…and this is a 
YouTube chickens out
Category: Stupidity
Posted on: October 1, 2008 8:56 AM, by PZ Myers
It's happened: craven YouTube has pulled all of the eucharist desecration videos. Click on one and you'll just get the message, "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." FSMdude's account has also been suspended. There is no description of what rule was violated; I guess we must presume that YouTube is now in the business of defending religious dogma.
Catholicism seems to breed natural censors and cowards, doesn't it?
Comments
Posted by: ChrisKG | October 1, 2008 8:58 AM
We need a Eucharist challenge like the one the RRS did recently.
Posted by: Hockey Bob | October 1, 2008 8:59 AM
You could always put it up on Rapidshare.com... since YOU own the copyright, no one else would have the right to try having it removed. It might be worth a try.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 1, 2008 8:59 AM
I do hope that YouTube is fair and pulls every video that is critical of any religion.
Posted by: Queequeg | October 1, 2008 9:00 AM
Wow, that's appalling. I was afraid they might do it, but I thought that was an irrational fear. I bit like my fear of leaning on unlocked car doors.
Very, very annoying.
Posted by: TSC | October 1, 2008 9:00 AM
Maybe they will replace it with some of the lovely and "insightful" shit on GodTube.
Posted by: fly44d | October 1, 2008 9:00 AM
I guess I am going to have to start complaining about how offended I am about all the religious crap I see there. There is so much of it, where to begin?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 1, 2008 9:01 AM
I am deeply offended by YouTube's capitulation to the crybabies.
Let's see, what's my congressman's phone number . . . oh, he's Catholic. Never mind.
Posted by: tsg | October 1, 2008 9:01 AM
I think it's time we started a campaign of identifying all the videos we find offensive.
Like, I don't know, every single one.
Posted by: TSC | October 1, 2008 9:01 AM
Maybe they will replace it with some of the lovely and "insightful" shit on GodTube.
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 1, 2008 9:05 AM
Those puling, despicable cowards! Surely there's worse things in their collection.
Posted by: Queequeg | October 1, 2008 9:06 AM
A bit* (preview, girl. Preview)
Now I must go and send an angry email to Youtube about all those religious videos. (Except the Pastafarian ones, obviously. I have a right to be as biased as the rest of them, don't I?)
Posted by: MH | October 1, 2008 9:06 AM
here in germany it is still available - there is no problem.
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 1, 2008 9:08 AM
Now, now. It offended someone. It had to go... Surely, on this principle, I can now count on the television networks of the world taking all the televangelists off the air... Hell, the way they dress is offensive, never mind what they're actually saying and doing...
Oh. And every preacher that ever called secular humanism an evil. Oh, especially the current pope. Gone. Shut 'em up. Offensive. Oh yeah, and all mullahs who've said anything remotely similar. I'm offended. They can zip it, too...
Yep. We're making a better world here...
Posted by: Matt Heath | October 1, 2008 9:09 AM
Presumably the rule it was held to break was hate speech. It didn't break that rule (unless damaging ANY kind of object is attacking or demeaning fans of that object) but that's the only one I can even imagine an argument being made for.
Posted by: Brian | October 1, 2008 9:10 AM
Probably this rule: "We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity)."
I don't buy their interpretation of their own rule, but it is not hard to see why they yanked it under this proviso.
Brian
P.S.
The predictable responses to this will be cheerfully ignored.
Posted by: Steve Page | October 1, 2008 9:13 AM
I heard that the reason it was banned was because a packet of wafers objected to being referred to as Christian, and if I were a wafer, I'd feel exactly the same.
Posted by: heddle | October 1, 2008 9:14 AM
Queequeg ,
No, they are going after religious videos too, at least some. They pulled the creepy, cult-like "Obama youth singing for Glorious Leader" Praise and Worship video.
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 1, 2008 9:18 AM
I'm really annoyed because I took out time to write them over the eucharist desecration, & thank them for keeping the videos.
Does anyone know who there has the say on applying censorship, & what their email address is? If so, maybe we could Pharyngulize them.
Posted by: Jacques | October 1, 2008 9:18 AM
You know, as ridiculous as I find the whole idea of transubstantiation, and the desecration of these crackers, the constant public harping on this inanity is hardly going to help with the dialog between scientist and religios. This is going to get worse before it gets better if people's beliefs are constantly being attacked by atheists. The same goes for the ridiculous war of words between the political right and left. This pissing contest has turned a silly situation into a farce.
I'm not sure what we as atheists hope to accomplish by constantly attacking people's beliefs. They are their beliefs and they are entitled to them, the same as we are entitled to our non-belief. If I were you, I think I would declare a truce and try to engage some reasonable catholics in dialogue and agree to disagree on the issue.
Posted by: Missus Gumby | October 1, 2008 9:18 AM
The funny thing is every believer who partakes of a Krispy Korpus™ dumps it out the other end eventually. How's that for desecration?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 1, 2008 9:19 AM
I was up in Cape Cod over the weekend (so was Hurricane Kyle), had a nice big bowl o' chowdah, and I started worrying that one of the oyster crackers I so rashly dunked might have been Ineffably Holy or something, and that some incensed Catholic was going to demand that my soup be censored. It didn't happen, but What If???????
Posted by: Jeremy | October 1, 2008 9:21 AM
This seems to be the one:
J. YouTube reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the YouTube Website at any time.
They also have something about hate speech that *may* be applicable depending on what was said in the videos. But if they pulled all of the host desecration videos, I doubt that applies to all of them...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 1, 2008 9:23 AM
Jacques (#19): Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Ploon | October 1, 2008 9:24 AM
Colour me intrigued... What do you think will happen?
Posted by: Rog | October 1, 2008 9:24 AM
I think we need to follow the "christian value" of an eye for an eye.....someone neeeds to pick uout a selection of pro-catholic videos on you tube, list them on here, so we can "pharyngulize" them and get them removed too. Seems like a fair response to me.
Rog
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 1, 2008 9:24 AM
Jacques, They are their beliefs and they are entitled to them...
You're missing the point. The religious nutjobs want to inflict their crazy god-bothering on everyone else. They want to take away some fairly basic human rights that we've achieved.
Posted by: Aldus Huxley | October 1, 2008 9:28 AM
The problem is that YouTube is beholden to no one in the public. It is a private enterprise whose purpose is not to be a medium for any form of public debate. It's a way for its owners to make money. It's been MSM'ed.
If we want to have a real public debate, then I seriously think that places like Youtube, by virtue of their size and the role they play in public discourse, should be considered "common carriers" and their ability to decide what gets on and what gets booted off should be in the hands of an ombudsman who is unaffiliated with YouTube. The criteria upon which what gets taken off should be well documented, and all decisions to remove anything should be well documented and transparent, and should cite the specific transgression. And, of course, it should be open to appeal.
Inefficient? Ya. But what we see happening here is the alternative. YouTube asked to be the global go-to place for video sharing. They can't still think they should be able to behave like they're just a fringe pop-culture service.
Posted by: Deepsix | October 1, 2008 9:32 AM
See what happens when you mess with Jesus H. Cracker?
Anyway, I guess YouTurd has a new policy against harming snackfoods.
Posted by: ice weasel | October 1, 2008 9:32 AM
And in a somewhat related note; Facebook just hired one of Alberto Gonzales' fixers as their general counsel. Now that's a heckuva hiring.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 1, 2008 9:33 AM
OT except that it's relevant to religious censorship. The office of publisher Gibson House, which is also the home of its owner Martin Rynja, has been firebombed. Gibson House is about to publish The Jewel of Medina in the UK. Fortunately no-one was hurt, and damage was limited. Three people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act. I wasn't intending to buy the novel, but I will now.
Posted by: Felicia | October 1, 2008 9:34 AM
I am on some a hell of a lot of Catholic e-newsletters (I... am not exactly sure why, but I think my friends have something to do with it it), and the sent out emails en masse like every five minutes with a petition to have them removed. I'm willing to bet YT got thousands and thousands of emails.
HOWEVER, STUFF LIKE THIS STILL FLIES: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSyKtiYUegU
I love hypocrisy. It's funny except for when it's totally not.
Posted by: Alfonso Armenta | October 1, 2008 9:34 AM
Oh but beliefs and ideas are there to be attacked. Rarely they will survive the attack unharmed, whatever results is a better idea.
One way to attack them is ridicule, and for that freedom of expression is vital. When you destroy freedom of expression, like youtube has done now, you destroy the only chance for ideas to get attacked and thus improved.
I will attack ideas my entire life, with my last breath I hope I am attacking someone's ideas (mine included).
It is people I will respect. Not their ideas or their beliefs, unless they can defend them with reason and evidence.
Posted by: Phaedrus | October 1, 2008 9:36 AM
It's time for the Knights of Nee to start asserting their right never to hear the word.... never mind, suffice to say it is one of the words the Knights of Nee must never hear.
And no, it's not "IS", you wouldn't get very far in life not saying "IS".
Posted by: Queequeg | October 1, 2008 9:37 AM
@heddle #17. Ah, ok. I hadn't heard about that. I usually avoid watching the over the top religious stuff, so I wouldn't have noticed if it got pulled.
Posted by: True Bob | October 1, 2008 9:40 AM
Phaedrus, what is it?
Posted by: Kel | October 1, 2008 9:40 AM
Cowards!
Posted by: Hockey Bob | October 1, 2008 9:40 AM
Jacques @ 19
...reasonable catholics...
See, there's your problem right there - catholics actually *believe* that the cracker in question has been magically transformed into the body of Jebus. Ergo, no catholic can ever be construed as being "reasonable".
Oh, and as already been stated, concern troll is concerned. Thanks for your input.
Posted by: Rick rules | October 1, 2008 9:41 AM
As a founding member of the Church of Rick Astley, I find this recent stand against mockery of religion very reassuring. In that vein, I'll be writing Youtube to let them know that videos of Our Dear Father Rick being used to mock people in public (so-called 'Rick-rolling) constitutes a Blasphemy of Blasphemies and should be removed immediately if they wish to avoid offending the worldwide Astleyite community.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | October 1, 2008 9:42 AM
Can't we just fight fire with fire? We should start a petition to either complain about what Youtube has done OR
Complain to Youtube all the Catholic stuff that is on there that is insulting to: Atheists, Jews, Muslims, other sects of religion. I think that would be fair.
Posted by: heddle | October 1, 2008 9:44 AM
Queequeg #34
I saw it here where, at least for now, you can still read the uplifting lyrics.
Posted by: HostHostage | October 1, 2008 9:44 AM
My effort still flies. I wonder how long it will last?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHPZFsGrt-Y
.
Posted by: James | October 1, 2008 9:46 AM
@ #27. Yahweh-Tube is part of Google, and therefore if you want to be speak to the powers that be, and have them listen... buy some stock.
That's supposedly how it's supposed to work, companies who sell stock are beholden to their stockholders. Yeah I know it's niave and idealistic... but...
And with our goverment trying to convert public institutions trying to go private (social security, parts of the welfare system, toll roads in certain states, lotteries in same states, etc...) Why should You-Tube be the shining example of transparency and going to public scrunity when our government is moving in the other direction?
And this is from someone who does believe that they're doing a knee jerk reaction and caving in to some supidly vocal opponents. The old addage needs amended - "The squeeky wheel gets the grease, or replaced."
James
Posted by: wjv | October 1, 2008 9:46 AM
Suggest they move to rutube.ru
Posted by: True Bob | October 1, 2008 9:48 AM
Slightly OT, I was on travel last week and one of the guys had recently joined AA. He told me he had been sober for X months, and now only had the communion wine on Sunday, since it transmogrified into blood and didn't count. *eye roll* I didn't debate it, because he really needs support right now, but FFS!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 1, 2008 9:57 AM
Just shameful cowardice and pandering to a bullying mass by YouTube. I think they need to change their name now to "OnlyIfAnAngryMobIsn'tOffendedByYouTube".
An oldie but a goodie:
"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still." - John Stuart Mill, 1859.
Posted by: Pteryxx | October 1, 2008 9:58 AM
To Jacque #19:
"I'm not sure what we as atheists hope to accomplish by constantly attacking people's beliefs. They are their beliefs and they are entitled to them, the same as we are entitled to our non-belief. If I were you, I think I would declare a truce and try to engage some reasonable catholics in dialogue and agree to disagree on the issue."
People are not entitled to disbelieve demonstrable facts. The cracker turning into actual living flesh when consecrated is a lie. It's not even a harmless lie, because as we've seen, some believers of this lie are willing to attack, slander, and threaten the lives of people who point out reality.
Silence implies consent, as any abuse survivor knows. Whatever community, ceremonies, and personal beliefs people may engage in privately, they have no right to be respected when their beliefs about the world they share with the rest of us are flat out wrong.
Posted by: Ranson | October 1, 2008 10:01 AM
Is it to early to nominate Alfonso Armenta @ #32 for an October Molly?
Posted by: C Sue | October 1, 2008 10:03 AM
I agree with previous comment - The videos need to be re-hosted someplace else!
Posted by: Scott M. | October 1, 2008 10:04 AM
Does anyone know where the original videos reside? I'd like a copy of each so I can submit them to Youtube. It's an automatic process no? I've never youtubed before.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 1, 2008 10:04 AM
Don't these fools know it'll only encourage this sort of thing? I repeat, it's only a matter of time before we get Eucharist porn (not that you want ME starring in such a production, trust me...)
And I hate to sound nit-picky, but did the Catholic League even bother to find out whether those hosts were consecrated? The one video I watched involved him feeding ducks in the park out of a plastic bag full of hosts. That suggests to me that he just bought them, or took them out of the sacristy.
No matter. These assholes should be humiliated in verse.
Posted by: E.V. | October 1, 2008 10:06 AM
CONCERN TROLL TEMPLATE
I find the entire idea of ____________ ridiculous too. I am a ______________ too, just like you, but I feel you go too far. This situation is going to get worse before it gets better if ________ are constantly being attacked by __________.
I'm not sure what we as __________ hope to accomplish by constantly attacking _______. They have their beliefs and they are entitled to them, the same as we are entitled to our __________. If I were you, I think I would declare a truce and try to engage some reasonable members on their side in dialogue and agree to disagree on the issue. I fear you may be part of the problem, not the solution. It's not nice to hurt peoples' feelings. What if someone approached you the same way? You have no right to offend people. Why can't you just leave __________ alone? You're being dickish. You're just trying to piss people off. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, just don't make yours public if you disagree with the status quo. You people make me sick. You're going to ruin it for everyone else, you selfish bastards. WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!! But no - really, I'm one of you.... really.
Posted by: JStein | October 1, 2008 10:07 AM
I feel like a little panic spreader, but I'm starting to think that this is a genuine element of religious persecution. Seriously.
It's a violation of the first amendment.
Dumb ass Catholics. Always so sure that their beliefs supercede our rights.
Posted by: Tophe | October 1, 2008 10:07 AM
Minnesota professor endorses YouTube videos of Eucharistic desecrations
Posted by: llewelly | October 1, 2008 10:08 AM
When I was a small child, my mother had an old baby blue boat of a car, whose rear doors would come open, if they were unlocked, and a small child leaned on them from the inside. This can be exciting when the vehicle is on the freeway moving at 70 miles per hour. I've never since encountered a car whose doors open so easily from the inside.Posted by: Michelle | October 1, 2008 10:09 AM
Chickens. I'm pretty dissappointed in Youtube.
Are they gonna remove all the videos praising God? They offend me too.
Posted by: Queequeg | October 1, 2008 10:09 AM
@heddle #40. Mm, that was rather creepy. A lot of political campaigning is creepy, but like the commenters there said: leave the kids out of it, please.
It's amazing how misguided people can be, when it comes to what they think would improve a candidate's ratings. Seriously, would that make anyone want to vote for Obama? Anyways, I'm seeing this as an outsider, so I don't really want to comment too decisively on American politics.
Posted by: OJ | October 1, 2008 10:09 AM
I cannot believe YouTube would do this. This is absolutely appalling. And YouTube is one of those sites that is really hard to boycott too... :-)
Posted by: Jon Anderson | October 1, 2008 10:11 AM
We need a huge group of people to complain about videos featuring hamburgers or other beef products, claiming that they believe the cow is sacred and that the videos are personal attacks on their beliefs.
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 1, 2008 10:12 AM
This one goes out to #19
http://www.spunk.org/texts/cartoons/wildcat/sp000585.gif
Think at least one generation ahead; we must plant the seeds of doubt now, no matter who gets offended or what gets "polarized" in the meantime.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | October 1, 2008 10:13 AM
Hey PZ-
Its October - whatever happened to the Molly for August?
Just askin'
Posted by: WRMartin | October 1, 2008 10:20 AM
Jacques,
The problem is that religion has been the bully on the playground of humanity for way too long. The pissing contest has always been going on except now they can't burn us at the stake. They want to but they can't. The bullied are making progress. The bully is getting upset and whining and complaining. The bully is starting to get worried about losing their status on the playground. Accelerating that process is the farce. No real violence just a little prodding - sort of like a squirtgun with some soapy water to the eyes (it works wonders). We really don't expect the bully to die a horrible death. We only want the bully to shut up and sit down so we can get on with playing. Then all the littlest kids who have been too afraid to approach the playground because they didn't want to get pushed off the swings and the slides will be free to do what they always wanted to do all these centuries.
You may feel like declaring a truce with the bully but that is only going to prolong the misery on the playground.
Posted by: AJS | October 1, 2008 10:22 AM
There are traces of alcohol in freshly baked bread, some food colourings (vegetable dyes) and flavourings (vanilla, peppermint), fruit and, of course, various over-the-counter medicines.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | October 1, 2008 10:22 AM
I smell the malodorous ratstench of a Bill Donohue press release behind this madness.
Posted by: Nanahuatzin | October 1, 2008 10:23 AM
Pteryxx @ 46
It's not even a harmless lie, because as we've seen, some believers of this lie are willing to attack, slander, and threaten the lives of people who point out reality.
But that is the main point... just because some believers are extremist, i do not see the point in atacking a whole comunity.
Most catholics usually they do not care much about this things, but like any normal human being they will join toguether if they fell theatened... and will give voice to the extremist, since most of then do not understand why is this happening.
I find a slight diference between demostrate a lie, and atack som people beliefs. Yo can argue, and demostrate it is a lie, or you can mock and atack their beliefs. You will have diferent reactions...
Posted by: Janja | October 1, 2008 10:25 AM
Hello!
I am a Christain. For me the little piece of bread for you is Christ in first person for me. So what?
You are an atheist and you belive in NO God. So what?
Don't you think that freedom is also a freedom to have faith or to have no faith?
You have faith only in yourself and your knowledge. So what... it is fine with me...
I have faith in God and I also use my reason and knowledge.
...
For example - I like to wear red hat and you do not like it cause YOU think it makes me look stupid... You are to tear it apart?
I would be glad that we talk about hat but when you take my hat from me and hate me because of my hat... what does that make OF YOU? A good man?
So I say:
- talk about religion
- ask people about it
- read and ask again
- give a provocative questions
- talk about me about Church and it's reletion towards different aspects of life...
- talk about dilemas that are real - living good Christian life - how do you see it...
BUT BE respectful...
I hope me and you will come to the end of our lives knowing that we did our best to live in peace with others... no matter how different we are...
And - ofcourse we have to talk together about different possibilites and aspects of our life in a way that respects each life as unique... but respect also community needs...
All good...
I wish you a nice day from Slovenia!
Janja
Posted by: Rod Clark | October 1, 2008 10:28 AM
If God is on YouTube's side... is that proof that there is a God? I'm so confused now. ;-)
Posted by: Jelle Waltman | October 1, 2008 10:35 AM
I have send a mail to youtube, a complaint about an abusive user, being youtube itself. For censoring our right for eating crackers in public and upload the resulting video.
What a bunch of pancakes.
Posted by: Ploon | October 1, 2008 10:38 AM
llewelly @ 54:
Thanks. I was picturing someone leaning on an unlocked car door from the outside (with the car standing still of course), and wondering why that would evoke fear. Must be a left-brain, right-brain thing.
Posted by: tsg | October 1, 2008 10:39 AM
Why do you care so much what a non-Christian does to a cracker?
Posted by: Evolving Squid | October 1, 2008 10:40 AM
That should be the most absolutely cherished right in a civilized place... Every person should have the right to offend anyone they choose. No person should ever even get the idea for a split second that they have some kind of providence to never be offended.
But, unfortunately, the pendulum has swung far in favour of the overly sensitive... the onus for protecting their fragile mindsets has been placed on everyone else (at least here in Canada).
It's a sad state of affairs.
What I really wonder about, though, is why the religions don't go after each other. Surely Jewish heresy must be as offensive to True Catholics (tm) as any cracker desecration? Where are the lawsuits, the threats, the harassment? Why do atheists get centred out for this treatment?
Posted by: Holbach | October 1, 2008 10:41 AM
YouTube, you gutless wimps, scared shitless of religion, an imaginary apparition only made material by the mass of irrational hordes. Are you afraid of ghosts, or the power of demented religionists to withdraw support? You should rename it CrapTube.
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 1, 2008 10:42 AM
Janja (#65), that was an awful metaphor.
Ideas are not hats and criticizing/rejecting/making fun of them is not like taking your hat nor is it like ripping it up.
Criticizing and rejecting bad ideas is more like....criticizing and rejecting bad metaphors, except far more precise (as even really good metaphors are still fuzzy [like some hats, incidentally] and have no logical value)
Posted by: db0 | October 1, 2008 10:42 AM
Yet another reason for why people should be sceptical of Google's power and why you should start using distributed alternatives that are harder to censor.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 1, 2008 10:47 AM
"For example - I like to wear red hat and you do not like it cause YOU think it makes me look stupid... You are to tear it apart?
I would be glad that we talk about hat but when you take my hat from me and hate me because of my hat... what does that make OF YOU? A good man?"
First, I don't think we hate anybody. Except the actively harmful ones, of course. But go on, wear your silly red hat! It's yours. Will we take it from your head and tear it into pieces? No way!!! You're entitled to the hat of your choice, however silly it may look. But we have the right to buy the same one, put it on our own head and parade in front of you, doing our best impersonation. Perhaps you will laugh at this mirror image of yourself... And what if we take OUR hat from our head and tear it apart, just to show that no Divine Protector of Hats will descend from the skies to prevent us from doing so... ?
Posted by: Holbach | October 1, 2008 10:48 AM
Janja @ 65
So you "have faith in a god and I also use my reason and knowledge." What a bunch of senseless crap. If you had written that you only have faith in an imaginary god and have no need of reason and knowledge, then you would have spoken the truth. You don't have to use reason and knowledge to believe in an imaginary god; this only takes a brain devoid of reason and knowledge to believe in anything irrational and to couch it in the manner you stated. Your god is as imaginary as is your power to reason.
Posted by: SEF | October 1, 2008 10:49 AM
@ #2:
Ichthyic has already started a special site, for hosting the cracker videos and other stuff related to the cracker incident, in anticipation of YouTube being craven and caving under the dishonest Catholic onslaught.Posted by: Theo Bromine | October 1, 2008 10:53 AM
re the video of Dawkins' funeral, as referenced by Felicia @31:
I think it would be legitimate to flag that video as inappropriate, either hate speech or violence. In the video, there is a picture of Dawkins sitting in a chair being consumed by flames and then screaming in terror as he is tortured in Hell. Surely burning someone in effigy is an act of hate.
Quoth Pteryxx @46
People are not entitled to disbelieve demonstrable facts. The cracker turning into actual living flesh when consecrated is a lie.
People are *entitled* to believe/disbelieve whatever they choose, regardless of the facts, but when beliefs contradict facts, they can legitimately be called delusions. (But the Catholic theological weasel to address that objection is that the wafer retains its original "accidents" (ie it still looks, smells, tastes, sounds, and feels like bread), while assuming the "essence" of God (ie it is due all the reverence* that one is expected to render to the Supreme Being).
* What's that? You don't think that the Supreme Being is due any reverence at all? And that your communications with him/her/it/them should be kept between you and him/her/it/them? Quit being so logical and reasonable.
Posted by: Rob | October 1, 2008 10:53 AM
@Jacques:
There is no need for dialog. Keep your religion private, that's all there is to it. Not in government, not in science, not in public education. There can not, must not, be a compromise here.
@janja:
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
We're tired of your crap. We're not putting up with it any more. If you dealt with us respectfully, there would be no need for the rancor. We're not the doormats we've been treated as for centuries.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | October 1, 2008 11:00 AM
I saw the video of his nailgunning of a cracker (before removal, of course) and concluded that either his nailgun was a weak piece of shit or that the cracker was tough as leather (as he put ~7 nails in before it shattered).
Posted by: McDuff | October 1, 2008 11:01 AM
The only way forward now is to start desecrating things from every religion. Desecrate Buddhas and Korans and statues of Zeus and edifices of Odin and then put them on YouTube. And then complain, at the same time.
Find every video with some middle class white numpty with a dream catcher and complain about the co-opting of native american sacred rituals. Find every video of a Christian saying that Jesus was the Messiah (in flagrant opposition to sacredly held Jewish beliefs) and have them taken off. Since the position is now that we cannot offend anybody, we must not offend anybody.
I wonder how many letters from Catholics it took to get those videos down? I wonder how many letters people can generate about beefburgers and rapture videos?
Posted by: SEF | October 1, 2008 11:01 AM
The point is that the rest of the "community" (ie Catholics in this case, but Christians or even religious people in general for some wider groupings on wider issues) are enablers for the extremists. The alleged moderate Catholics either believe in the crazy stuff themselves or have been completely failing to put an end to it within their religion (but also aren't brave or honest enough to leave the religion themselves or they wouldn't be claiming to be Catholics).They have remained sufficiently silent on issues such as crackers not really becoming zombie Jesus-the-Jew when magic latin (ie Roman!) spells are cast over them that the extremists are allowed to go on spreading the lie of the eucharist to further generations of nutters. The Catholic church hasn't been excommunicating its extremists, its terrorists and mass murderers or its paedophile priests. Instead it has policies variously of condoning, forgiving, praising and covering up for them.
Posted by: firemancarl | October 1, 2008 11:05 AM
They suspended Extantdod...again. Damn those fundies and damn Kent Hovind and his idiotic family and their followers!
Posted by: FlameDuck | October 1, 2008 11:06 AM
Why do you consider it an attack? I know English isn't my first language, but I'm fairly sure an attack is an act of aggression. As opposed to say re-enacting the crucifixion of Jesus, with actual honest to God, pieces of little Jesus. Oh absolutely, and if that was all there was to it, that would be fine. Unfortunately Catholics do not share your Protestant views that faith is between you and God, and if they do they aren't good Catholics.If *you* don't want a blood transfusion, abortion, hot anal sex, because your God says no, that's just fine and dandy with me, provided you're willing to assume personal responsibility for those choices. So please die when you get that otherwise curable disease, support your own children financially, and stop sexually abusing altar boys.
You're not really dealing with reasonable Catholics here tho'. You have a bunch of people so offended by the idea of Eucharist desecration, it makes them physically ill. Right? I'm no Catholic, but something I find offensive are graphics pictures of maimed or murdered people, like say a child in Iraq that's been a little too close to a previously undetonated cluster bomb. Because I find these things so traumatizing, it's never occurred to me (until just now) that I could type in "Child maimed by Cluster Bomb" in Google, and have access to probably hundreds of rather disturbing images. The thought just never crossed my mind.Yet here are a bunch of "reasonable Catholics" who on a daily basis search the Interwebs for traumatizing material, so they can write angry letters to invoke censorship. And your best idea is to engage them in debate? People who voluntarily traumatize themselves every day?
Here's the real deal. These Catholics aren't the least bit traumatized by seeing Eucharist desecration, they realize it's ludicrous. What they're offended about isn't that you would dare defile the body of Jesus Christ, they're offended that you're pointing out the ridiculous charade they put on every Sunday.
"But FlameDuck", I hear you say, "that's like making fun of retarded kids". Except it's not because being a Catholic is a choice, retardation not so much.
Posted by: Astrosmash | October 1, 2008 11:08 AM
is Pat Condell next? Yikes! he could be yanked using the same criteria. Where can you go to tell YouTube to fucking buck up and do the right thing.
Posted by: the other Adam | October 1, 2008 11:09 AM
Repost! There's always Google Video, Vimeo, sock puppet Youtube accounts until your IP gets banned or They get bored and start picking on someone else...
Posted by: Doug | October 1, 2008 11:10 AM
Looks like a guy named "Onetruechurch" and others has had a campaign of flagging all of fsmdude's videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkKRtzlQIE4&feature=related
According to this nutter the videos are violent because he has to stand up for the defenseless wafers. Apparently desecrating wafers is a hate crime, about the same as burning a cross on a Black family's lawn, beating a gay kid to death, etc. Catholics are just a bunch of cowardly whiners continuing their tradition of censorship and persecution of others.
Posted by: Nasikabatrachus | October 1, 2008 11:15 AM
It's a very interesting bit of blasphemy, isn't it, to say that an infinite and ineffable being can be not only offended but even harmed by mere mortals armed only with nailguns and an antimagical agenda, or so these catholics claim.
Luckily their deity is apparently extremely forgiving, so I don't suppose they'll suffer too much for it. I would offer up an atheistic prayer on their behalf just in case, but considering the circumstances it would probably do more harm than good.
Posted by: duckweed | October 1, 2008 11:15 AM
You could always set up your own web form for emailing Youtube so non-catholics could protest the removal of these videos by clicking a single button.
You know, like americaneedsfatima.org did for sending their complaints to youtube. Make sure to include several youtube.com addresses so that you annoy the largest number of people over there as possible and inflate the email count wildly. It's sooooo easy to protest something when someone else has done all the work for you.
Posted by: Eisnel | October 1, 2008 11:15 AM
What's the best email address for sending complaints to YouTube? I'm no longer convinced that press@youtube.com is the correct address, because their site says it's for press contacts. I worry that they'd ignore complaints sent there.
Posted by: moother | October 1, 2008 11:16 AM
on saturday i'll be buying me a video camera.
on sunday i'll be at mass.
and on sunday afternoon i'll be on youtube.