anyway. Don't hurt yourself putting yourself on the back (we call that the Pharisee tear....)
Posted by: S.Scott | August 4, 2008 4:41 PM
Hey,
Are there any Catholics here reading PZ's blog? I just wanted to let you know that there are a couple of posters over at Florida Citizens for Science saying things like
The nerve! And this from a youth minister at that! Are you going to stand for that? He is right and you are wrong!!
Sheesh!
You wouldn't believe all of the anti-catholoicism down here. I thought all Christians were supposed to stick together but apparently the Pope is a tool of Satan according to them!
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 4:41 PM
@Steve #506: it seems to me you're discussing agnostic theists, not just "agnostics" as a whole.
Certainly, the essential unknowable (and therefore moot) concept of god isn't merely fig-leaf reasonability. It's pragmatism at best. To choose to not decide which God to believe in is a very real answer to the conflict generated by religion.
If the 4 years I spent debating in alt.atheism taught me one thing, it's that word definitions are the key to understanding (and defeating) your opponent!
Posted by: Beyond Amazing | August 4, 2008 4:41 PM
Wow, Came here to check out the comments, just spent 15 minutes reading. Cannot even imagine the level of ignorance I see here. Would not have thought it possible. You people are simply without depth. Very scary to know you may be in my country. Not going to engage you intellectually on this since I realize the amount of education required to be transmitted to you is simply beyond the scope of one lifetime. Pete and Nate, why do you engage these things. Not worth your time, and why am I writing, cannot say, just sitting here with my mouth open. You all have much, much to learn. Wow, wow, wow, immaturity oozes from these pages. All of you are just juveniles, no maybe that is too advanced. Good heavens...
Posted by: Akheloios | August 4, 2008 4:42 PM
I thought that the rather atheistic Lincoln freed the slaves?
Or do you actually contend, like many of your fellow irrationalists, that when a good thing is done, that makes it a religious thing, and when a bad thing happens, that's the work of evil secularists?
Posted by: Tom Gasaway | August 4, 2008 4:44 PM
Every time I hear the question "Is nothing sacred?" I can't help but think of Gahan Wilson. I cut this one
http://discardedlies.com/images/35sm%5B1%5D.jpg
out of an old playboy; I think I still have it somewhere.
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 4:45 PM
Beyond @515:
Why is it people who declare themselves intellectually superior while refusing to back it up are always so bad at it? Seriously--writing well is not that difficult. If you're going to proclaim your erudition and education, writing at a seventh-grade level only serves to make you look ridiculous.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 4:45 PM
Test.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 4:48 PM
Even fellow "science"bloggers decry PZ Myers' actions:
1)
What alarms me the most about the incident, however, is the major perceptual hit that the scienceblogs.com community and brand continues to take because of PZ's antics. The Seed sponsored blog portal is supposed to be a place that attracts new audiences to science, but in fact, it has turned into the Web's leading echo chamber of anti-religious rants and sophomoric discussions of atheism, what the physicist Chad Orzel refers to as the "screechy monkey" problem.
2)
He's Just a F******* Adolescent Ass
3)
Desecration, blasphemy in public, and manners
4)
The mere fact that it is legal (or at least not illegal) to do something says very little about the morality involved. It's not nice to destroy something that you know has a great deal of emotional significance for someone else, and it's particularly jerky to threaten to make a public display of destroying it. This is true for items of religious significance, but it's also equally true for non-religious items that someone finds significant. It may be intended to demonstrate disrespect for their beliefs, but it will be felt as a lack of respect for them as people.
5)
I think that people have an obligation to behave in certain ways for civil society to function and survive. People who deliberately provoke others for no purpose beyond the malicious joy of provocation should be recognized as the obnoxious assholes that they are.
And still there has not been even a hint of apology. He will look back on the with the regret when his time comes that's for sure. Why is it that in the face of all this criticism his flock cannot comprehend the enormity of what he's done?
-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-_
Dies Irae, Ben Stein, Dawkins
Posted by: Jody | August 4, 2008 4:51 PM
Wow. Bring up the cracker flap and the maggots do come crawling out of the woodwork, don't they?
I hate commenting in these overlong threads, but I just have to say that any group that makes it a point to denigrate, disrespect, and just generally shit upon certain groups (such as gays, women, molested kids, etc.)...
...and then turns around and demands nobody disrespect its Sacred Snack Foods ...
...would, in any truly civilized society, be laughed out of existence.
The hypocrisy is BLINDING.
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 4:52 PM
Aww, Scooter, Houston wouldn't be destroyed for having a large gay population, it would be destroyed because it blows.(that's a joke, son) It's okay if you guys get wiped out, just as long as we get rain in Big D. (I keeeeeed, I keeeeeed)*
*Triumph, the insult comic dog
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 4:54 PM
I love arguments which come in the form of "I can't express my ideas, so I'm just going to quote a bunch of people, and then claim victory".
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 4:54 PM
Maybe Beyond Amazing was going to go beyond logic.
Ignorance? Really? Ignorant of what?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 4:54 PM
Three or more links in a single comment will cause a it to get snagged by the moderation filter. No, you're not being censored. Kudos for not jumping to the usual conclusion.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 4:57 PM
(My #525 was to Mr. Rooke)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 4:57 PM
whateverman, it is a gross abuse of language to describe as "pragmatism" a willingness to seriously entertain the possibility that things exist for which there is no credible evidence whatsoever. Moreover, in practice this supposed suspension of judgment is never really of the "equal-opportunity" variety that you're trying to espouse; that pose always crumbles under any real questioning, in my experience. People with an emotional attachment to their childhood religion are "agnostic" about the god(s) of their youth. People who espouse a fashionably vague "but there might be something out there" "spirituality" do not in practice take the idea of anthropomorphic gods seriously. And so on. "Wishful thinking" is the correct name for this phenomenon.
Posted by: jagannath | August 4, 2008 5:01 PM
sheesh pete, have you came out the closet already?
Posted by: frog | August 4, 2008 5:01 PM
Whateverman #501:
@ Frog #483: the quote actually predates MLK. It's taken from a mid 19th century song writer by the name of J W Work, a quote which nearly everyone at that fateful speech recognized.
Said song was a negro spiritual.
Just for accuracy's sake. I doubt Pete understood who/what he was quoting...
You're referring to the original song, correct? But the "in the words of the old negro spiritual" is from MLK -- he wasn't quoting those words. The recursive quotation is a quotation of MLK, with an embedded quotation.
I doubt that Pete didn't know -- that particular clip is always over the airways. The rookster is really a piece of work - as Kseniya said, shameless. So completely self-absorbed that it is impossible for him to fully recognize the offensiveness of his statement.
Hey Pete, Why do you you persecute Me? Is it because I'm an oreo? (Oh so tasty!)
Posted by: dubiquiabs | August 4, 2008 5:02 PM
@445 Steve LaBonne
I think you are right on. The RCC is still far too powerful.
As we type, DHHS is drafting regs that re-define contraception as abortion, and R&D of embyonic stem cell-derived therapies is held hostage to pseudo-ethical concerns about "souls" that got lost on the way from fertilization to stem cell banks.
The doctrine of ensoulment is as ludicrous and purely made up as the transubstantiation doctrine, but far more insidious in its consequences.
Posted by: Martin | August 4, 2008 5:06 PM
How can anyone take Dreher seriously when he is not serious about religion. He grew up a methodist. He later became a roman catholic and then two years ago he switched to orthodoxy. He writes about his latest change here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2006/10/orthodoxy-and-me.html
Back in 2002, he was already complaining about the "lavender mafia" running the catholic church:
http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher031302.shtml
If he is so concerned about sexual abuse, why go to orthodoxy. They have their own problems in this area, including a notable one in Dallas. Check out this website:
http://orthodoxreform.org/
He is not a serious person. He is simply trying to find the supernatural cause that best suits his needs. Maybe he will move on to astrology.
Posted by: Britomart | August 4, 2008 5:08 PM
Wow, this one is hard to keep up with!
Can we have a fashion show when all the hoo haa is over with?
We have leather thongs, viking helmets, men in kilts (love 'em!!) sheer minskirts, something to please everyone!
I am a Jeans and T shirt woman these days; wore a bankers grey or navy suit for too many years to be interested in that again, but you all have been inspiring. Wonder what I could do to perk things up in this laid back cube farm I work in.
Inspiring bunch you all are!
Thank you kindly
Posted by: Phentari | August 4, 2008 5:09 PM
Pete @520:
Yes, there are people who consider Dr. Myers' decision a poor one. I'm one of them. Again, though: that doesn't excuse or justify the response. I can disagree with him and say "I think that was a bad move" without insulting him or threatening him or seeking to have him punished.
Posted by: whateverman | August 4, 2008 5:12 PM
Steve, it seems to me we're both using different definitions of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Of the 6 described there, only 2 of them (Strong Agnostic and Agnostic Theism) allow for an agnostic claiming that the God concept may have merit.
I am using the term similar to the other 4 - that in essence, the question of God's existence is moot at this point in time. And as such, there's no wishful thinking, no spirituality, no suspension of judgement.
I maintain you're using the term in reference to agnostic theism.
Posted by: MB | August 4, 2008 5:12 PM
Let's be clear - the books did NOT receive the same treatment as the body of christ.
The body of christ also received the (symbolically Jewish) nail through it, which must be why all those anti-semites, er, I mean good christians, started calling the professor a Christ Killer.
Can you imagine the uproar from the professor's minions had he actually had the temerity to put a nail into The God Delusion!?!
Even the not really omnimpotent PZ Myers is not THAT foolhardy. Just a cracker indeed!
By the way, maybe a smart atheist can tell me the proper way to dispose of a cracker and a koran? Burn them? Don't they live forever somehow, being sacred and all?
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 5:12 PM
@ frog:
Hey Pete, Why do you you persecute Me? Is it because I'm an oreo? (Oh so tasty!)
I don't know what you're implying.
_-___-___-___-___-___-___-___-___-___-___-___-___-___-___-__
Dies Irae, Ben Stein, Dawkins
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 5:14 PM
Oh yesss, Peter, your great day of reckoning!!!! As you play Cassandra at the gate (oops, wrong mythos) we atheists await our doom for stirring the wrath of the GREAT CRACKER WORSHIPPERS. But you tried to warn us You toted out every macabre analogy you could think of to save our immortal sou- oh, wait, the concept of soul is a human contruct -oops, our bad.
But the tattoo cadences of irate believers are crescendoing. The faggots will be kept lit to burn the heretics who dare point out all the gaps have become so infinitesimal there is no place for a god to hide and that a communion wafer is only symbolically Jesus and never actually Jesus. And that GLBT people have rights, and that disallowing condoms for PROPHYLACTIC purposes is ridiculous and wrong and using your people's term -evil.
You did your best Peter. But you won't get the satisfaction you so desperately want. So ta-ta Pete, we'll miss ya!
Posted by: Whateverman | August 4, 2008 5:14 PM
@Frog: I actually thought MLK was in fact quoting from the song. However, I have no sources for this. And in reality, my communte home is about to begin :)
Cheers
Posted by: BMurray | August 4, 2008 5:16 PM
I am spittle-flecked RIGHT NOW, but it's because I am being served waffles.
Posted by: Marty | August 4, 2008 5:18 PM
Cubefarmed @403
"What really convinced me that there is no God? People like you. If God created 'man in his own image' and we wound up with you, that's no god worth worshipping even if he did exist. You, sir, are proof that Intelligent Design is a bunch of hogwash."
Game, set, match! Wins the thread!
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 5:22 PM
You are assuming he doesn't already believe in astrology.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 5:23 PM
Things? Oh, my! This may be an example of how religionists tend to view people who don't share their beliefs as "things" that can be discarded and destroyed like old
crackersshoes.Or maybe it's just terrible diction. I dunno.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 5:23 PM
Pete Rooke == Larry Fafarman?
Dunno about that, but he appears to be a regular rape apologist to me.
Posted by: frog | August 4, 2008 5:28 PM
#536
@ frog:
Hey Pete, Why do you you persecute Me? Is it because I'm an oreo? (Oh so tasty!)
@ Pete: I don't know what you're implying.
Not so good at recontextualizing, are we Pete? I won't explain -- it'll ruin the joke for those who work at multiple levels.
Posted by: qbsmd | August 4, 2008 5:29 PM
Has anyone bishop or above made a comment denouncing Donahue? Has anyone condemned the catholic death threats without condemning PZ in exactly the same way? If so, please provide a link. I think the problem isn't that you don't believe violence is wrong so much as that you believe violence and blasphemy are morally equal.
Posted by: wookerist | August 4, 2008 5:34 PM
(+)
Posted by: frog | August 4, 2008 5:35 PM
" FREE AT LAST"
from " American Negro Songs " by J. W. Work
Free at last, free at last
I thank God I'm free at last
Free at last, free at last
I thank God I'm free at last
Way down yonder in the graveyard walk
I thank God I'm free at last
Me and my Jesus going to meet and talk
I thank God I'm free at last
On my knees when the light pass'd by
I thank God I'm free at last
Tho't my soul would rise and fly
I thank God I'm free at last
Some of these mornings, bright and fair
I thank God I'm free at last
Goin' meet King Jesus in the air
I thank God I'm free at last
Pete, is it better to be dead than under this horrendous atheist domination? Will you only be released from bondage to PZ in the grave?
Or are you just a rape-apologist whiner?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 5:36 PM
You're kidding...
... right?
Posted by: Eric Saveau | August 4, 2008 5:37 PM
@Sam
Ah, yea, sure. Like that crackpot Thomas Aquinas, eh? Now there's someone who never heard of reason, never had the capacity to make his ideas distinct or create an intelligible proposition.
Oh, by all means, let's talk about Aquinas - whom I have read. Aquinas' entire schtick was to look at a whole lot of very useful and attractive intellectual achievements of other (non-Christian) cultures and come up with rationalizations by which the leaders of his day need not feel threatened by the intellectual vibrancy of non-Christians. Simply put, he was a pandering bullshit artist.
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 5:39 PM
Hey neato.
"Pastor Pete Rooke" on communion:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/stchadsomegachurch/
Saint Chad's Omega Church!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 5:40 PM
Again it's a value judgement. Perhaps some people do not believe that dressing like a whore is a problem. I for one do.
I'm more interested in being a whore.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 5:41 PM
Read the original "Desecration" post again. Look at the picture. The nail in fact pierces the cracker, the Koran pages, and the God Delusion pages, in that order. We don't care. It's a few pieces of frickin paper. Some of the ideas expressed by some of the words that are printed in some of the ink on those pages are important...the paper, no.Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 5:47 PM
How is Ben Stein dressing these days?
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 5:49 PM
MAJeff,
Forgive my impudence but I'm assuming you have excellent gaydar.
What's your take on Dreher? Self loathing closeted Log Cabin Republican or an uptight, pompous, zealous, homophobic prick? Oh wait, sorry - I was redundant.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 5:51 PM
MAJeff,
Forgive my impudence but I'm assuming you have excellent gaydar.
What's your take on Dreher? Self loathing closeted Log Cabin Republican or an uptight, pompous, zealous, homophobic prick? Oh wait, sorry - I was redundant.
No clue. Don't read him. Never looked at him. Not worth my time.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 4, 2008 5:52 PM
Sven... you mean... TGD isn't a sacred text?!
Posted by: cicely | August 4, 2008 5:55 PM
Kim @497:
Invisible pink unicorns. Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Great-tasting, low-fat, low-cal chocolate.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 5:57 PM
low-fat, low-cal chocolate.
Now that's a violation of the sacred.
Posted by: Julia | August 4, 2008 5:59 PM
@515:
So true that, when confronted with oozing immaturity, pronouns are often the first casualty. Is tragic, really.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 6:03 PM
K @556:
You haven't been paying attention.
Nothing is text.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 6:08 PM
From the link in # 550:
So that's where Pete's coming from: Holy Christian Life Synod Southern Evangelical Buzzword Buzzword Ministries. Explains a lot.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | August 4, 2008 6:08 PM
@ Sam #464
Sam, sometimes I wish Aquinas could be resurrected. He'd have a thing or two to say about, eg the contemporary doctrinal equivalence of blastocyst and developed human. As best I remember, he believed in "ensoulment" well after conception. That would change the abortion wedge debate and would be compatible with hESC research. He, too, made stuff up, but at least he'd have the excuse of not knowing what we know today.
Posted by: MB | August 4, 2008 6:18 PM
Holy Shit Sven, that's one LONG fucking NAIL! It's long enough to pierce your savior's body AND make it through the sacred texts, too! That's a miracle!!! Perhaps they should be praying to PZ as a saint, not condemning him!
When I saw the picture I thought your savior was protecting the sacred texts with his transubstantiated body. (You do realize he's your savior, even if you don't believe in him? Just as evolution is still a fact, even if you don't believe in the process. Since they're both part of religions and all.)
What ideas were you referencing from those pages as important that cannot be found elsewhere?
And DO you know the authorized way to dispose of sacred text and crackers - or must it all be eaten?
At least Kseniya asked if I'm batshit crazy -:).
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 6:18 PM
That's it! Hold it right there!
Pronoun trouble.
It's not "he didn't have to trash your cracker", it's "he didn't have to trash his cracker".
And he did trash his own cracker.
(Do classic cartoons ooze immaturity? Clearly, science needs to investigate this important question.)
Posted by: El Herring | August 4, 2008 6:18 PM
Oh noes - another 500+ post thread for me to read!
And yes I admit I'm often spittle-flecked - and my monitor is frequently tea-flecked (Earl grey, hot) as a result of intentional or unintentional hilarity that regularly surfaces hereabouts.
PZ is better than TV any day!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 4, 2008 6:20 PM
Actually I'm just declining to engage in that kind of pointless word-chopping.Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 6:21 PM
Pete's only racked up a couple of thousand hits. Let's not boost his meter to 3000. (there is nothing to see there anyway, really; lot's of money requests though)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2008 6:26 PM
MB@563: You talking to me? If so..uh...what are you trying to say?
Are you batshit crazy?
Posted by: WRMartin | August 4, 2008 6:34 PM
Pete (ooops Rev. Pete) is Poe. If not for his comments here then definitely (oops again, this is the Internet, that should be 'definately') for the misspellings on his church web pages.
Typos.
Random capitalization. Not capitalizing that which he thinks is oh so important for us to respect. Hey Pete, capitalize your Lord for Christsakes! See? Even a non-believer can do it.
Poe. Definitely Poe.
Psst Pete, you might want to keep your fantasies hidden from your flock. That is some seriously disturbing wank bank material.
And now I have this disturbing image of Pete and his disciples in the basement with the lights turned down low staring at PZ's latest desecration while grunting at each other and whacking off like bonobos on MDMA.
Posted by: Patricia | August 4, 2008 6:39 PM
Ask and ye shall recieve. With a wave of my magical witchy wand *Ting* - MAJeff you are now a whore. :)
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 6:40 PM
Don't hold your breath.
More sanctimonious threats of retribution....
BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE CRACKER IS ANYTHING BUT A CRACKER.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 6:45 PM
Because what he did was trivial. No enormity to it. That's all in your head, with the little birds that sing "cuckoo".
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 6:48 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to complain about about inappropriate sexual language used on this blog. I have included the full quote above. I would appreciate your attention on this matter as I consider this deeply offensive.
This is Pharyngula!
We do not have any whores at all.
We have sluts.
Thank you,
Tizzy von Vapors
Posted by: Patricia | August 4, 2008 6:50 PM
Ol Peetie is a Southern Evangelical?
HAAAAAAA!!! Ha ha ha ha he-haw!
Hey Pete - I have a snake left over I'll sell REAL cheap.
Haaaaa! HA!
There went the clean underwear. ;)
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 6:59 PM
If our Pete Rooke is the same as that Pete Rooke, he doesn't HAVE a flock.
The Omega 3 Church is a web-only imaginary church.
Posted by: E.V. | August 4, 2008 7:00 PM
When the RCC PROVES transubstantiation occurs in a consecrated wafer (their assertion) then I will be the first to apologize and convert to Catholicism. In fact I will become celebate and enter the priesthood.I will carry the Catholic banner. I am sincere in this, but there has to be empirical data that the wafers become Jesus of Nazareth.
Until then they are fair game for ridicule when they threaten someone over a wafer.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 7:02 PM
whore...slut...as long as there's a lot of good sex, labels matter not.
Posted by: Kate | August 4, 2008 7:02 PM
*Takes a deep breath*
Okay, Raving Catholic Commenters, we can go over this one more time but you'll really need to catch up with the rest of the class.
It it just a cracker to me. If I stick a nail through it, it's still just a cracker. As a lifelong atheist, someone who has never believed in any deity, it can't be anything but a cracker. They aren't even *good* crackers. They're tasteless and dry.
Even your badly edited, horribly redacted often revised holy book as well as your own Church say that if I touch it, eat it, molest it, or have anything to do with it, it's just a cracker. My lack of belief renders all your sky-daddy magic mumbled by the guy in the black dress completely moot. (Pretty cool, huh? My atheism trumps your imaginary friend's PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS, and I don't even have to wear a funny hat!)
It's only the body of Christ of you believe it to be. I don't. Therefore, it... is... just... a... cracker...
Unless, of course, that's one of the parts you guys ignore. It's difficult to keep track of which group ignores what portion to suit their own needs and desires.
Posted by: Patricia | August 4, 2008 7:06 PM
What?! *gasp* a complaint against the Wish Witch! Oh sure, right after Craig and Sven made me soil myself.
OK - thats it -
*Ting* - MAJeff - you are no longer a whore.
Shortest career ever. ;)
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 7:10 PM
I know it's way back in the thread count - I only just got here and it's up to #571 alreadyt - but I have to put it in while it's fresh in my head.
PZ Myers wrote:
I'd have been tempted to ask the radio guy if he felt that maybe (just maybe) the fact that churches are on fire is perhaps damn good evidence that god either doesn't exist or, if he does, he doesn't give a crap about either churches or crackers!
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 7:10 PM
Pete Rooke is only allowed on the computer when he's had his meds and they don't have art&crafts that day in the asylum.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | August 4, 2008 7:12 PM
Funny, I'm only spittle-flecked when I'm having a REAL good time.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | August 4, 2008 7:14 PM
Jews cannot tell Catholics that they can't eat ham,
Jews can't tell other Jews they can't eat ham. I hate to break it to ya' but not all Jews are Kosher these days. I don't even think a majority are.
And, even more surprising, there are many Jews who do not believe the fullest expression of their religion is stealing land, murdering and oppressing others.
And there is no central Jewish athourity who can send out bulls claiming Zionism is God's plan. There is no Jewish Pope.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of Jewish Bill Donaho's these days. Lox vobiscum, baby.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 7:14 PM
*Ting* - MAJeff - you are no longer a whore.
Shortest career ever. ;)
I'm still getting sex though
(although spending a weekend with tons of sociologists didn't offer very many opportunities--not an attractive group, collectively)
Posted by: Pete Rooke | August 4, 2008 7:15 PM
I'm just another concern troll.
Posted by: Patricia | August 4, 2008 7:21 PM
I'll take the E.V. pledge too.
Still waiting to hear El Herrings question re: Crimen Sollicitationis, 1962 answered. All of the religotards are afraid to comment.
Come on catlicks, I've put down my scary wand, lets hear it.
Posted by: JM Inc. | August 4, 2008 7:27 PM
Actually, I think, regarding the Rod Dreher post about the Qur'an, it's important to note that he specifically disclaimed trying to incite anyone to desecrate the Qur'an:
"I should underscore here that I am not advocating intentional desecration of anybody's religion. I'm using sarcasm to make a point about the selective bigotry of P.Z. Myers."
Posted by: Wowbgagger | August 4, 2008 7:28 PM
Pete Rooke!
So, managed to take some more time out from your busy masturbating-to-snuff-films-with-a-voiceover-of-someone-reading-the-bible schedule to nauseate us with your disturbing fantasies?
Go back to your gimp suit and cram your pathetic, warped analogies in your jesus-hole, you sick misogynistic fuck.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 7:30 PM
Wowbagger, they always say the first impression is the most important. Looks like Pete done hisself proud!
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 7:31 PM
Makes it even funnier that PZ did select the Qur'an and the God Delusion too.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 7:32 PM
Natalie: Throwing a communion wafer in the trash is not a gesture of respect.
I spoke with my wife, a lapsed Catholic, and she assured me that once given, the wafer is to be consumed on the spot. It is not "property" as that term is commonly understood. Cook was therefor not within his rights to have taken it with him.
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 7:38 PM
I spoke with my wife, a lapsed Catholic, and she assured me that once given, the wafer is to be consumed on the spot. It is not "property" as that term is commonly understood. Cook was therefor not within his rights to have taken it with him.
Your wife is a lawyer? No she's a Catholic. I'm sorry to break this to you - but whether or not it is within his rights is NOT up to what Catholics or the Catholic church think... it's up to the LAW. And your religion does not get to mandate what is and what is not legal.
We know you'd like it to - that's what we're fighting against.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 7:39 PM
Psst, MH: I haven't seen communion wafers in my grocery store. And until it's blessed by a priest (or whatever it is he does), it is, indeed, nothing but a cracker.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 7:40 PM
We know what's SUPPOSED to happen. But once it was in Cook's possession, it's his. You can't give something to someone and then demand they do something with it.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 7:40 PM
Dav, #591
No-one is disputing the church was completely within its rights to chastise Webster Cook for what he did.
However, the people at the event had no right to assault him or demand he be punished by his college for what he did.
If someone from the church had gone to visit him afterwards and told him they were upset and disappointed and requested he give it back, none of this would have happened.
They did not do this. They went to the media instead, which was equivalent to pushing the start button on a fan and inviting the world to start throwing shit.
Posted by: CJO | August 4, 2008 7:42 PM
Jeezus, you people have never met a point you can't miss entirely have you?By whose authority is it to be consumed on the spot? Not any that I recognize. Nor any that has legal recourse. Thus the battery --the only effective or compelling thing anyone could do about his perfectly legal action was an illegal action. Why is this so hard to understand?
Individual eensy weensy crackers are not protected by any secular authority. Deal with it.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 7:42 PM
Dav,
As I understand it, Cook didn't intend to abscond with the cracker. He wanted to show it to his non-catholic friend, then consume it. Plenty of catholics (my wife included) have indicated this is not unusual - consuming the wafer after getting back to the warm pew.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 7:42 PM
And after he consecrates it, it is still nothing but a cracker.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 7:42 PM
Dav. A blessed cracker is no different than an non blessed one.
Posted by: James the Less | August 4, 2008 7:42 PM
Who is ordering you to adore the Blessed Sacrament? Catholics recognize your free will. Just as you would recognize the free will of a Catholic to believe, through the exercise of faith and reason, that the Blessed Sacrament is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. You are working from the premise that it is not God; a Catholic starts with a different premise. For a Catholic adoration is a cause of much joy. I would not expect that the Blessed Sacrament would be taken out of a church to cause injury. I can't see how that is an act of charity. You appear to claim it is on behalf of the Florida student - it certainly wasn't a propotional action.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 7:44 PM
Posted by: James the Less | August 4, 2008 7:42 PM
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 7:45 PM
And until it's blessed by a priest (or whatever it is he does), it is, indeed, nothing but a cracker.
And after he blesses it, it's STILL nothing but a cracker.
I can say magic words over a pound of pimento loaf, and it's still going to be nothing more than cold cuts.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2008 7:45 PM
Faith. Delusion. Blah blah blah, Cracker. Blah blah blah. Body of Christ. Blah blah blah. Boo hoo.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 7:45 PM
Fixed that for you.
Since taking the cracker out of the church injures no one, then no, I don't see why you would expect that.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 7:47 PM
"So, no one should be allowed to drive a nail through a cracker?"
You are a troll, tsg. I'll waste no further time with you.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 4, 2008 7:47 PM
Pete said, "And still there has not been even a hint of apology. He will look back on the with the regret when his time comes that's for sure. Why is it that in the face of all this criticism his flock cannot comprehend the enormity of what he's done?"
Because he hasn't done anything enormous.
Not too bright, are ya, Pete? But you've got the idiot-control freak-theist-demand that everyone live according to your narrow-minded rules thing down really well. Beautifully played, old sport.
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 7:49 PM
You appear to claim it is on behalf of the Florida student - it certainly wasn't a propotional action.
That's certainly true. The student and his friend were threatened and had their scholastic careers put into jeopardy.
The response was the throwing into the trash of a cracker. Absolutely not proportional.
I guess we atheists need to come up with a bigger response.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 7:49 PM
James, your comment wrt proportional response leaves me flabbergasted. Who or what is harmed by discarding a cracker? What are you trying to protect? Your god surely needs no protection. The Vatican hasn't chimed in, presumably because the crackermania was less important than the Pope's Wunnerful World Victory Lap.
So who are you to judge?
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 7:50 PM
James the Less wrote:
Don't be an ass. If that's true then why do they spend so much time and effort decrying (and attempting to prevent people from choosing) abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex and contraception?
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | August 4, 2008 7:50 PM
Re: Pete Rooke == Larry Fafar MILK man?
There now, that looks better.
I believe that not only have I explained my ethical vegetarianism on this blog before but that I have actually had the conversation with you.
Yeah, Pete subsists largely on milk.
Re: Do you think an anonymous nut threatening to beat his brains in is benign?
Anonymous nut? The wonder of it all is that the nut was far from anonymous, being the passionate Chuck Kroll: husband of Melanie Kroll, dumbest man in the history of "Teh Tubes".
Looking to be another thousand-comment thread...
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 7:51 PM
Actually, the accidents of the wafer are property, and the accidents are given away. Clearly, everyone who receives one takes it with them, albeit inside their digestive system.
And as for the "substance", well, show that the "substance" even exists, let alone that it can be removed from the church.
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 7:54 PM
Who is ordering you to adore the Blessed Sacrament? Catholics recognize your free will.
Catholics definitely ARE demanding the adoration of the cracker, and definitely ARE refuse to recognize the free will of others.
PZ exercised his free will in throwing a cracker in the trash. Catholics are DEMANDING he treat the cracker with the level of respect they feel for it, demanding that he NOT exercise his free will in treating it with the respect HE feels it's due.
They are demanding he treat it with more respect than he feels for it, and they are trying to get him FIRED if he won't.
Stop lying.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 7:54 PM
Minneapolitian: You can respect the religious practices without respecting Church policies regarding homosexuality.
We live in a time when the influence of religion on society is waning. This is to be encouraged; the question is whether acts like thhose of Myers' serve any useful purpose (beyond ego-gratification, that is).
As odious as you find the Catholic Church, be thankful they don't want to hang gays.
Posted by: Patricia | August 4, 2008 7:56 PM
This is like stepping into the Way-Back Machine. We've heard every one of their arguments at least five times over. head/desk
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 7:57 PM
As odious as you find the Catholic Church, be thankful they don't want to hang gays.
Wow. I should be grateful that an institution that despises me only wants me to suffer for eternity, but not to kill me.
I'm soooooo thankful. I can't tell you how wonderful my life is because the RCC no longer desires my murder.
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 8:05 PM
"We live in a time when the influence of religion on society is waning. This is to be encouraged; the question is whether acts like thhose of Myers' serve any useful purpose (beyond ego-gratification, that is).
As odious as you find the Catholic Church, be thankful they don't want to hang gays.
So your argument is that confronting irrational beliefs is not productive, but accepting them and simply being glad they aren't worse or even more dangerous IS an effective strategy?
Sorry, your way has been tried. Didn't work.
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 8:11 PM
MAJeff, I think they'd still be happy with your murder.
Posted by: James the Less | August 4, 2008 8:16 PM
Craig,
A Catholic will not force you to enter a Church and bow before the Blessed Sacrament. So, why is is that a Catholic cannot have the expectation that the Blessed Sacrament (distributed for one purpose only - communion with Christ) will not be taken out of the Church with the intent to cause injury to it.
Posted by: cd | August 4, 2008 8:17 PM
MAJeff, Forgive my impudence but I'm assuming you have excellent gaydar. What's your take on Dreher? Self loathing closeted Log Cabin Republican or an uptight, pompous, zealous, homophobic prick? Oh wait, sorry - I was redundant.
If you read his blog long enough and have known some unmedicated bipolar people, it's pretty obvious what's up with him.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 8:19 PM
True Bob,
I have no doubt. Nazinger, (and JPII) pretty much declared war on us.
Posted by: steve_h | August 4, 2008 8:23 PM
In the documentary, "Indiana Jones and the last crusade", our intrepid hero happened upon some magic cup that was apparently used by Christ at the last supper. However, they dun some magic on it and he couldn't take it past some seal without triggering some special effects and exciting music, forcing him to flee empty handed.
Anyways, why don't the catholic church just modify the incantation so that the magic bread becomes deactivated once it leaves the church? or make non-believers who take or eat the bread go all crumbly and then disintegrate? It sounds cruel but those guys are probly going to hell anyway - no offense, but it is true-
This would solve this problem once and for all and believers would no longer have to resort to robbery with violence or obtaining property by threats to steal the freely given bread back.
/sarks
Posted by: commissarjs | August 4, 2008 8:23 PM
@ Nate W. # 415
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
snort...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
You appear to have an overly developed sense of what constitutes a threat. What exactly would a respectful discussion look like? Is it the gospels and homilies decrying the foolishness of those who don't believe or believe differently? Is it Anselm's politely worded ontological argument? Is it the declarations that those who don't believe as the church directs shall suffer for all eternity? I know exactly what goes on in those pointy buildings. I spent 18 years of my life as a catholic and received 4 of the 7 sacraments. So you can claim that the side of the theists is the perfectly respectable one, but it's a lie... and remember you go to hell for lying as surely as you do for stealing. ;p
Posted by: commissarjs | August 4, 2008 8:26 PM
@ John # 426
Make sure you twirl your moustache and laugh menacingly when you do that. Then swirl your cape as you leave the room.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 8:28 PM
James the Less wrote:
Again, James, no-one is saying they aren't allowed to get upset - as long as that reaction does not include assault, death-threats and trying to get someone who did that kicked out of school.
They can ask someone nicely to give it back. If that doesn't happen then they can ask that person to leave and not return. Maybe even send them a stern letter.
Nothing more. Doing anything else is crossing over into forcing others into adhering to their beliefs, and any secularist worth his/her salt is going to stand up and decry that.
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 8:32 PM
"Craig,
A Catholic will not force you to enter a Church and bow before the Blessed Sacrament. So, why is is that a Catholic cannot have the expectation that the Blessed Sacrament (distributed for one purpose only - communion with Christ) will not be taken out of the Church with the intent to cause injury to it. "
You have every right to hope that it won't be. You have every right to be unhappy if it is.
The crackers are handed out freely to anyone who kneels to receive it. Tens of millions of them a year. Maybe even millions a day.
If by "expect" you mean simply the state of your mind, the hopefulness you have that the gift will be received favorably, yes you have a right to "expect" that in the same way everyone has a right to have an idea of their choosing in their head. And, by exercising your right to have feelings of expectation, you run the risk of seeing your expectations fail.
However, if by "expect" you mean the right to see someone punished, the right to stop others from behaving in ways you don't like - hell NO, you do not have that right. If you mean "expect" in that way, then you're demanding the right to control the intent and behavior of millions of people despite their actions NOT BEING ILLEGAL.
I can expect you to receive a gift I give you graciously. If instead you sneer at my gift, I do NOT have a right to see you punished for dashing my expectations.
You have a right to dislike what PZ did, and you have a right to say that you dislike it.
THATS ALL.
Posted by: James the Less | August 4, 2008 8:35 PM
Wowbagger,
Even if all that is true, the appropriate response is to thrust a nail (an instrument of the Crucifixion) into what Catholics believe is the Blessed Sacrament?
Posted by: El Herring | August 4, 2008 8:35 PM
... Finally caught up with this thread (while drinking my tea which I dunk my suppertime crackers in), now it's time for bed.
Oh well, time to close the porch window which I'd wedged open with a handful of pages torn out of the bible that some Jehova's witness forced into my godless hands last week, then I have to screw in my earplugs so I won't be woken up by the church bells or the damn yelling from that new bloody great mosque up the road, and maybe get some shuteye. No peace for the wicked, you know!
'night all. It's been a good read this evening - sorry I didn't get to participate much this time.
Posted by: commissarjs | August 4, 2008 8:35 PM
@ Kim # 497
Indeed, and since we can't prove that the Chaos Gods do not exist either we must tenatively accept that Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Nurgle, and Khorne are as real as Yahweh.
Blood for the blood god!
Skulls for the skull throne!
Posted by: Tulse | August 4, 2008 8:44 PM
But their figures are much more expensive...
Posted by: True Bob | August 4, 2008 8:46 PM
Why oh why, did that Drucker(sp) woman not just say, "You gonna eat dat"?
James, I understand you really, truly, believe that the Host is a real mystery of faith. How does one 'injure' it? I really don't understand this part, that you or other catholics feel they must stand up for it.
If it's a real mystery, can't your god escape (or suffer) it? Can't he take action, in his good time, if PZ needs straightening out? Didn't your god know he was to be crucified? Why would you think he knew about that, but was blindsided by this entire flail?
But since he knew, he let it happen.*
*Do I mean His original crucifixion, dying for all our sins, or do I mean PZ throwing a cracker in a trash bin?
Posted by: Patricia | August 4, 2008 8:48 PM
Nite, nite El Herring! No worries, they still haven't answered you. ;)
Posted by: commissarjs | August 4, 2008 8:52 PM
So has a uniform been decided on yet? You can't be a militant without a uniform.
I hope we have some awesome tactical looking web gear with boots and jaunty berets. Will our cyber pistols be issued to us or do I have to buy my own?
Posted by: JoJo | August 4, 2008 8:57 PM
James the Less #626
Sure, why not? If Catholics get their panties in a twist because Webster Cook didn't consume his cracker immediately upon receipt, then it's perfectly reasonable for PZ Myers to show that's IT'S JUST A FRACKIN' CRACKER!
Yeah, we understand that you and your fellow cultists have some superstition about it becoming a magic zombie cracker when a guy in a dress mumbles an incantation over it. We even recognize that, in and of itself, this particular superstition isn't actively anti-social, unlike some of your cult's other superstitions (like the one that says professional virgins are competent to make pronouncements about contraception). Unfortunately, because Mr. Cook didn't conform to the letter of the ritual, at least as interpreted by some busybody, the superstition has become the cause of anti-social behavior.
Sorry if you're upset by Myers' response to certain Catholics' anti-social activities. Please be aware that some of us are upset that your fellow cultists fail to act in a reasonable and responsible manner.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 9:00 PM
It's also what Catholics accused Jews of doing, and used as a pretext to massacre them.
You ask about "appropriate response". The point is that it is Catholics who have been responding inappropriately.
As soon as Catholics go beyond expressing their unhappiness, disappointment, or even outrage as such to threatening someone's school career, or someone's job, or someone's life, property, and/or family, they are not just acting inappropriately, they are acting illegally. They are offering disproportionate harm for the violation of a purely religious proscription.
Do you think that it is "appropriate" for Catholics to behave like savages whose primitive taboos about a fetish have been violated?
You have the freedom to worship how you see fit. No one is stopping you. But you do also have to put up with not having your religious ideas respected. Including the religious idea that pushing a nail through a cracker somehow causes any real injury.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 9:06 PM
James the Less, #626, wrote:
No, not at all - if you mean in regards to happened to just Webster Cook.
But it was, however, an appropriate response by PZ to the death threats he received, and the subsequent posts implying he'd be too scared to do anything to one if he got it.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 4, 2008 9:10 PM
I'm burned out so I will make replies with this one post.
First off, I assumed my wife is a lapsed Catholic because her mother is Catholic. She's actually a lapsed Episcopalian, and assured me the same rules apply with regard to Communion. For what it's worth, she's now an atheist.
Someone has posted the link to Cook's Incident Report, which contains the astonishing assertion that alcohol was ofered to "an entire group of students, the majority of whom are under twenty-one years of age". Cook thus attended an event during which he knew wine would be served (if "served" is the right word), then complains that wine was served. Words fail me. This effectively destroys whatever sympathy he was entitled to (and my wife informs me that children as young as 8 participate in Communion).
Someone else chides me for not following the timeline carefully enough. Here's Myer's initial post:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
See, sacrilege was on his mind from the very beginning (and note that in the url it's a "goddamned" rather than s "frackin'" cracker).
Someone asks if I...whoops, brains shorting out. More tomorrow.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 4, 2008 9:12 PM
See, sacrilege was on his mind from the very beginning (and note that in the url it's a "goddamned" rather than s "frackin'" cracker).
so?
Posted by: craig | August 4, 2008 9:25 PM
Dav... you're trying to tell atheists how a proper atheist should act, and you refer to things as sacrilege? You complain that an atheist was thinking of sacrilege? You seem to see some validity in the very concept of sacrilege?
I'm sorry... what? You are telling atheists not to be sacrilegous?
No. Your argument is worthless. It's specious. You're saying that the most "productive" behavior for an atheist is so respect the sacred - to in essence be religious.
You're either religious yourself or a total fucking coward. You're an enabler. You're arguing that calling the cops on the child abuser "will only make him more mad."
Worthless. Completely worthless.
Do not criticize non-cowards for being insufficiently cowardly.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 4, 2008 9:33 PM
That's good, because, as a human being, I have an inalienable human right of freedom of religion, recognised in EU and UN Declarations, Constitutions, treaties, laws, etc.
You can have that expectation. You can have any expectation you want, reasonable or otherwise. The real question is "what happens when these expectations are violated?"
In your first example, a human rights violation is committed against a person. In the second case, a cracker is removed from a building. A cracker, no matter what arcane name you give it, or however "Holy" or "Sacred" you consider it, does not have rights. It cannot be "injured" and, frankly, I find that particular anthropomorphism disturbing.
Also in the second case, you and some other people are upset. Tough shit. You don't have the right to go through life without ever being upset. So grow a pair. Your God and your faith are supposed to be bigger than that.
A lot of what your Church says and does upsets me, but in most cases, it's their right. Of course, some of what your Church does is criminal and for that the responsible persons should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Posted by: leftoflarry | August 4, 2008 9:41 PM
So where were these ignorant cracker eating catholics when kids were getting raped by their priests? I don't recall Donahue on a witch hunt during that time? Is a fucking cracker more important than child rape? To these child hating nuts, obviously so. Where were the thousands of hate emails to the preists that were raping kids? Ironic isn't it? All the hate...from moral christians? What ever happened to turn the other cheek? Keep up the good work Dr. Myers...you rock.
Posted by: SC | August 4, 2008 9:49 PM
Words fail me.
It is you who fail them, Dav.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 9:50 PM
In other words, I've backed you into a corner you can't get out of, so you're going to bail on the argument. Gotcha.
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 9:53 PM
And this is supposed to make me feel better about them?
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | August 4, 2008 9:59 PM
Mother of pearl! This Dav person didn't know what religion his own wife had "lapsed" from? And still he presumes to lecture a group of perfect strangers about "respect" and appropriateness and manners? I think my dear J and I knew those things about each other before we grabbed each other for some casual sex two weeks after we met. oddly enough, after 35 years we still haven't run out of things to talk about; really, you needn't fret about wearing each other out if you're both even a little bit interesting.
If Dav wants to split hairs, however, he might first learn that, whatever Episcopalians may do, Catholics in fact sometimes take the crackers in their hands back to their seats to contemplate and then consume it. This is a fairly recent development, well post-Vatican II, and like similar developments (altar girls, e.g.) it's OK in some jurisdictions and not in others.
Speaking of expectations: not all Masses include Communion via "both species," as Catholics refer to the bread and the wine. No reason to expect it, really, before going into the service. So bag that, too. Also see why young Mr. Cook countered the charged being called against him with the one about alcohol. That might be customary among churchgoers "as young as 8" (7, actually; got that wrong too) but it's not strictly legal.
Might research why the "goddamned" got changed to "frackin" while you're at it. Courtesy, basically.
But what I logged on to note, before astonishment got the betters of me, was this: Have these frothers carrying on about "militant types" really forgotten they're officially part of the Church Militant?
Posted by: tsg | August 4, 2008 10:01 PM
"So this guy hears there's going to be a ceremony where they're going to behead a baby. He attends the ceremony and then complains that they beheaded a baby. Words fail me."
Posted by: stogoe | August 4, 2008 10:03 PM
Oh that is rich, Dav. I hope you appreciate the (pseudo?)irony of you accusing someone else of being a troll.
Your concern is noted and stupid.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 10:04 PM
♫♪one of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong♫♪
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 10:13 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp #647
Genius. I'm now singing the song in my head.
Posted by: S.Scott | August 4, 2008 10:15 PM
@ Wowbagger - Aauurrgghh! Me too!!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 4, 2008 10:19 PM
For the most part, the average Catholic didn't know about it until the recent revelations. Under Crimen Sollicitationis (Vatican policy from 1962 to 2001), bishops were instructed to swear complainants, witnesses, and victims to secrecy on pain of excommunication. When the revelations happened, they were carefully stage-managed by the Church. During the recent revelations, their media management went into overdrive: they skillfully created the appearance of "addressing the issue", with a lot of apologies and "statements of regret" and suchlike bullshit, without actually changing any policy or substantially cooperating with law enforcement. The policy document issued by Ratzinger in 2001 makes the cover-up worse by requiring bishops to report allegations of child-abuse to the Vatican only.
That's because he wasn't: Donohue is the Pope's skinhead. Like a jackbooted thug, he spouts the most bilious version of the party line but at far enough remove that he can be disavowed. Out of self-interest, he'll say nothing grossly at odds with the Church line.
To the average Catholic, no, but to the Church Hierarchy, both children and the truth are irrelevant. The real issue is public perception. Up to the mid 19th century, the Church simply defrocked and handed over such criminals to the civil authorities. Had they continued that policy, there would never have been any scandal, but the Church thought that priests being prosecuted was unseemly, so they instituted a policy of cover-up. Not having learned their lesson, they are now so uptight about further damaging allegations, that they continue with a similar policy. Ironically, the same policy that got them into this fix in the first place if only they could see that.
No, they don't hate children, they merely consider their welfare irrelevant and unimportant. The important issues for the Church are preserving their money and reputation. Destroying the lives of children, or adults, is a perfectly acceptable price to pay for them, since they don't value people, only the "Eternal Magisterium".
Well, the Church has been covering up child-rape since long before there was ever email. The real scandal is that Catholics continue to support a Church which continues to enable child-rape, rather than withdrawing support from them. Anyone who puts a penny in a collection plate in a Catholic church is enabling child-rape.
Yes, indeed it is. But ever has the line of religious men been "Do as I say, not as I do." Hypocrisy is a prerequisite.
They continue to pay lip-service to it, and to expect it from others (e.g. their victims), but it's clear from their actions that they don't actually believe it should guide their own actions.
Posted by: cicely | August 4, 2008 10:26 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp (KoT):
How do you get the little notes into your post?
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 10:26 PM
Emmet Caulfield wrote:
Don't forget power and influence. That's a biggie for the individuals involved - they've got to get their thrills somehow; remember, they aren't meant to be having sex.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 4, 2008 10:35 PM
Is it just me, or did the catholick trolls seem a bit stupider than normal today? I think Pete needs some professional help.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2008 10:35 PM
http://www.danshort.com/HTMLentities/index.php?w=music
♩
♪
♫
♬
♭
♮
♯
Posted by: Kagato | August 4, 2008 10:36 PM
I'm coming to this way late, but I've seen that "stolen host" line once too often.
If a cafeteria has a sign up saying "All food must be consumed on premises", and you sneak your double-choc cookie out in your handbag, the worst you've done is break their rules -- they can choose to kick you out or ban your return, but you haven't broken any laws.
Taking a communion wafer (that was freely given) out of a church without eating it is not stealing.
It is simply food not consumed on premises.
Maybe churches need to get some of those signs...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 4, 2008 10:44 PM
Go to the character map in your system tools (assuming you are on a Windows OS). There it lists all the symbols etc.. in your fonts for your computer. You can chose from there.
Or copy and paste from the link that Owlmirror posted above.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 10:44 PM
Re: Pete Rooke, #436:
"Free at last, free at last,
thankfrom God almighty we are free at last."My version's better.
Posted by: stogoe | August 4, 2008 10:47 PM
Now I'm humming, too. I suppose you can guess which TV show I grew up on, huh?
Posted by: stogoe | August 4, 2008 10:52 PM
Bullshit. Irish-American comedians have been making jokes about priest rape for the vast bulk of my life. If dumb-shit Catholics were too insular to wake up and smell the open secret, that's their problem.Posted by: stogoe | August 4, 2008 10:59 PM
They also consider them irredeemably hellbound from the instant of conception. They do hate children. As a subset of the entire human race whom they hate, yes, but they do hate children.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 4, 2008 11:12 PM
How is that different from money? I think the Catholic Church can actually be pretty well-understood as the massive corporation that it is with Razi as CEO. Like a powerful corporation, they have lobbyists (paid and unpaid) to glean power/influence for them. I agree that, in principle, the money-making activity and having more power/influence are (for a Church) notionally means and ends, respectively, and that it's the opposite way around for a corporation, but the two go hand-in-hand to such a degree that it really makes very little difference in practice. The Church may lack shareholders, but they're somewhat superfluous to some corporations too, which operate, like the Church, for the benefit of senior management.
It's a fantastic business. Selling an intangible (life after death), that will never have to be delivered, at a price that's always a bit more than anyone can ever pay: for the barefoot peasant in Brazil, it's always wishing he could put more than a few pennies in the collection plate; for the millionaire, it's wondering whether ten thousand dollars for the new roof fund is enough.
All the bell, book and candle shite is really just advertising material and window-dressing. In fairness to Catholicism, their window-dressing is absolutely first class, but they've had nearly 2000 years to iron it out. Magic ceremonies. Arcane languages. Candles, incense, spiffy robes. One god for the monotheists, a pantheon of saints for the polytheists, a goddess figure for those so inclined. A trinity, twelve apostles, seven sacraments: more superstitious numerological bullshit than you could shake a stick at.
Patently nonsensical when viewed impartially, but what a fantastic scam! If you invented it today, it would be considered more ridiculous than Scientology and be outlawed faster than pyramid schemes.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 4, 2008 11:21 PM
Unless you've lived since the mid 19th century, which I doubt, that doesn't tell us much. The church has been enabling child-rape for 150 years or more. The recent revelations have been leaking out for perhaps 20 years now. Yes, there was probably some innuendo before that, but I doubt anyone would have suspected either the vast scale of the problem or how high up the enablement/facilitation conspiracy went. As it happens, it goes all the way to the top. Razi was the coordinator from 1981 until 2005.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 4, 2008 11:23 PM
I wrote:
Emmet Caulfield replied:
I was going more for the ability to influence politicians by getting them to vote for or against things that they themselves prefer - whether or not that is for the benefit of the church - by threatening to denounce them from the pulpit and favour the opposition in, say, the next election.
I have to suspect that at least a few of the hierarchy do believe some of what they preach and consider manipulation of governments a perfectly acceptable way to increase and/or maintain the interests of the church in regards to things like contraception, equal rights etc. - things which doesn't really involve them making money per se.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 4, 2008 11:49 PM
Jebus ✟, ➪ Owlmirror!
☞ You ☚ have ✄ unbound a ☠ monster!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 4, 2008 11:52 PM
Sure. Like the people who work for Microsoft and think they make great software and it's great value, etc., and the people who work for Ford and think their cars are just the best. I've never worked in a corporation that didn't have its "true believers".
But at the top? The College of Cardinals (Board of Directors)? TBH, I find it hard to believe that someone can be smart enough to become Chairman/CEO/Pope of a corporation that size and still be so stupid/naïve as to believe arrant nonsense like transubstantiation.
I don't disagree with you, BTW. Individual motivations are just that: individual. Collectively, I don't think they even understand what their corporate objectives are. What chance do we have of grokking their ultimate collective motivation? All we can say with certainty is that they don't give a flying fuck about what they preach, since their behaviour is so radically at odds with it.
Posted by: Paper Hand | August 5, 2008 1:00 AM
@644:
That might be customary among churchgoers "as young as 8" (7, actually; got that wrong too) but it's not strictly legal.
Actually, I think there are religious exemptions to those laws. I don't think there *should* be, of course, but that is, as I understand it, the state of things.
Posted by: Paper Hand | August 5, 2008 1:06 AM
Wow, I got #666! Yay! :-P And it was only at 647 when I started my comment.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 5, 2008 1:10 AM
Emmet Caulfield - I see what you mean: the difference between an individual's goals and those of the church.
Yeah, it does seem weird that someone who could be intelligent (and devious and political) enough to get to top of the church - and, from what I've read, it's a cut-throat organisation - would actually buy into the transubstantiation party-trick.
I was stunned by the number of posters who came here to tell us they believed it. I'm far too optimistic about people - and I never thought I'd hear myself say that.
Posted by: Ted Powell | August 5, 2008 2:17 AM
Another group with a claim against the RC Church: Knights Templar to Vatican: Give us back our assets. This could get interesting...
Posted by: eric | August 5, 2008 2:26 AM
|--(+)--
Posted by: Jeff, The Ill-Tempered Clavier | August 5, 2008 3:26 AM
@James the Lesser #618:
"So, why is is that a Catholic cannot have the expectation that the Blessed Sacrament (distributed for one purpose only - communion with Christ) will not be taken out of the Church with the intent to cause injury to it."
--remind me again how it is that you "commune" with a 2000-year-old corpse? kthxbye.
Posted by: steve_h | August 5, 2008 4:28 AM
Oops, my comment at 621 should contain spoiler warnings or better still not have mentioned the title of the film (I'm sure most people would recognise the scene.) Sorry about that, feel free to edit.
Posted by: SEF | August 5, 2008 4:30 AM
What I hadn't realised from the subset of characters that were visible on my much older computer (when I prepared my own reference pages long long ago) is that there's an inbuilt pre-desecrated cracker! ;-)
⟴
Posted by: bastion | August 5, 2008 4:47 AM
At #600, James the less wrote:
For a Catholic adoration is a cause of much joy.
I didn't feel anything remotely like joy when I was a practicing Catholic.
I felt self-loathing. I felt stressed, depressed, repressed, and oppressed. I felt fearful and intellectually dishonest.
When I tried to be a good Catholic and tried to believe, I was utterly miserable.
I cannot think of one moment of joy that I felt in church, even when I partook of the sacraments or prayed.
And, even worse, the church sucked the joy out of my life outside the church too.
It was only when I left the church and turned my back on its teachings that I felt real joy and at peace.
Posted by: Gigi Schuiten | August 5, 2008 4:53 AM
Perhaps you already know, but you also made it to the Dutch newspapers. :-) And I even found a Dutch PZ Myers hyve.
Posted by: RedGreenInBlue | August 5, 2008 5:08 AM
Dav Laurel (#126):
No, they don't - well, most of them don't. Correct. But since you've obviously missed the point of PZ's post, it's a bit embarrassing to watch you call him "retarded" (nice ad hom. by the way).
Let me requote the relevant passage:
These are examples of religion-specific practices, whose practitioners do not insist that adherents of other religions also carry them out. Since you made this point, I may assume that you accept it.
If so, it then follows that Jews may not claim to be offended by Catholics eating ham, Catholics may not claim to be offended by Muslims not worshipping their Communion wafer, and Muslims may not claim to be offended by an atheist not praying five times a day.
If you're then going to get all offended by PZ's desecration of a Communion wafer, you'll have to explain why an atheist should respect the sacred nature of a religious practice while adherents of other religions are exempted.
Of course, the degree of one's indignation is no guide to the validity of one's opinions. Mistaking the two is an extremely common phenomenon in religion.
Posted by: SEF | August 5, 2008 5:28 AM
@ bunnycatch3r #496
Like a ferengi? ;-)Posted by: Tony Sidaway | August 5, 2008 5:51 AM
#675
I read about it in Spitsnieuws. The Catholic protest was reported in a most uncomplimentary manner.
A typical comment:
"En nu de foto's van doorboorde kleine jongetjes.
meedenker | 31-07-08 | 10:54"
(translation: "And now the pictures of pierced small boys.")
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | August 5, 2008 5:53 AM
"Paul Myers is een held in de strijd tegen religie in het algemeen"
Which I think needs no translation.
Posted by: El Herring | August 5, 2008 7:32 AM
When it comes right down to it, you have to admit that the Church of Mumbling Words Over a Bread Product is no different from (or better than) the Society for Putting Things On Top Of Other Things.
At least they evetually came to the conclusion that "the whole thing's a bit silly"!
Posted by: Jimmy | August 5, 2008 8:23 AM
Suppose someone down loaded a picture of Myer's wife and deficated on it, or placed some other body fluid on it, and did this on the internet, there would be nothing wrong with that because it is only paper with a picture anyone could have downloaded.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 8:28 AM
Poor Jimmy. No one likes his cracker.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 5, 2008 9:23 AM
Jimmy the brain-dead death cultist @ #681:
Surprisingly, you hit on the truth without realizing it. It is not a crime to download a picture or defecate on it or do anything you damn well please with it. It does no real harm to any living person. It isn't worth murdering people over. The same is true of the baked goods your fellow cultists mistake for divine flesh. Why, then, are your fellow cultists making death threats?
The situation you describe is a pretty poor analogy to what actually happened, but then it seems poor analogies are all you and your fellow cultists can manage. If someone did as you describe, it would be rude, crude, and stupid. It would also be ignored. The idiot who did it wouldn't get death threats. He wouldn't be the target of an organized campaign to get him fired. There would be no thousand-comment threads with nutcases talking about cankerous milkmen and the Necronomicon and random scatological bullshit. He'd probably just be laughed at.
Suppose Myers were to GIVE someone a free picture of his wife, and tell them they had to eat it, and instead they took it home and did whatever they damn well pleased with it? Would Myers then be within his rights to THREATEN THAT PERSON WITH MURDER???
Sane people know a picture of something is not the thing. Sane people know a cracker is not the flesh of an imaginary god. But the actions of your fellow cultists show they are not sane people.
Imagine a kid was given a piece of bread, and didn't eat it that very second. Would the people who gave him the bread be within their rights to physically assault him? What if he took that bread, which was freely given to him, home? Would an appropriate response be to SEND HIM DEATH THREATS, try to get him expelled from college, and make the same threats to a friend of his who never even touched the bread? You don't need to imagine this insanity. It actually happened. It's what this whole mess is in response to. And it was YOUR fellow cultists issuing the death threats. Are you really so stupid that you don't notice these things? Are you really so insane that you value a hunk of wheat paste more than human beings?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 5, 2008 9:42 AM
Apparently, he is.
Oh, and Jimmy: It's "defecated".
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | August 5, 2008 10:45 AM
I think it does: "Paul Myers is a hero in the fight against religion in general"
Posted by: James the Less | August 5, 2008 10:56 AM
Jeff,
Catholics believe in the resurrection, so to a Catholic it's not a corpse.
Posted by: craig | August 5, 2008 11:10 AM
"Suppose someone down loaded a picture of Myer's wife and deficated on it, or placed some other body fluid on it, and did this on the internet, there would be nothing wrong with that because it is only paper with a picture anyone could have downloaded."
Correct. There would be nothing wrong with it. PZ would probably just think the person doing it was stupid, others in that situation might be insulted. But there's no such thing as a right to not be insulted.
You stupid fuck.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 5, 2008 11:18 AM
"Surprisingly, you hit on the truth without realizing it..."
When they're not getting pwn3d, they're pwn1ng themselves. With such consistency on that point, one is liable to think they enjoy it.
Posted by: craig | August 5, 2008 11:25 AM
"Catholics believe in the resurrection, so to a Catholic it's not a corpse."
Ah. So your cracker is an actual live person... who you then eat while they are still alive.
That makes much more sense and is far less creepy then.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 11:49 AM
"Catholics believe in the resurrection, so to a Catholic it's not a corpse.
so?
Posted by: Zombie Jesus | August 5, 2008 11:54 AM
Catholics believe in the resurrection, so to a Catholic it's not a corpse.
Posted by: James the Less | August 5, 2008 10:56 AM
BRAINS!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 5, 2008 11:56 AM
No it's still a corpse whether you believe it to be or not.
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 5, 2008 12:02 PM
James the Less: "Jeff,
Catholics believe in the resurrection, so to a Catholic it's not a corpse."
Doesn't matter, old sport. Catholics believe it's the body of Christ. The good doctor doesn't. All your comments are based on the assumption that he must believe as you believe about the cracker. He doesn't. It's a free country - founded by deists and Christians and atheists TO BE free. That freedom guarantees that the doc can regard your cracker anyway he likes.
Second point - the only reason he did this was to protest the INSANE and disproportionate reaction of stupid, rabid, radical Catholics to the original incident.
If there hadn't been stupid Catholics, there would have been no crackergate.
Think these things through, laddie.
Posted by: El Herring | August 5, 2008 12:26 PM
I would like to nominate Emmet Caulfield for the OM. Outstanding posts here by him: 639, 650, 661, 662, 665.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | August 5, 2008 1:53 PM
#694 El Herring, Yes.
And for Emmet Caulfield, thanks. Good reasoning and admirable writing style.
Posted by: Nimravid | August 5, 2008 2:19 PM
Whoops. It would have had much more numerological significance to some people if you had just posted one fewer time. That would have been 333 times, which is, of course, half of 666, the Number of the Beast (well, unless that's really 616).
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 5, 2008 3:15 PM
No, craig, the atheist should respect the religious beliefs of their fellow citizens, which doesn't mean they can't debate them.
Atheists believe that the human community is all we have, yes? Nothing beyond the grave, right? So it behooves us all to make the best of what we have, here on Earth, correct?
Religion has been part of the human experience for thousands of years, and if the Soviets couldn't eradicate it, there's not much chance anyone else can. I think therefore it's far more prudent to diminish the influence religion has on the unbeliever.
It is counter-productive to insist that Catholics agree that "it's nothing but a frackin' cracker". The attempt to do so is futile, presumptuous, and leads to nothing good.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 5, 2008 3:23 PM
Holy shit I agree with Dav.
And I agree here but not really the way I think Dav means. I don't think we'll ever change the belief of the the devout catholic that a cracker is merely a cracker with some emotions attached to it. Nothing more. I do however think that it is not without ridicule when they start saying we should respect their demonstratively ridiculous belief that a cracker is actually the body of a 2000 year old dead guy. People who hold such ridiculous beliefs shouldn't be shocked when someone points and laughs.
Posted by: CJO | August 5, 2008 3:29 PM
It is counter-productive to insist that Catholics agree that "it's nothing but a frackin' cracker". The attempt to do so is futile, presumptuous, and leads to nothing good.
No one is asking them to agree on that. When did PZ ask for declarations of apostasy from Catholics? What is asked is simply that they accept the reality of the public shpere in a secular society: that their beliefs carry no force outside the church, and that no one else can be made to regard it as anything but a frackin' cracker. See the difference?
it's far more prudent to diminish the influence religion has on the unbeliever.
And, it seems to me, one good way to do that is to publicly protest untoward attempts by religionists to influence the behavior of unbelievers.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 5, 2008 3:38 PM
If ridicule of religious beliefs and practices was effective, Mormons would have stopped wearing their "special undergarments" years ago.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 5, 2008 3:44 PM
Yeah but their church only expands through rampant inbreeding and polygamy. How's that workin' out for them?
Posted by: cicely | August 5, 2008 3:49 PM
Owlmirror and Rev. BDC KoT, thanks for the ♫ info; I promise to use this knowledge only for good.
And, Emmet Caulfield @ 661 FTW.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 3:49 PM
the atheist should respect the religious beliefs of their fellow citizens,
So, I should respect the Catholic belief that I am objectively disordered and engaging in evil. I should respect Fred Phelps's belief that 9-11 is because of me. I should respect the belief of Reconstructionists who want to reinstate the death penalty for me.
Yeah, sure.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 5, 2008 3:55 PM
I already said that the devout are unlikely to be deconverted. The point is to keep reminding people that silly beliefs should not hold an elevated position in the public discourse. If something is ridiculous, then pointing it out should not be taboo.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 4:06 PM
And, let us not forget, that the beliefs like those of the World Church of the Creator--which hold that people of color are subhumans-are, by definition, respectable. After all, they are the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens.
Posted by: El Herring | August 5, 2008 4:22 PM
I remember when I was young I used to believe that lamp posts could explode. No seriously. Hear me out. This is absolutely true (I'm slightly ashamed to admit this, but it makes a good point.)
Street lights nowadays are controlled by photo-electric cells (I think), but back in the 60's in England they had clockwork timers inside the bases that would switch the lights on at preset times. Sometimes you could hear these timers making whirring noises when you walked past. Now somebody must have put the idea in my head that when you could hear the whirring noise it meant that the whole lamp post was about to explode. Probably another kid at school said it as a joke, but the point is that I believed it. For years. I didn't consciously think about it, but the idea stuck in my head somehow until I was way into my teens, and I developed an unconscious habit of crossing the road whenever I heard a whirring ticking lamp post, or even "just in case".
My point is that I just didn't think about it, it had become a silly quirk of mine avoiding lamp posts - until someone called me out on it. Of course when I falteringly explained my silly delusion and got the roar of laughter I soundly deserved, ONLY THEN did I take a good long hard look at my delusion, and see it for the utter silliness it was. I mean, had I ever exactly SEEN a lamp post explode? Had I even heard of such a thing happening? Of course not. But I had lived with that particular piece of silliness in the back of my mind for probably ten years, and just accepted it without question. Until that day when I was forced to examine it closely.
Now, this is where I agree with what PZ Myers did with the cracker. Hopefully it's made a whole lot of people see their delusions for what they really are. I'm willing to bet that there are far more people who have shaken off their silly belief because of Crackergate than have protested about PZ's actions. Sometimes being on the wrong end of a good dose of laughter can have a positive effect.
Of course, if you still want to believe that the cracker really IS Jebus or whatever, then that's fine, go on with your delusion. But don't expect to be safe from ridicule.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 5, 2008 4:39 PM
True Bob #149
But, but in all the skool plays I've ever seen, surely absolutely everybody wore dresses ? In one even the sheep, although, to be fair, he was quite a big dog and without the skirt it would have been obvious that he weren't no ewe. Tsk.
Posted by: Paul W. | August 5, 2008 4:55 PM
watercat,
I've now read read several lawyers confidently arguing the opposite. (As well as several agreeing.)
I don't think it's entirely clear that handing out a communion wafer is best analyzed as a simple gifting situation.
The more I learn about the law, the confuseder I get, but I still think OMH's analysis may be right. Then again, it may not.
Unfortunately, none of the lawyers I've been reading addresses the others' points thoroughly and decisively.
Posted by: James the Less | August 5, 2008 4:55 PM
El Herring #706
Actually, I think it will strengthen belief in Real Presence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. It is an act of pride to call it a delusion. Certainly not words of charity.
Posted by: Katkinkate | August 5, 2008 5:01 PM
Of course PZ is a wiseass! That's what makes this blog so much fun!! He wouldn't be half as popular if he was boring. People who don't like wiseasses need to get a sense of humour transplant.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 5:02 PM
Actually, I think it will strengthen belief in Real Presence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. It is an act of pride to call it a delusion. Certainly not words of charity.
blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: James the Less | August 5, 2008 5:10 PM
Paul W. #708
Canon Law 935 states that no one is permitted to keep the Eucharist on one's person or to carry it around.
So the distinction between desecrating a grave (illegitimate) and walking out with the Blessed Sacrament (legitimate according the Mr. Myers)is illogical. The conclusion is that secular interests (wanting to abscond with the Blessed Sacrament to desecrate it) trump religious interests - respect for the religious dictates (acting within the confines of the Church) of a particular faith. Yet the argument made here repeatedly is the religion cannot invade the secular.
Posted by: James the Less | August 5, 2008 5:12 PM
Paul W. #708
Canon Law 935 states that no one is permitted to keep the Eucharist on one's person or to carry it around.
So the distinction between desecrating a grave (illegitimate) and walking out with the Blessed Sacrament (legitimate according the Mr. Myers)is illogical. The conclusion is that secular interests (wanting to abscond with the Blessed Sacrament to desecrate it) trump religious interests - respect for the religious dictates (acting within the confines of the Church) of a particular faith. Yet the argument made here repeatedly is the religion cannot invade the secular.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 5, 2008 5:17 PM
#709,
Whether it's an act of pride or not, it's also a simple statement of fact. It's just a cracker, and the belief that a man in a dress muttering a few words over it turns it invisibly into flesh is, if held seriously at the present day, simply insane.
Posted by: Paul W. | August 5, 2008 5:20 PM
I don't think that's very relevant to the point I was making about the legalities. Canon law is not legally binding.
If it's relevant to the situation, I would expect it'd mostly be in assigning blame to the priest, rather than the person receiving the wafer. A random person receiving a wafer can't be expected to know the relevant canon law, but the priest can, and could be held accountable for failure to make non-gift situations sufficiently clear.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 5:39 PM
Canon Law 935 states that no one is permitted to keep the Eucharist on one's person or to carry it around.
So?
It has absolutely no legitimacy and no standing when it comes to my life. The worthless ramblings of a bunch of hateful old men.
Posted by: James the Less | August 5, 2008 5:50 PM
#716
Right. It is inappropriate to desecrate at item of religious worship within a church or synagogue, but it is appropriate to do so if the item is taken outside the church knowing that you had no right to do so.
Posted by: El Herring | August 5, 2008 5:50 PM
Canon law 935? Is that so?
How many of these "canon laws" are there then? I must assume that there are at least 935 of them. And are we supposed to know them all? How many true god-fearing Catholics know them all, or even a few of them?
They are about as relevant to the general public as the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition - and probably just as funny.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 5, 2008 5:51 PM
Pierce R. Butler |#233
Pete Rooke @ # 177 said:
The first two words are the ones that matter.
So long as Pete Rooke believes it, you (and I and professors and everybody) are not allowed to question or debate it.
I believe - The favourite words of the war criminal Tony Blair,aaarrgh, words fail me, my words fail me, "Faster and faster, in the ever widening gyre, the falcon heeds not the falconer"...
Veni, vermi, depressi - (HT - TelBoy)
Crivens !
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 5:52 PM
James,
the rules of your hate group are not binding on me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 5, 2008 5:55 PM
First, get your facts straight.
Second I find it funny how you Catholics are all up in arms about a cracker that you admittedly place a lot of emotion on, and fail to condone your church's stance on doing everything they can to stifle the rights of Homosexuals.
someone doesn't seem to have their priorities straight.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 5:59 PM
Second I find it funny how you Catholics are all up in arms about a cracker that you admittedly place a lot of emotion on, and fail to condone your church's stance on doing everything they can to stifle the rights of Homosexuals.
Why would they condemn such treatment of gay folks?
We're not fully human. We're evil. We deserve earthly and eternal torture. That's directly from the hateful monster they worship. Why should their attitudes be any different? Why should they do anything to make our lives better?
Of course a cracker is more important than gay people.
And of course, they love AIDS.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 6:00 PM
And Rev,
don't forget the deep hatred of women.
Posted by: El Herring | August 5, 2008 6:03 PM
And the love of children.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 5, 2008 6:18 PM
six7s |#269
You're going down for threeee days, not twoooo, neither shalt thee have fooouur.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 5, 2008 6:19 PM
That's an awful lot of hate and love practiced the wrong way.
Catholics:
Love / hate, You are doing it wrong.
Posted by: DS | August 5, 2008 7:29 PM
Although this will quickly be swallowed up and forgotten in the voluminous and ridiculous banter of this site, might I suggest a "novel" idea: RESPECT.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone can see past their own self-righteousness and egos to recognize the pain and devastation that ensues when we ridicule people's beliefs. When we see hatred in the world, perhaps hatred is not the most effective response. Better yet, why not work to promote tolerance, acceptance, and respect by practicing it yourself.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 5, 2008 7:39 PM
DS. You're obviously confused.
Not respecting a person's beliefs does not mean you hate that person. I don't respect any religion. It's all nonsense. Do I therefor hate 90%+ of the population?
No.
If people can't handle their superstitions being ridiculed, I'm sorry, but that's just too bad. Part of being an atheist, for me anyway, is not giving your pet god/s in the sky a pass. I won't do it. Suck it up.
Posted by: Michael X | August 5, 2008 7:43 PM
That's right DS. Ridiculing beliefs is wrong. Now who's up next to be sacrificed on the altar so the sun will rise tomorrow?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 5, 2008 7:47 PM
That's right DS. Ridiculing beliefs is wrong. Now who's up next to be sacrificed on the altar so the sun will rise tomorrow?
I'm guessing an unmarried, sexually active woman.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 5, 2008 8:00 PM
Huh. This last character did not display properly for me until I checked the fileformat page for the character:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/27f4/index.htm
and then downloaded the Dejavu fonts (and configured my browser to to use them).
http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/
Just in case anyone else sees a box that says "27f4", as I did at first.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 5, 2008 8:24 PM
No, because a grave is real property. It is bought and paid for by the same people who held the funeral in the first place. Neither is it given away to "destroy" in particular way (using sacred garden spades, perhaps? Holy tablespoons?) as opposed to some other way (a jackhammer, perhaps?).
A secular person would not see it as a desecration in the first place. PZ did not actually "desecrate" the "Blessed Sacrament", since he never thought of it as sacred in the first place. He put a nail through a cracker.
But now I think of it, it's been mentioned that some people believe that Satanists take holy crackers for the specific purpose of desecrating them. In that case, it is indeed a matter of religious freedom: The (putative) Satanic rite requires a cracker that has been blessed by a Catholic priest. As long as the Satanist does not break any secular laws in acquiring said cracker, why not?
Who are you to scoff and scorn at the religion of Satanists? Why do you deny them their religious freedom?
NB: As best I understand it, real-world Satanists do not actually do any such thing (or maybe some do and some don't; how the hell would I know?). But it's a hypothetical question for a hypothetical scenario.
Posted by: Radwaste | August 5, 2008 8:43 PM
"And I thank God I live in a nation that mandates my right to practice Catholicism." - Pete Rooke
Well, there's your problem: the very core of your life revolves around an outright lie - one you have suppressed in order to eke out some self-esteem.
For as a vegetarian, you can't consume the "body of Christ". You can eat a wheat cracker, though, and lie to others right there in the church about what you're doing and how you live.
Practice what you want. Threaten others, or back those who do, and I'll see you locked up.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 5, 2008 8:49 PM
Looks like PZ is messing with the comment code. That or I'm having an acid flashback.
Posted by: El Herring | August 5, 2008 8:59 PM
Owlmirror: The ⟴ looked fine the first time for me, and still does (I use Opera btw). Gave me a chuckle.
Rev: some of us suggested to PZ that names at the top of posts might work better. Stops us having to scroll to the bottom of a long-winded post to check who the poster is.
DS: I don't hate anyone for their beliefs. I respect anybody's right to believe whatever they want. What I don't feel the need to respect is the belief itself. You can believe that six foot runcible apricots called George steal your teaspoons every night at 6 AM if you like. I respect your right to believe that, but don't expect me to keep a straight face when you go on about the apricot smell in your pantry.
Posted by: El Herring | August 5, 2008 9:03 PM
(I feel quite confident that the phrase "six foot runcible apricots" has never been used before in the whole history of human civiliation. Thank you Stephen Fry for giving me the courage to express myself in such grandiose convoluted verbal acrobatics!)
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 5, 2008 10:04 PM
Clearly Stephen Fry is a mighty and omniscient
Godcomplementary moist lemon-scented cleansing square!Let us worship together:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQ2756cyD8
Posted by: Aquaria | August 5, 2008 10:13 PM
I've dealt with you militant types before, so I should have known better. None of you has the slightest concern for the opinions or cares any human being who doesn't dwell in your narrow, pathetic little world.
Shorter Nate W: "WAAAH! You didn't throw yourself at my feet and PRAISE MY SUPERIOR INTELLECT in thanks for exposing the error of your ways!"
Even shorter Nate W: I've dealt with you militantZZZzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: SEF | August 6, 2008 4:11 AM
Hmm... I don't have any DejaVu fonts. What I do have now though is whatever's standard with WinVista as well as the font stuff I had added to WinNT and, before that, Win 3.1 (none of which should therefore be relevant to suddenly being able to see extra characters which I didn't have on those previous machines). I'd already decided I need to stick to my old reference pages on the whole, as being representative of the characters most people could see, though.Posted by: DingoDave | August 6, 2008 7:53 AM
Posted by six7s @ #269:
"What sort of death threats would Jeebus make?"
Luke.19
[27] But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.'"
Posted by: DingoDave | August 6, 2008 8:00 AM
Posted by Pete Rooke:
"You might as well declare the monthly town hall meeting that begins with the pledge of allegiance and has a shared and stated code of behaviour/judgement a cult.
Your pledge of allegience IS creepy and cultlike.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | August 6, 2008 8:41 AM
Dingo Dave, Luke 19.27 doesn't tell what Jesus asked for his own enemies. It's part of a parable Jesus told. It's another guy asking his enemies be slain, a hard-nosed capitalist as it happens.
Don't do to the scriptures what the creationists do. No use sharing their swamp with them.
Posted by: DingoDave | August 6, 2008 9:31 AM
Yes, I am aware that it was a parable Ed.
It was parable about his supposed second coming, and what he was going to do to non-believers who didn't worship him.
Read it carefully and you'll see what I mean. Here is an exerpt.
[11] As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
[12] He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive a kingdom and then return.
[13] Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten pounds, and said to them, `Trade with these till I come.'
[14] But his citizens hated him and sent an embassy after him, saying, `We do not want this man to reign over us.'
[15] When he returned, having received the kingdom, he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading.
The parable was also about what he expected his followers to do as regards prostletising, and converting non-believers to the cult.
Of course I don't believe that any of this ever really happened. It's nothing more than a literary device which the gospel author wrote, after the fact. But the message is clear.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 6, 2008 10:14 AM
DS @ #727:
Thanks for this post, DS. It's a valuable insight into the thought processes of the batshit insane.
You speak of "the pain and devastation that ensues when we ridicule people's beliefs". Yet you completely ignore the death threats made by your fellow cultists. You completely ignore the actual harm done to real people in the name of these idiotic beliefs. To you, there is nothing wrong with valuing a cracker over human life, and defending that cracker by violence against actual living people. No, what you can't stand is laughing at idiots for worshipping baked goods. Really shows how totally disconnected from reality you are.
Respect isn't just given away for free. It has to be earned. If you want people to respect your beliefs, then you need beliefs that are worthy of respect. The belief that a cracker is more important than a human being is not worthy of respect. The belief that child molesters should be shielded from justice is not worthy of respect. The belief that it's okay to murder people over a cartoon, or baked goods, or for the color of their skin, or because they don't bow down to your imaginary friend is not worthy of respect. The belief that all of science is a vast Satanic conspiracy is not worthy of respect. The belief that an all-powerful, all-knowing, conveniently invisible tyrant is going to torture everyone who disagrees with you for eternity is not worthy of respect. The belief that the creator of the universe has a deep, prurient interest in the sex lives of humans is not worthy of respect.
And yet you demand respect for your delusions, while willfully ignoring reality.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | August 6, 2008 10:51 AM
El Herring @735
"every night at 6 AM"
El Herring @736
"Thank you Stephen Fry for giving me the courage to express myself in such grandiose convoluted verbal acrobatics!"
Convoluted is the word, especially last thing at night, in the morning.
Posted by: Florentius | August 6, 2008 11:20 AM
What Fr. Gregor Mendel would have made of an academic like you, Mr. Myers, is an interesting question.
Please know that many of us are praying for the salvation of your soul:
Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
tuque, Princeps militiae caelestis,
Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,
divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 6, 2008 11:25 AM
What Fr. Gregor Mendel would have made of an academic like you, Mr. Myers, is an interesting question. - Florentius
No, it isn't.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 6, 2008 11:28 AM
Please know that many of us are praying for the salvation of your soul:
And a big ol' "fuck you" right back at ya.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 6, 2008 11:41 AM
Paul Harvey and O'Reilly???
Ouch.
Posted by: Shalamar | August 6, 2008 11:48 AM
Wow.Such...Hmm.. Passion.
Ok. I'm technically Catholic. Not Militant, and not deeply religious. This whole garbage with the sacrament, really didn't bother me. It happened, oh well. It doesn't affect my life.
What DOES bother me are people who claim to be Catholic making death threats against others. Placing judgment and declaring what they feel punishment to be. And lo, did I and my wife take another step away from the cruelty, and hate that is religion.
Nothing that anyone did here is deserving of death, or punishment of what so many Catholic Fundamentalists are advocating. The actions of the religious here are blowing this incredibly out of proportion. Get a grip, get a life, and move on people!
What IS the appropriate response? "I'm sorry you did that, and I do not agree with what you did. But I forgive you anyways." Ta Da! Not: "I want you to LOSE YZOUR JOB AND DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!"
Now.. Where did I leave my box of crackers?
Posted by: SEF | August 6, 2008 11:50 AM
And in return, we'll do the thinking for all of you, since you've apparently abdicated any responsibility for rational thought in favour of wishful non-thinking.So far the results from the reality-based community on behalf of the fantasy-based community include (but are not limited to):
• the cracker is just a cracker;
• magic spells don't work;
• cracker + magic spell = still just a cracker.
Meanwhile, how's that prayer thing going for y'all?
Posted by: Dominique | August 6, 2008 8:41 PM
What would he do if he discovered that I started a consecrated wafer desecration series on youtube?
Posted by: Rob | August 7, 2008 5:35 PM
So if desecrating something another faith holds sacred is so wrong, why isn't there a Hindu movement against the beef industry?
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 7, 2008 9:35 PM
Looks like the party has moved on, so I'll just say perhaps instead of respecting the religious beliefs of others, it would suffice to simply ignore them. After all, it's not as if any of us will ever come in contact with a communion wafer, unless we actively sought one out. And why would we do that?
As strange as transubstantiation may seem, after all, when all is said and done, it can't be disproven. And the belief that there's no God? Can't be proven. Ever.
Posted by: James the Less | August 7, 2008 10:34 PM
#753
Stealing and theft are wrong, aren't they? As well as encouraging others to steal?
Posted by: James the Less | August 7, 2008 10:49 PM
#604
Taking the Blessed Sacrament out of Church without permission is stealing. It is kept under lock and key and distributed to the faithful for one reason only and is not to leave the Church.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 7, 2008 11:16 PM
It would be, James - but no-one has advocated that.
Once the priest gives it to the person it's theirs. To not eat it is disrespectful to the church, but it's not 'theft' in any sense of the word.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 8, 2008 12:59 PM
"it's not 'theft' in any sense of the word."
Misappropriation, perhaps.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 8, 2008 1:22 PM
There is no evidence for any gods. There's nothing to disprove.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 8, 2008 2:04 PM
"There is no evidence for any gods."
No evidence that we are able to detect, you mean.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 8, 2008 2:06 PM
No evidence that we are able to detect, you mean.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 8, 2008 2:25 PM
But the cracker does leave the Church, inside the digestive systems of the people who eat it.
Whether the "blessed sacrament" leaves the church is a different question. First show that a blessed sacrament exists, then show how it attaches to a cracker, then show how it can be pulled along with the cracker outside of the church.
Not even misappropriation. The cracker leaves the church no matter what, inside the bowels of the believers.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 8, 2008 2:57 PM
MAJeff, if you have evidence that absolutely disproves the existence of a God or gods, let's have it...
Posted by: SEF | August 8, 2008 2:59 PM
Perhaps the problem is not so much zombie-Jesus as vampire-Jesus. Unless he exits the building inside the bowels of believers, they're afraid there's a risk the magical invisible essence of him will burn up in the light of day outside. (Hence also having stained glass for windows.)
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 8, 2008 3:01 PM
"The cracker leaves the church no matter what, inside the bowels of the believers."
That's the Officially Approved method.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 8, 2008 3:46 PM
And we have been informed of the Official Disapproval so many, many times.
Now I want to see all of the Officially Disapproved methods (preferably illustrated, with some high church official doing a facepalm)...
(in the palm of the hand... on the back of the hand... between the fingers... balanced on the elbow... balanced on the shoulder... under the armpit... inside the underwear (scratchy!)... clenched between the buttocks... inside a purse and/or pocket... between the breasts (large cleavage, obviously)... on top of the breasts (also large cleavage, obviously)... on top of the head... balanced on the nose... behind the ear... between the lips... between the teeth... under the tongue... and of course, inside the stomach of someone who has committed the mortal sin of blasphemy and not confessed it nor repented of it.)
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 8, 2008 4:06 PM
Owl:
Blah blah blah.
Still waiting for someone to demonstrate the non-existence of God. Aren't you scientific types big on evidence and proof?
Posted by: James the Less | August 8, 2008 4:25 PM
#764,
No, the Blessed Sacrament is brought outside of churches in a monstrance as part of a Eucharistic Procession, especially on the Feast of Corpus Christi. No worries about that really.
Posted by: SEF | August 8, 2008 4:36 PM
"in a monstrance" - condemned in their own words! :-D
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 8, 2008 5:18 PM
You're just jealous that I'm more humourous than you are.
Well, more humourous on purpose, anyway.
O RLY?
Let statement G equal "God does not exist."
Now find or present the evidence to show that the above statement is incorrect.
If you have no evidence, then obviously the best inference is that the statement is indeed correct.
QED.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 8, 2008 5:27 PM
Dav Laurel,
Once you've proved the non-existence of leprechauns, I'm sure I can adapt the proof to prove the non-existence of gods.
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 8, 2008 5:30 PM
Inference ain't proof. You can state you believe there's no God (your opinion), but you can't really state as a fact there's no God.
When I was first told atheism is a religion, I snorted, but if religion is defined as a belief in what cannot be proven, then yes, it IS a religion. One that ultimately can never be proved correct.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 8, 2008 5:40 PM
if religion is defined as a belief in what cannot be proven - Dav Laurel
Only an idiot would define it in such a stupid way.
Posted by: The MadPanda | August 8, 2008 5:44 PM
I hate to bash a D'Orc, but...
Dav, Dav, Dav.
Logic: ur doin it rong.
Burden of proof is on the positive claim. Thus, you must provide proof that gods exist. Failure to do so maintains the null hypothesis...that is, atheism. Attempts to shift the burden are an automatic Epic Fail.
Thanks for playing. Now why don't you and Saint Jimmy go somewhere else where the big bad atheist types won't ruffle your feathers?
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 8, 2008 7:12 PM
Why not?
However, I'm not stating it as an opinion. I'm not even stating it as a belief.
I am stating "God does not exist" as a logical proposition. And it is indeed a fact that you cannot prove that the proposition is false.
Or can you? Well, I am more than willing to see you try. What have you got?
Posted by: SEF | August 8, 2008 9:16 PM
No, it isn't - at least not from the logic point of view (ie the direction of provability). Theoretically a god could turn up at some point, thus falsifying it. However, in practice that doesn't seem very plausible - given the apparent abject failure of any gods to be bothered with existing so far.Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 8, 2008 10:05 PM
The believer asserts something he cannot prove, but which conceivably could be proven, if God chooses to reveal himself.
The atheist asserts something he can't prove either, and never can (if he's correct). In this sense at least, atheism be classed a religion.
It goes without saying that if there is a God, he can surely manipulate the evidence.
I'll stick with agnosticism.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 8, 2008 10:08 PM
Still waiting for someone to demonstrate the non-existence of God. Aren't you scientific types big on evidence and proof?
Who's making the extraordinary claim that something exists? Upon whom does the burden exist? You're not even arguing in good faith; all you've got is hand-waving, jumping from "the believer believes" to "if god wants" without ever demonstrating that there's a basis for the second statement.
Posted by: SEF | August 8, 2008 10:13 PM
Not if the assertion is that there are apparently no beings around worthy of the term "god", let alone worth worshipping (and certainly not doing so in some prescribed-on-no-evidence-whatsoever religious manner). For that, any gods would have to be visibly doing something useful. Only if you wilfully abuse the term religion so badly that it has been mangled beyond recognition even by its loving mother or linguistic-DNA testing.Posted by: Wowbagger | August 8, 2008 10:20 PM
Dav Laurel wrote:
So you're a fan of Pascal's Wager? There might be a god so I'll claim to believe in him because it'll go worse for me if he turns out to be real and I haven't fawned and groveled and licked his holy toes.
In short, moral and intellectual cowardice.
Posted by: The MadPanda | August 8, 2008 10:22 PM
Yep, he's a D'Orc. A point-dodging, evidence-evading, logic misunderstanding D'Orc.
Dav, atheism is a religion in the same way that riding a bicycle is a form of undersea travel. You are simply wrong, as wrong as you would be if you claimed that the Declaration of Independence was written by Jimmy Carter and Barry Goldwater at a meeting of the Algonquin Round Table over gin and tonic.
Let it go, man, and find another blog to haunt. You're not going to achieve anything around here but your own frustration.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: John Morales | August 8, 2008 10:22 PM
You're saying you don't believe in any proposed gods so far, but maybe perhaps there's one, because the concept makes sense? Wow.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 8, 2008 10:48 PM
Hm. I think this comes back to the issue of the definition of "god".
Does god just mean "some entity more powerful than any human"? Or perhaps "some entity that created the universe"?
If so, then sure, one might show up.
However, the general definition of the "god" of the various monotheist religions is "an eternal entity, responsible for the creation of the universe, that is the most powerful, most knowing and most benevolent" (I don't want to get into the inherent contradictions of omnipotence vs. omniscience, so I'm willing to weaken those slightly to mean "the greatest amount of power and knowing that is not inherently contradictory").
By that definition, any entity that "turned up" would have to have some excuse for not having shown up before, and I think it can be shown that all possible excuses would directly contradict one or more of the various portions of the definition. Thus, the god that turned up would not be the god as defined by the monotheist religions.
OK, now prove me wrong.
(*smrk*)
Posted by: Dav Laurel | August 8, 2008 10:57 PM
No, I'm saying you cannot assert as fact that God does not exist. It's a statement of belief no different from one asserting he does exist. The question--does God exist?--is thus a closed one for both the believer and the atheist. For the agnostic, it remains open.
Both assert what neither can prove. Humility would seem to be called for, but atheists here have certainly proven they can be as arrogant and obnoxious as any Bible-thumper.
Posted by: John Morales | August 8, 2008 11:05 PM
Dav Laurel:
Actually, as a strong atheist I'm quite sure no conceptually incoherent gods exist, as Owlmirror said above.You mean a conclusion is no different to an assertion?
Indeed. Show some of the intellectual variety and prove us wrong.
PS You haven't addressed me @782. Scared to?
Posted by: James the Less | August 9, 2008 12:00 AM
#783,
He "showed up" at the Incarnation. That's the Catholic claim. A claim supported by witnesses and history. Numerous instances of private revelation.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 9, 2008 12:08 AM
Still waiting for someone to demonstrate the non-existence of trolls, elves, faeries, invisible pink unicorns, and that teapot thing in orbit around Uranus.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 9, 2008 3:31 AM
Oddly enough, he managed to avoid demonstrating much in the way of anything of an eternal nature, or great creativity, or great benevolence, or great knowledge.
Now, he did allegedly demonstrate some power, but the problem with that is that it's easy to see the alleged demonstrations of power as being merely tricks, or just made-up stories.
Especially when, for his final trick, he just flat-out lied.
Another word for "claim" is "pretension", or something made up, mostly out of imagination.
Nonsense. As if a real eternal, knowing, and powerful god would even need "witnesses" and "history", instead of simply demonstrating his eternal power and knowledge directly.
Yawn. Private revelation is a shitty way for an alleged god to do anything, precisely because humans can become insane.
If there's no way to distinguish "private revelation" from paranoia, hallucination, epilepsy, schizophrenia, psychosis, and so on, then god had damn well better provide something that can be demonstrated outside of the revelatee's head.
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 9, 2008 3:46 AM
When faced with the 'personal revelation' attempt at an argument I tend to reply with, 'well, I once had an owl project thoughts into my head - does that mean owls have psychic powers?'
This, of course, had more to do with my having taken some particularly good blotter acid several hours beforehand; the psychic owl was one of the least weird things I experienced that evening. But at the time I thought it was real - it's only my knowledge of the effects of LSD that allows me to know it wasn't.
In short, brains do weird shit and, therefore, subjective experiences cannot be considered evidence in this situation.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 9, 2008 3:49 AM
"It goes without saying that if there is a God, he can surely manipulate the evidence."
I think this is the problem I have with agnosticism; this undeserved deference toward the idea of the Christian 3O god (agnostics never hem and haw over the existence of Brahma and Shiva, I've noticed). Sure, God can wriggle out of evidence problems if you just make up his attributes as you go along. We cannot know if God exists, because he could just be fucking with us, because he's all-powerful and all that jazz.
Too wishy-washy for me. I'm an atheist, and that only takes as much a leap of "faith" and "arrogance" as it does to not believe in Russell's Teapot. As I like to put it, God is Bollocks.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 9, 2008 10:42 AM
And, I see that I forgot to mention, in addition to drug-induced temporary delusions, as mentioned by Wowbagger, some people do just lie. They make shit up. They tell stories, for their own amusement, or so as to manipulate people.
And very often they tell stories to themselves, because everyone around them is telling the same story to each other.
That's Dishonest Mind-Fucker Tyrant God. I have to admit, I am indeed agnostic about Dishonest Mind-Fucker Tyrant God. If there is a God who is actively dishonest, and goes out of his way to fuck with people's minds, there would be no way to know one way or the other.
However, note that Dishonest Mind-Fucker Tyrant God not only has no benevolence, he's actively malevolent. Which means that he's not the god of the monotheistic religions, as posited above @#783.
Although, reading the actual bible, the god described therein does look more like Dishonest Mind-Fucker Tyrant God than the essentialist god that religions claim he is.
Hey, here's Dishonest Mind-Fucker Tyrant God, in living colour:
http://grimbles.comicgenesis.com/d/20030103.html
Posted by: James the Less | August 9, 2008 3:01 PM
The 70,000 witnesses to the Miracle of the Sun included atheists. The press reports at the time establish that what they saw was "outside their head." Odd that it occurred when it was predicted to occur.
Posted by: James the Less | August 9, 2008 3:12 PM
#788
The raising of Lazarus from the dead was "benevolent." "Jesus wept" at Mary's deep grief and the sobs and wailing of those present.
That was also a demonstration of divine power. It happened to be witnessed also. Nothing inconsistent about that.
Posted by: James the Less | August 9, 2008 3:20 PM
#789
What the Church calls miracles go beyond the subjective experience - they are material and objective, even if you doubt their supernatural origin.
Posted by: SEF | August 9, 2008 6:48 PM
Ah, that somewhat variable and often ever increasing number as the fairy story gets retold. Which ones? Were they really C.S.Lewis types and what did they actually claim? How does a press report in itself do that? Not odd that people primed for hysteria at a specific time might have behaved hysterically at that time. Not even particularly odd that they might have started noticing a quite natural phenomenon which they had previously been too wrapped up in themselves to notice but then misattributed to something else because of their pre-conditioning. ... in a fairy story. Name some and provide the evidence for them being material and objective - and miraculous.Posted by: Wowbagger | August 9, 2008 7:05 PM
Of course it's possible for a god who a) hides all evidence of his existence, and b) creates a lot of evidence to support his non-existence. Doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is possible. In fact, if there is a god it's the only way he could operate.
But this isn't the god of any of the major world religions - in fact, it's the antithesis of the loving, benevolent god espoused by christianity. In times not that far gone saying so would have seen you charged with heresy. At least one religion supports the idea that what gets called god is in fact an evil supplanter - but,those guys weren't too popular with mainstream christianity (heresy, as I mentioned before) and got themselves wiped out as a result.
Of course, we get to the question of why would god, who (supposedly) wants us to be happy and use our free will and love and worship him so we can go to heaven lie about things that would allow us to do just that?
It just don't add up!
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 9, 2008 8:08 PM
Well, it certainly looks like they might have seen something. Was it an unusual atmospheric or meteorological phenomenon, was it a bunch of people becoming so excited over an unusual atmospheric or meteorological phenomenon that they thought more was going on than really happened, or was it god himself warping the sky? Can we ask god to do it again? Huh, I guess we can ask, but god keeps on not saying or doing anything..
Odder still that it only occurred then, and never since. Did god's light-show machine run out of juice?
Not that benevolent. Lazarus was the brother of Jesus' disciples, Martha and Mary. And in the more likely case that it was a trick or a story, it wasn't benevolent at all.
Eh. As a trick, that's just good showmanship. As a story, it merely lends some touching pathos to the plot.
Of course. You want witnesses who are not in on the trick to witness the trick; their credulity lends versimilitude.
Utter nonsense. Why, just look a the alleged "miracles" that kicked off this whole foofaraw: The cracker becomes the flesh of Jesus and yet does not change in any material and objective form from being a cracker. Woooo-ooh!
"Material and objective miracles", my arse.
Really, the god you describe as having performed these alleged miracles is pretty much the Dishonest Mind-Fucker Tyrant. No thanks.
Posted by: James the Less | August 10, 2008 12:27 AM
#795
The Miracle of the Sun was material and objective. You have yourself described it as a natural phenomenon - an occurrence that is observable in reality.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 10, 2008 1:00 AM
You miss the point that "natural" is opposed to "supernatural". That is, a natural phenomenon is not caused by a supernatural wossname like god.
A natural phenomenon is therefore not a "miracle", just as a rainbow or a sundog are not "miracles".
Posted by: James the Less | August 10, 2008 1:20 AM
No, I got that point. I said one could question whether it was a supernatural cause as long as you acknowledge that it was an objective reality, not a delusion confined to the boundaries of one's mind. Otherwise, the sun dog theorists would have nothing to theorize about.
One would have to ask (in thinking about the supernatural question) how did a humble 10-year-old shepherd girl know that a sundog was going to appear on October 13, 1917?
Posted by: John Morales | August 10, 2008 1:38 AM
Whateley family bloodline, most likely. Eeeeeerie!Posted by: SEF | August 10, 2008 4:21 AM
She doesn't have to know at all. There wasn't even a specific prediction to match. So barely any luck was required either. It was merely necessary that anything at all happen with which ignorant people were unfamiliar - which is not exactly hard and appears even to include seeing the moon for some! Having them hang around actually looking for once in their lives made it far more likely that eventually someone would spot something onto which they could all latch and claim that that was the intended thing.