…and this is a 
Bill Donohue has a new target: he has taken out an ad in Variety, demanding that Penn and Teller be fired, because they've been irreverent and sacrilegious towards the holy Catholic church.
On August 27, Showtime, owned by CBS, will feature a vicious assault on Catholics. In the season finale of Penn & Teller's show, they "take on the secretive inner world of The Vatican, the holy city of Catholicism and home of the Pope." How do we know it will defame Catholics? Because on the show's website, it says so: There is a Showtime Advisory for "Graphic Language, Adult Content."
If Showtime posted that warning about a show on Islam, Muslims would brace for the worst (and so might CBS). But Muslims need not worry: it's not all religions that Showtime likes to trash--just Catholicism. Indeed, Showtime is currently working on a show, "Revelation," that promises to be at least somewhat respectful of Protestantism.
What will the upcoming show be like? On his Twitter page, Penn Jillette brags how he rips a Catholic encyclical on sexuality: "I'm dressed as Darth with a condom c--k light saber." He even boasts that the show is "hardcore," admitting that "we attack the Vatican." From trashing The Last Supper to mocking Catholic prayers, anti-Catholic bigots who feed on this kind of stuff will have a stomach full.
This is not the first time Showtime has featured a vile Penn & Teller show. In 2005, Mother Teresa was called "Mother F---ing Teresa," and her order of nuns were branded "f---ing c--ts." The year after, Jillette said on his CBS radio show that Mother Teresa "got her [sexual] kicks watching people suffer and die."
Just recently, Jillette took after me again in his usual foul way. That doesn't matter, but what matters greatly is his pathological obsession with bashing Catholics and their religion. There is no legitimate place for this kind of frontal assault on any demographic group.
CBS/Showtime needs to send Penn & Teller a message and let them know that they have crossed the line for the last time. This should be their final season. We know that they've been told before to drop the Catholic bashing, and yet they persist. By doing so, Penn & Teller have effectively stuck their middle finger right in the eye of CBS.
I can guess how Penn and Teller are reacting to this: with jubilation. They make a living by poking authority with a sharp stick, and there is no better response than a spittle-flecked denouncement from a pompous windbag who reacts to every slight with a flurry of press releases and angry demands.
Speaking of Donohue, he has a new book out: Secular Sabotage: How Liberals are Destroying Religion and Culture in America. I think his title is half right — some of us liberals do aim to diminish religion, but it's rather silly to suggest we're going to get rid of culture. We just hope to make secular culture dominant.
His book has been "reviewed" by his fellow-traveler and religious suck-up, L. Brent Bozell, and it does give you a taste of the absurdities within.
"Secular Sabotage" is serious business. Donohue insists the United States should be considered unequivocally a Christian country. Eight out of ten Americans consider themselves as such. Indeed - and I didn't realize this - the United States is the most Christian country, in quantitative terms, in the world. "In fact," states the author, "the U.S. is more Christian than Israel is Jewish." And yet if this is so, why can't we celebrate Christmas? Why can't our children pray in school? How did we just elect a president who insisted the United States ought not to be considered a Christian nation?
Wait a minute…I'm a goddamned atheist, and I celebrate Christmas. Do we have goon squads that barge into religious people's homes now and confiscate their Christmas trees and inflatable Santa Claus lawn displays? I don't think so.
If Mr Bozell's children need some instruction in religious liberty, they should sit down for a little talk with Uncle PZ. Surprise: they can pray their adorable little hearts out in school if they want. There is no law that says kids can't have a little silent prayer on their own before the big test. The thing is, though, that the public schools — those government administrators and bureaucrats, don't you know — aren't allowed to tell you what to pray, what god to pray to, when to pray, or whether to pray at all. They're supposed to stay out of your religious life altogether.
And President Obama got elected because he avoided offending people with religious sensibilities and has only said that the US is a secular nation with religious liberty. Again, what that means is that the government is out of the god business (or should be, ideally), and individual Americans get to worship or not worship as they want. It's really not hard to understand, unless of course, you make a living by stirring up people's outrage by pretending not to understand.
The rest of the review suggests that the big focus of the book is on the Gay Conspiracy. It doesn't mention if any small-town college professors who brutalize crackers are talked about — maybe Donohue has realized that that whole escapade made him look absurd. If somebody gets their hands on it, let me know — he hasn't bothered to send me a review copy.
Don't pay full price for it, though. Wait for it to show up in the remainder bins. It won't take long.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 18, 2009 2:17 PM
My god, I can't imagine how Penn and Teller got the idea that there is free speech in this country.
Donohue is just the person to set them straight on that misapprehension.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Happy | August 18, 2009 2:20 PM
"If Showtime posted that warning about a show on Islam, Muslims would brace for the worst (and so might CBS). But Muslims need not worry: it's not all religions that Showtime likes to trash--just Catholicism."
Holy hell!!! Does every freaking Christian on the planet have fatwa envy!?
Posted by: Ray S. | August 18, 2009 2:20 PM
I'm a bigger fan of Penn & Teller than ever after this. I hope they mention Bill by name in the show.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 18, 2009 2:21 PM
From Donohue:
Bill, the Battle of Hattin was a "vicious assault on Catholics." The Battle of Acre was a "vicious assault on Catholics." This is Showtime. At worst it will be an assault on your cable bill.
Perspective, ur doin it rong.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: John Done | August 18, 2009 2:22 PM
"Secular Sabotage" is serious business.
Yeah, just like WoW. Really it's the religious equivalent of screaming about someone stealing one's cloudsong.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 18, 2009 2:24 PM
Shorter Donohue: WAAAAAAA! WAAAAAA! THEY'RE SO MEEEEEEEAN TO US! MOMMY, TELL THEM TO STOP IT!
I don't get cable; do P&T have a YouTube channel where they'll post the Finale? Because it sounds awesome.
Posted by: Stanton | August 18, 2009 2:24 PM
Bill Donohue, the guy who raised holy hell over a sacred wafer, and who kept mostly mum about the horrifying child slave rings in Ireland, is offended by Penn and Teller?
If there was justice in the world, there would be a cauldron waiting to render that disgusting blowhard's fat.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 2:24 PM
Huh... who knew after all these years that "Bozo" was actually a cute nick-name...
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 2:25 PM
"Catholics and their religion?" *blinks* Isn't that redundant? Can someone who rejects their faith still count themselves as Catholic? Why would they? (Judaism and being Jewish is a whole other ballgame)
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 18, 2009 2:26 PM
So...has BD ever sent you copies of anything? I'd assume anything he'd send would be bomb letters or white powder. (Maybe that's a little over the top, but he's a hardcore irrationalist, so who knows what's next on the docket for these guys.)Posted by: Doo Shabag | August 18, 2009 2:27 PM
Donohoe provides an email link to the CEO of Showtime.
Matthew.Blank@Showtime.net
I dropped him a note telling him I was looking forward to the show on the Vatican and thanking him in advance for his continued support of Penn and Teller.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 18, 2009 2:28 PM
HA!!! Bill's angry! (Say... The show about Mother T... Oh yea, BILL WAS IN IT!)
I'll be watching.
Posted by: PaleGreenPantsWithNobodyInsideThem | August 18, 2009 2:28 PM
Posted by: firemancarl | August 18, 2009 2:32 PM
Welp, it finally happened. Bill got hit by that big ass truck called Penn & Teller. So, now Penn & Teller have been added to the list of people that will bring down Donohues' cult where men wear funny hats. How do I get on that list?
Posted by: Lyle | August 18, 2009 2:33 PM
I look forward to Penn & Tellers latest season of Bullshit being released on DVD. (I don't get Showtime.) I also look forward to Donohue's book hitting the dollar stores.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country are NOT Bill Donohue, so why doesn't he just sit down and shut up?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 18, 2009 2:34 PM
I was wondering what that warm breeze was.
Posted by: Sastra | August 18, 2009 2:36 PM
Yes, Penn and Teller are gentle-spoken, retiring types, and this criticism will cut them to the core. How kind of Donohue to warn their fans in advance!
"Defame" Catholics, by pointing out absurdities in doctrine and church? No, it's fair game to criticize ideas and politics. Sort of like criticizing -- oh, atheists and secularism?
A lot of people seem to think that this ban on government interference with religion can be gotten around by having the students voluntarily lead their own prayer. But as long as the school insists that the other kids have to stop what they're doing, watch, and listen to the students who are voluntarily leading their own prayer, then it's not voluntary, and it's not everyone's "own" prayer. There is no Constitutional right to Watched-Prayer.
Posted by: Sili
|
August 18, 2009 2:37 PM
I seeee ...So telling them to stop makes them try even harder. So what exactly do you think'll happen now that you're telling them to shut up again?
Hmmmm ... what's that thing about doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome?
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 2:37 PM
My heart fills with glee each time I get to witness that blowhard Donohue come unglued. It'll take all day for me to be able to wipe the smirk off my face!
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 2:38 PM
You couldn't work it out from the frothy rain o' spittle?
Posted by: skyotter | August 18, 2009 2:38 PM
almost (but not quite) makes me want to get cable just for Penn and Teller's BS. i'll be looking for the DVD for this!
Posted by: Cylux | August 18, 2009 2:40 PM
Oh he didn't keep mum about them, no, he instead tried to play them down, telling one of the actual victims that the abuse was not in fact as bad as everyone was making out. That the abuse was not so much child rape as 'not getting enough cuddles'. When the victim called him out on his outrageous misrepresentations he resorted to hand-waving sectarianism by claiming that the protestants where just as bad and that people where unfairly targeting the catholic church. Keeping his trap shut would have been an improvement.Posted by: PeterKarim | August 18, 2009 2:40 PM
"Adult Content."
Like what ? A naked man tortured to death on a cross ?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 2:40 PM
Thankfully, the founding fathers saw no need to place a religious endorsement on this country... in fact they did everything they could to prevent exactly such a sentiment. National religious endorsement = state sponsored prejudice. To insist upon such a thing might be the most un-American thing I've ever heard of.
Ahh... nothing like a fresh batch of argument ad populum to get your logical fallacy gears a-grindin'...
Posted by: Paul Lamb | August 18, 2009 2:40 PM
I've always wondered what is meant by the term "Christian nation." If it means simply that the predominant faith group in the country is Christian, then, okay, it is, but that doesn't mean much. If it means that the nation ought to be ruled by "Christian" laws and held to "Christian" standards, then whose version of Christianity will be used? How far does this "Christian nation" definition go?
Posted by: Anti.theist | August 18, 2009 2:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EwfaHMHdfo
It does not take a Penn Teller to know Bill D is a dip shit.
Posted by: astroboy | August 18, 2009 2:41 PM
Doo Shabag @ 11:
Lovely idea. I just did the same.
Posted by: nkb | August 18, 2009 2:41 PM
Well, one good thing about Billy's rant: I am going to make a point of watching Bullshit (I usually don't).
Posted by: Doo Shabag | August 18, 2009 2:42 PM
Woah! I actually got a personal response from Showtime CEO Matthew Blank about 5 minutes after I sent my note. Or from his email address at least. Short and sweet:
"Thank you very much [name deleted].... matt"
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 2:42 PM
Yep. He needs to learn about the Streisand effect. Or not.
Posted by: amphiox | August 18, 2009 2:43 PM
#19: "My heart fills with glee each time I get to witness that blowhard Donohue come unglued"
How brilliant! The secret to perpetual joy!
Posted by: john | August 18, 2009 2:43 PM
#6: try yidio
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 18, 2009 2:44 PM
No no you've got it all wrong. The USA is a Christian nation because it was founded by Christians for Christians. It's the same reason the USA is a rich white male slave owner's nation.
I wish you people would get your history right.
Posted by: Lana | August 18, 2009 2:44 PM
He's only justified in being half offended. That Teller guy never says anything rude about anyone.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 18, 2009 2:44 PM
Now what are you talking about, he wears a skirt!...it is a skirt, right?
Posted by: Lyle | August 18, 2009 2:45 PM
Donohue says to contact Matthew Blank, the Chairman and CEO of Showtime at Matthew.Blank@Showtime.net. I think we should do just that, and express our support for Penn & Teller and their show. If you do contact Mr Blank, be sure to CC the Catholic League at cl@CatholicLeague.org.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 2:45 PM
Hmmm... interesting leap of logic there... might be nothing more than Penn noticing a topless woman on the streets outside of the vatican and yelling "holy shit, look at the size of those tits!" Now how could that be defamatory to catholics?
Indeed... even if they were to portray a skit whereby a catholic priest is yelling out obscenities whilst taking advantage of an alter boy, it meets the criteria of "Graphic Language and Adult Content".. but is it truly defamatory when one depicts representations of real events? I think not...
Posted by: John Swindle | August 18, 2009 2:46 PM
A year or so ago, when Kathy Griffin was having a dust-up with the Catholic League, she said she was getting a lot of flak, and was starting to worry... then she found out that the Catholic League is some guy with a computer. Perspective.
Posted by: Kimi | August 18, 2009 2:46 PM
I love Bullshit. Penn and Teller are true critical thinkers, as well as being funny as hell. I can't wait for this episode.
Posted by: formosus
|
August 18, 2009 2:47 PM
Wow. I loved Penn and Teller before, and now I love them even more. Let's find Billy Boy's fallacies:
1. Fatwa Envy
2. Hasn't even seen it
3. Speaks for noone but himself
4. Anyone who disagrees with him is a "bigot"
5. Quote Mining
6. Quote fabrication ([sexual] kicks, as opposed to simple thrills)
Holy shit. This looks epic. It's a shame that I don't have showtime, or even access to showtime. Guess I'll have to scour the intertubes for a release of this before I can get it on DVD. I can't wait.
On a similar note, why do people still listen to Bill Donahue? Most catholics don't think like him at all, and he gets offended at everything. Stupid rants like this helped me overcome my catholocism. Thanks bill!
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 2:47 PM
Yeah, but he smiles sometimes... And sometimes, he almost smirks...
(/Yeah, that's right Donohue... He's smirking at you. We all are, actually... I think ya'd better buy another ad...)
Posted by: Rich Stage | August 18, 2009 2:47 PM
Donohue can't learn to say when.
His head's up his ass yet again!
He thinks they're a prize,
but he picked the wrong guys -
Teller and his partner Penn
Old Bill's gonna learn the hard way
his religion's becoming passe.
But he'll still be a pawn
when he finds his god gone.
He'll be on his knees everyday
Posted by: Sastra | August 18, 2009 2:49 PM
Lana #34 wrote:
Yeah, but all the really mean ideas are his.
Posted by: tsg | August 18, 2009 2:53 PM
Oh, Jesus Christ, Bill, shut the fuck up already. If you don't want people ridiculing your beliefs, believe less ridiculous things.
Posted by: Pablo | August 18, 2009 2:54 PM
I'm wondering, what is Bill Donohue's position on displaying "the ten commandments" in government facilities?
Because, as far as I've seen, every 10C display actually shows the protestant version, and is not consistent with the version in the Catholic catechism.
Being the strong Catholic adherent that he is, I am wondering how he deals with the imposition of non-catholic religion?
Posted by: Ephemeriis | August 18, 2009 2:55 PM
It's Pen & Teller ... don't they pretty much poke fun at and offend just about everything? Isn't that kind of what they do?
Posted by: formosus
|
August 18, 2009 2:56 PM
@Stanton #7
He didn't keep mostly mum. He defended the actions of the rapist priests. He is a sick, sick fucker.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 18, 2009 2:58 PM
"Just recently, Jillette took after me again in his usual foul way. That doesn't matter,"
Gee, Bill, then why'd you bring it up?
Posted by: Mena | August 18, 2009 2:59 PM
"How do we know it will defame Catholics? Because on the show's website, it says so: There is a Showtime Advisory for "Graphic Language, Adult Content." "
Apparently he has never watched the waxing (or any other) episode, has he? Gotta quote Penn's catch phrase both from that episode and toward ol' Bill: "And then there's *this* asshole."
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Isn't ironic that people like Donohue always claim their beliefs are under attack? Of course they'd cared if someone else belief or non-belief goes under fire. Oh the hypocrisy.
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 3:00 PM
Bill-O [Donohue] the Clown just put a smile on my face with his foolish antics.
Here's to the lighter side of Irish Catholicism!
(Now to get me a pint. That is the 7th sacrament, after all.)
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 3:04 PM
@25
Bingo. The fatuousness of a Catholic making this argument simply boggles the mind.
Posted by: Mike | August 18, 2009 3:04 PM
"Donohue insists the United States should be considered unequivocally a Christian country. "
This reminds me of an article that I read the other day in the Globe and Mail titled "Neither practising nor believing, but Catholic even so ". The key fact...more than 80% of Quebeckers still declare themselves Catholics, however, only 6%. This generalizes to other 'religious cultures',people label themselves with a religion for cultural reasons only. I wonder how much of Bill's "unequivocally a Christian country" would fall under this category?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/neither-practising-nor-believing-but-catholic-even-so/article1252792/
Posted by: Mike | August 18, 2009 3:06 PM
Apologies...that should read:
The key fact...more than 80% of Quebeckers still declare themselves Catholics, however, only 6% attend mass on a regular basis.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 18, 2009 3:08 PM
Darn I don't have cable! It would be fun to see what Penn & Teller do with some crackers.
Posted by: Uriel | August 18, 2009 3:08 PM
As if this was only their first offense!
Why, just the other day I was watching a show on Showtime that contained constant assaults the Church, Catholicism, and the Pope! I think it was called "The Tudors."
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 3:10 PM
Patricia--
Whoa, there! Not sure I want to see a Cracker naked. Though that red hair is cute.
Posted by: Grendels Dad | August 18, 2009 3:11 PM
This Donahue guy is a classic. He thinks “There is no legitimate place for this kind of frontal assault on any demographic group.” But his underhanded, insideous, smile out one side of his face while angry streams of invective pour from the other, style is just peachy.
In Bill’s world you can gleefuly commit acts that would have made Torquemada blush, as long as you smile and don’t say anything harsher than ‘gosh darn!’ while you are at it. (And maybe pray for forgiveness afterwords. You know, god probably heard you say ‘gosh darn’, and for some reason naughty language makes the omnipotent creator of the universe sad.) But it seems that for Donahue the acts themselves are not as important as the appearance of civility.
Posted by: Jim | August 18, 2009 3:12 PM
Bill Donahue is outraged. In other news, Sun Rises in East. He doesn't really speak for anyone other than himself and seems to appeal more to fundgelicals rather than to the Catholics he's nominally defending.
-----------------
How do we know it will defame Catholics? Because on the show's website, it says so: There is a Showtime Advisory for "Graphic Language, Adult Content."
And The Passion of the Christ was...
Posted by: tsg | August 18, 2009 3:12 PM
Ok, Bill. I'll make you a deal: as soon as you and the thirty-some-odd thousand other sects can agree on what Christianity is, then we'll talk about whether or not this is a "Christian Nation"1. Until then, shut the fuck up.
1. Spoiler: It's still not.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 18, 2009 3:12 PM
@Mike #54: Yea, people are big here on saying they're catholic and then doing everything that catholics aren't supposed to do.
Usually you get the sentence "I believe there's a higher plane" or "Science can't explain everything" or "Ghosts exist!" out of them.
Posted by: Charles | August 18, 2009 3:15 PM
Mmm... Dead carpenters... Yum...
Posted by: Dexter M.
|
August 18, 2009 3:15 PM
Is this the same catholic church that burned heretics at the stake? It seems they have a very long history of reacting badly to criticism. Thankfully they don't have the power or control to literally attack Penn and Teller. Instead they whine to cable TV channels.
A quick aside, are there any estimates on how many people were burned by the church when it had the ability to do so?
Posted by: Josh | August 18, 2009 3:17 PM
But, but...Bill doesn't believe ridiculous things!
He has THE TRUTHTM
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 3:17 PM
@61
I never understood that sh**. Maybe it gives them warm fuzzies.
I'm tired of that science can't explain everything excuse. It's meaningless. No appreciation for rigor...
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 18, 2009 3:18 PM
As a testament to how irrelevant Bill Donahue really is, I was a catholic for 20-odd years and never heard of the guy or his League before Pharyngula.
slacktivist on Sunday
Posted by: dNorrisM | August 18, 2009 3:18 PM
I always take Bozell's endorsements seriously. He is just too funny, although I don't think he has ever had a second of fun in his life.
GOOD!!
Expelled!
BAAD!
Nurse Jackie
Weeds
The Simpsons
Family Guy
The Da-Vinci code
etc.
Posted by: PixelFish | August 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Well, now I have even more envy for my bf, who gets to see Penn and Teller live in Vegas in about two and a half weeks.
Go, Penn and Teller!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 18, 2009 3:28 PM
I know we aren't supposed to call religious people stupid, it's just religion thatis stupid. But, it is so hard not to call them stupid when they can't get the prayer in school thing right.
Let's make it simple so that even they understand it:
When kids pray to themselves it's okay.
When teachers lead the prayer, it's not.
If we could make them write that on the blackboard 1000 times they may finally get it.
(Of course that would hamper their fundraising ability as a "persecuted" majority.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | August 18, 2009 3:29 PM
I hear that Teller is so traumatized by Donahue's attack that he can no longer speak.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 3:31 PM
Come to think of it, that really shoulda been the title of this post...
(/Hurries off to make one of those himself...)
... and re...
Posted by: mattb | August 18, 2009 3:31 PM
Well I can't wait to fill my "anti-Catholic bigot" stomach.
Posted by: Brian | August 18, 2009 3:31 PM
Compare this quotation from his rant with the title of his book.
"There is no legitimate place for this kind of frontal assault on any demographic group"
"Secular Sabotage: How Liberals are Destroying Religion and Culture in America"
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 18, 2009 3:32 PM
I find exquisite irony in a conservative man of faith saying this: "...There is no legitimate place for this kind of frontal assault on any demographic group...", and then proceeding to write a book that does exactly that, except agaisnt his own personal bugaboos.
"As a testament to how irrelevant Bill Donahue really is, I was a catholic for 20-odd years and never heard of the guy or his League before Pharyngula..."
Same here. I was Roman Catholic up until a few years ago and had only heard of BD starting in 2004 through his frequent showings on talking head shows on cable news. Not having heard of him doesn't necessarily mean a person is thus irrelevant, but judging by BD's frothings, perhaps he should be.
Posted by: Joseph Kelly | August 18, 2009 3:33 PM
"Again, what that means is that the government is out of the god business (or should be, ideally), and individual Americans get to worship or not worship as they want."
With a president who opposes equal rights for gays, I think it's clear that the white house is still a house of god. (How can a black person not understand minority rights issues?) He gives lip service to "non-believers", but let's not be disarmed so easily.
Posted by: AlanWCan | August 18, 2009 3:33 PM
[JARRING CHORD]...except atheists. Atheists and gays. Gays and atheists ... and protestants.Amongst the demographic groups for which there is no legitimate place for this kind of frontal assault are a number of exceptions including such diverse elements as atheists and gays and protestants...and jews and liberals and intellectuals ... and we have nice red uniforms.
Posted by: Jim | August 18, 2009 3:34 PM
Is this the same catholic church that burned heretics at the stake?
Bill Donahue =/= Catholic Church
It seems they have a very long history of reacting badly to criticism. Thankfully they don't have the power or control to literally attack Penn and Teller. Instead they whine to cable TV channels.
Agree with that. However, it might interest you to know that the best example of this, the Inquisition, mostly concerned secret heresy rather than public criticism.
A quick aside, are there any estimates on how many people were burned by the church when it had the ability to do so?
Technically, none (or at most a few). The condemned were typically turned over to the secular authorities after their trial and auto da fe. Thus, the Church did not have blood on its hands. (derisive snort)
Couple of interesting links:
The case for the prosecution.
And the defense.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 18, 2009 3:35 PM
@Not a gator #65
I'm tired of that science can't explain everything excuse. It's meaningless. No appreciation for rigor...
Don't look at me. I don't get it either. It baffles me. The next thing I get is usually stories about how they supposedly encountered ghosts themselves.. dogs that won't enter a house, doors slamming, windows shutting down, and BAD FEELIIINGS.
Posted by: adam | August 18, 2009 3:35 PM
Wow, Matt Blank email'd me back within 20 minutes!
Dear Mr Blank,
Thank you for ShowTime's continual support of the Penn & Teller show Bullshit. This is the main reason I subscribed Showtime orginally, and your great programming such as Dexter and Weeds have kept me subscribed and a fan.
Thanks again,
Adam
Thank you Adam matt
Posted by: Jim | August 18, 2009 3:36 PM
D'oh. This is the correct link for auto da fe.
Posted by: Damien Trotter | August 18, 2009 3:38 PM
Dexter M. #63
Check this out:
http://www.buckcash.com/opinions/temp/Christian_Crimeline.htm
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 3:38 PM
... Come to think of it, 'And then there's *this* asshole' would also make a pretty good title for a blog, if it hasn't been done already...
(/Hurries off to register...)
Posted by: Justin | August 18, 2009 3:38 PM
Apparently Bill doesn't understand the Streisand Effect. Bitching about before it airs just increases the viewership. Thanks Bill.
Posted by: Kome | August 18, 2009 3:38 PM
Is it really so impossible for the right-wing conservative Christians to at least toy with the idea that Obama got elected because God wanted Obama to be elected? I mean, if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, blah blah blah, and has direct input in what goes on in the world, than isn't it pretty much a given that God is responsible for whomever gets elected president? It's all part of His plan and all that jazz? So by being ticked off that Obama got elected, aren't they really saying they disagree with God's plan and think they know better than God how the world should be run?
I mean, it's one thing for them to shake their impotent tiny fists of rage at other people. People are flawed. But to openly criticize and be hateful of God's plan like that... pretty ballsy move for people who claim to obey His divine authority and follow Him.
Posted by: John Sabotta | August 18, 2009 3:40 PM
As long as we're sharing opinions about Catholics, Myers, here's an opinion of mine I'd like to share:
Scientists are whores, and will do anything, fake data or lie like rugs if it will get them another hit of that sweet, sweet grant money. When not engaged in sucking off the state, scientists give their unwanted opinions on political, cultural and religious matters they are completely incapable of understanding. The political affiliations of a gang of nekulturny test-tube washers are unimportant, but I’d guess that those who are not crypto-Commies are crypto-Nazis (see “race realists”, Watson, etc) or both simultaneously, with a sprinkling of outright maniacs.
Of course you'd like Penn and Teller.
Posted by: andyinsdca | August 18, 2009 3:45 PM
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Donohoe in giving controversy (ie: free publicity) to P&Ts excellent show.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 18, 2009 3:45 PM
@John Sabotta #85: I laughed. A lot. :P
Posted by: Eric B | August 18, 2009 3:46 PM
"Why can't our children pray in school? How did we just elect a president who insisted the United States ought not to be considered a Christian nation?"
I am so tired of hearing this crap. I, as an administrator in a high school, find this sentiment total crap. I am sure that the people in my community DO NOT want my students praying or learning religion from me....and I sure as heck do not want my sons to pray or hear religious teachings from the administrators in their schools. I guess if he had it his way, all teachers/administrators would be the KIND OF CHRISTIAN he is, and all others be damned.
If you want to be able to practice your religion, I think that is great...knock yourself out. That is what Freedom of/for Religion means.....just do not push your beliefs on me...I have freedom too. And believe me, I do not push / nor mention my beliefs to my students...not my job. My job is to create a learning environment where students learn math, science, language, etc.
Posted by: anon | August 18, 2009 3:46 PM
Thanks John I was having a bad day, but that conspiracy rant had me laughing so hard I'm crying.
Posted by: abys | August 18, 2009 3:47 PM
I really wish all of you saw Penn and Teller's episode on Organic Foods. They (and a bunch of extras) all dress up like they're at the last supper and slowly kill off all the apostles, named after the supposed benefits of organic food. The last surviving apostle is "taste" they they claim is subjective so they really don't do anything to her.
'Taste' winds up being a topless dancer that then prances and shimmies around Penn (who is dressed as Jesus).
They really are OUR kind of people. :)
Posted by: Longstreet63 | August 18, 2009 3:48 PM
@85 John
You forgot the fame, social position, fancy sports cars and of course, the wild sex orgies with groupies that are the real reaszons people get PhD's in Science.
And, of course, the chance to build death rays, and/or complex machines built out of coconuts.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 3:48 PM
Oops, we've got a live one with John Sabotta.
Yeah JS, makes perfect sense. Scientists are whores. Just remember that the next time you drink clean water, store food in your refrigerator, fly in a plane, take medication, drive your car, use your computer, flush your toilet, wipe your ass, watch TV, or turn on the lights.
Numbnuts.
Posted by: Dexter M.
|
August 18, 2009 3:50 PM
@85
Whores, liars, nazis, and maniacs. Please John tell us what you really think.
Posted by: The Other Elwood | August 18, 2009 3:50 PM
Well, I cannot fault Donahue for trying on this one. I must confess that I am positively thrilled by the notion that sponsors are starting to avoid Glenn Beck like the plague, with a dozen or so companies pulling their ads.
Showtime is a premium network. It is not included with basic service. If Showtime feels it is alienating more people than it is drawing in, it should align its programming accordingly. Likewise, if subscribers really think the programming is offensive, they can drop the subscription. I am sure the bean counters will figure it out.
Posted by: John Sabotta | August 18, 2009 3:51 PM
Oh, and here's something for all the brave defenders of free speech - Donohue isn't the government, he can't pass laws, and he can't have anyone thrown in jail. Therefore he can't "censor" anyone, unless you've decided to redefine "expressing disapproval" as censorship. Which would be typical of you.
So, no, the dark night of superstitious tyranny has not yet descended on the asshole two-bit magician.
Posted by: Maria | August 18, 2009 3:51 PM
A little OT, but I'm thrilled to hear you celebrate Christmas. I get all sorts of smart ass comments from my Catholic family about my love of Christmas. As far as I'm concerned it's a wonderful holiday, an excuse for a party every night for nearly a month, and leads to people giving to charities. Why not celebrate?
Posted by: heliobates | August 18, 2009 3:51 PM
Not really. He's one of those internet homeless people wafting piss and dandruff from 15 feet away. We may feel a deep, personal sense of shame, but there really isn't much we can do to help him.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 3:52 PM
And, of course, the chance to build death rays...Fools! I'll show them all!
(/President, Allied Mad Scientists, Outright Maniacs, and Entertainingly Unhinged Doctoral Candidates, Local No. 332...)
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 3:54 PM
So that's what it was. I thought I smelled something a bit "off".
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 3:54 PM
There... whew... fixed that for ya... makes MUCH more sense now...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 18, 2009 3:54 PM
You're opinion sure. But it's a shitty uniformed one.
Posted by: bill donohue | August 18, 2009 3:55 PM
Hey, PZ,
Not to worry, you were mentioned as a secular saboteur in the concluding chapter. Thanks for the PR.
Bill Donohue
Posted by: Dawn | August 18, 2009 3:56 PM
Don't forget the Trophy Wife (tm)! Won't someone Please think of the Trophy Wives out there?
Posted by: MrFire | August 18, 2009 3:56 PM
Wouldn't matter if the day comes when ten out of ten are. The Constitution is explicitly secular.
Ann Coulter would be proud.
Posted by: Samantha | August 18, 2009 3:56 PM
Actually, even Bullshit episode I've watched so far (all of this current season and parts of seasons 1 and 5) has both "Adult Content" (topless and/or naked woman/women) and "Graphic Language" (start with the name of the show and continue). People are generally described as assholes and the word fuck is about as common as "the". In EVERY episode.
Donahue is making it sound like they're getting some kind of special dispensation to add all this "immoral" stuff to the show just for this episode but what he's describing is what they do every show. Considering they've tackled Astrology, ESP, Creationism, PETA, Walmart hatred, "Family Values", Organic Food and Taxes, all with the same loving disrespect, cursing and random boob shots... Well, he's obviously a little cracked if he expects anyone who knows anything about the show to be shocked and offended over just the language and "adult content".
Personally, I'm looking forward to it and I have been since the start of the season.
Posted by: Lynna | August 18, 2009 3:57 PM
If it doesn't matter, Bill, why mention it?
Posted by: heliobates | August 18, 2009 3:59 PM
It's the drama. Donohue is the envy of every drag queen I know.
Posted by: Lynna | August 18, 2009 3:59 PM
Bill Donahue @102
Hooray! PZ, your title is expanding. To "Firebrand" and "militant atheist" and all the other encomiums, we can now add "Secular Saboteur."
Posted by: MrFire | August 18, 2009 4:01 PM
#102:
I call fake.
Posted by: Whateverman | August 18, 2009 4:02 PM
What a self-important prick he is. I don't agree with everything you say, PZ, but I've always felt you were spot-on with your assessments of Mr. Donohue. This latest entry is no exception.
Posted by: adam | August 18, 2009 4:02 PM
@102 -
Isn't it depressing that you can't simply burn the heretics anymore, and are reduced to writing silly books for your god?
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 4:02 PM
But alas, are we still only known as "the hoard"? *sigh*
Posted by: raven | August 18, 2009 4:02 PM
Why would anyone care about your opinion? You are clearly mentally ill, a troll, stupid, and a xian.
Science created 21st century civilization and increased lifespans 30 years in the USA in a century. Among many other things. What in the hell have you fundies ever accomplished? Nothing. You are just dust in the gears of history and losing members to the bright side by the millions.
Posted by: steve | August 18, 2009 4:03 PM
Or at least stop believing them in public.
Posted by: John Sabotta | August 18, 2009 4:06 PM
Whores, liars, nazis, and maniacs
Not quite right, "Dexter"! Scientists are whores, liars, nazis, commies and one or two maniacs. Please quote me correctly.
Offer our man Myers enough government funding and he'll find all kinds of proof for a 2000 year old Earth.
Another one of you defenders of reason accused me of believing in a conspiracy. Not at all! There's no conspiracy involved. Are all those haggard looking people wandering up and down the streets offering $20 blowjobs there because of a conspiracy to lower the cost of oral sex? No, they are crackheads, that's all. Is PZ Myers involved in a conspiracy? No, he's a scientist, that's all. (As a biologist, PZ Myers occupies a social niche somewhat lower than a crackhead.)
Posted by: tracieh | August 18, 2009 4:08 PM
>There is no legitimate place for this kind of frontal assault on any demographic group.
Yea, and who knows better than a male Catholic authority figure that the only legitimate form of assault is a rear assault?
And the "gay conspiracy"--is that where homosexuals gather together to beat up guys coming out of strip clubs?
Posted by: The Uppity Atheist | August 18, 2009 4:08 PM
AJ Milne said,
Thanks for the idea.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 4:09 PM
Why can't the majority just impose its will tyrannically on the minorities?
Why did those founders have to form a secular republic?
Why do we have a friggen Constitution?
Posted by: Longstreet63 | August 18, 2009 4:12 PM
@98 AJ Milne
And, of course, the chance to build death rays...
Fools! I'll show them all!
____________________________________
Did they call you mad?
Won't somebody please call us mad?
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 18, 2009 4:12 PM
@115: 2000 years old?! I like you. You're even out of the creationist mold. :P
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 4:14 PM
JS - go easy on the huffing. It'll rot your brain almost as bad as your ancient superstition.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 4:14 PM
I love it when Donohue foams at the mouth like this. It's funny that he thinks Catholics are the only group at whom bigotry is aimed.
And I look forward to a Bullshit episode about Islam. 'Cuz it's bullshit that they wouldn't go after Muslims for fear of violent reprisal. Hell, Bill Maher criticizes Islam all the time. Plenty of other critics and humorists do so as well.
Posted by: heliobates | August 18, 2009 4:15 PM
Okay John, you win:
"How do you get to Carnegie Hall"
But I'm not pulling your finger.
Posted by: Anri | August 18, 2009 4:15 PM
You know, John Sabotta is right!
Scientists and all of their works are bad, bad, bad!
Like computers!
Especially computers!
So, tell you what, John S, if ever you see a computer, stay away from it. Stay away!
Don't touch it!
It's *concentrated* evil!
Ok? Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Jesse | August 18, 2009 4:17 PM
@116 tracieh
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to spit my drink out in laughter.
-
The hypocrisy displayed over this cable tv show is beyond ridiculous. But what else would we expect from Mr. Donohue.
Posted by: John Sabotta | August 18, 2009 4:17 PM
Mr. lose the woo has what he thinks is a crushing defence:
Yeah JS, makes perfect sense. Scientists are whores. Just remember that the next time you drink clean water, store food in your refrigerator, fly in a plane, take medication, drive your car, use your computer, flush your toilet, wipe your ass, watch TV, or turn on the lights.
Guess what! I pay for things like clean water, refrigeration and airplane trips! So I don't have to be grateful at all, do I? (Still, probably I should think of PZ Myers every time I wipe my ass.)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 4:18 PM
John Sabotta
If you're done railing about science and scientists now, you can get the fuck off the computer that science has provided you and find a tool more befitting your intellect.
I suggest a spatula.
Posted by: dinkum | August 18, 2009 4:18 PM
Damn, John, when they were giving out headfuckings, you went through the line a few times.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 18, 2009 4:20 PM
Maybe Penn & Teller plan to show what priests have traditionally done to altar boys?
Posted by: gypsytag | August 18, 2009 4:20 PM
But alas, are we still only known as "the hoard"? *sigh*
or "the whored".
...by those want to tatoo the atheist "A" on our collective asses, but alas this is not a christian country.
jefferson lives!!!
Posted by: Keenacat
|
August 18, 2009 4:20 PM
John Sobotta, you are totally free to return your life to all of its pre-scientist-glory.
Start by skipping The Intertubes and your pc/laptop/iWhatever already.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 4:21 PM
But they've reformed now. In an act of reformation they've created a new oversight committee. This committee will be primarily in charge of counseling of the catholic male youth who have been violated. Their motto is "We won't leave the young boy's behind".
Posted by: tsg | August 18, 2009 4:21 PM
Nice strawman. The word "censor" didn't even appear on this page until you typed it.
Posted by: bilbo | August 18, 2009 4:22 PM
I can't help this one:
- PZ posts this quote as a plus: "And President Obama got elected because he avoided offending people with religious sensibilities and has only said that the US is a secular nation with religious liberty. Again, what that means is that the government is out of the god business (or should be, ideally), and individual Americans get to worship or not worship as they want. It's really not hard to understand, unless of course, you make a living by stirring up people's outrage by pretending not to understand."
-...but just a few lines above, he says that his aim is to "diminish religion."
So religious liberty should be applauded - except when we're diminishing religion, and then our goal is to stomp it out. Hypocrisy, anyone?
I also liked the little part about how stupid someone is if they "make a living by stirring up people's outrage." Wow. Double hypocrisy points! NICE!
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 4:22 PM
Lyle @ 15:
Heh, come to think of it, since there are a lot more Protestants than Catholics in the U.S., why can't we have specifically Protestant prayers in our public schools? How did we elect a Protestant president who wants to respect the rights of Catholic citizens?
Posted by: amphiox | August 18, 2009 4:22 PM
#126:
Yes, you do. You pay a very, very small amount of money for those things. Without science you'd be paying either a whole lot more money for those things, or an infinite amount of money if you wanted those things, since they would not exist.
Also, without science (papermaking, printing, metallurgy, economics, etc), there'd be no money, either.
Posted by: raven | August 18, 2009 4:23 PM
Gee John, you seem to know a lot about the absolute bottom rung of the social ladder. Really, if you take your medication and try real hard, you could get out of the homeless shelters and off the street. And if you cleaned up a little, maybe you could charge more than $20 for a blow job.
If you hate modern civilization that much, why are you using a computer on the internet? Devices that are products of science. It is a free country. You could always grab a spear and head out into the outback for a career as a hunter-gather. No crack or $20 blowjobs, but no doctors either nagging you to take your meds. It could be a step up from the homeless shelters and under the overpasses that you call home.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | August 18, 2009 4:25 PM
Like I'd WANT to pay money for it. And my wish-list from my public library is long enough as it is without wasting time on this ass-clown. I'll stick with books I know I'll enjoy, like the new Dawkins book.Posted by: R. Schauer | August 18, 2009 4:26 PM
Man, I wish Penn and Teller would come to Minneapolis...I'd see them in a New York minute! Fricken heroes to me.
BD, what a dope! I hope there's some blowback from his shit.
(...turns to check plane fares to Vegas)
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
August 18, 2009 4:26 PM
You might enjoy these few lines I've scribbled on the subject, including:
It's amusing, almost trite,
That prattle 'bout a child's right
To pray in class, if he's neglected
To review (e.g.) how folks get elected.
Parent or preacher, all can attest,
That prayer, uttered just before a test,
Isn't just spiritually misleading,
It's prideful, lazy special pleading!
So go ahead, young children, Pray!
(You'll write those exams anyway.)
Its not the private prayer that breaches
What your Constitution teaches.
Rather it's the willful pressure
Of elites on the less 'elect' or less-sure
That, when "teaching" bible verses,
Does not instruct, but more coerces.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 4:27 PM
bilbo @ 134:
Nope, no hypocrisy. And this isn't that hard to understand either.
There is a difference between using one's freedom of speech to persuade people to abandon their religions, and calling for the government to force people to abandon their religions. The former respects religious liberty and engages in it. The latter does not respect religious liberty and seeks tyranny.
Very simple.
Posted by: Anri | August 18, 2009 4:29 PM
bilbo sez:
"So religious liberty should be applauded - except when we're diminishing religion, and then our goal is to stomp it out. Hypocrisy, anyone?"
Um, no.
I do not want to force my viewpoint on anyone.
I want people to have religious liberty. In fact, I think they deserve it, intrinsically.
I do hope that they exercise it by choosing not to accept bronze-age myths as cosmic truths, but if they want to, they can.
Just so long as they don't demand the same of me.
And, of course, bilbo knows this - he's just being...
What's the word I'm looking for here...?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 4:30 PM
Woo-hoo! Troll tag-team!
You get zero points for reading comprehension, and negative 10 points for inventing premises... PZ did not state this as a "plus", merely as a refutation of a point made by Bozell the clown... you do know the difference, don't you?
but wait... your ignorance is far from complete...
And since PZ is not a member of, nor a representative of the US Government, this has fuck-all to do with the quote above, exactly?
I know it's been said to you before, but you really need to hear it again, bilbo... you suck at analogies.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 18, 2009 4:30 PM
To all those saying he doesn't understand the Streisand effect, an alternative hypothesis: he understands very well and doesn't give a fuck. Manufacturing outrage is his business; what does it matter if he helps out the blasphemers.
Of course he might just be an idiot, but there's no reason to rule the "cynical bastard" hypothesis out of hand.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 4:30 PM
JS @ 126
That was your argument? You must breathe with your mouth open. That would be my bet.
Those things wouldn't exist without the hard earned knowledge of science. Therefore, you wouldn't be able to pay for them.
Posted by: Will Corwin | August 18, 2009 4:30 PM
[quote]Not quite right, "Dexter"! Scientists are whores, liars, nazis, commies and one or two maniacs. Please quote me correctly.[/quote]
1. You can't be both an atheist and a nazi. That would require a devout belief in the catholic god.
2. I am not a whore, i just maximize my reproductive potential.
3. Communists are actually very warm and fuzzy on the inside. Not the twisted, Stalin version the world thinks of. So, before you start preaching about communism you should probably go find out what communism actually is. You're thinking of totalitarianism, it's that thing that the U.S. named communism to create a positice public opinion. Another one of those "Red Scare" policies was putting the phrase "under god" in the pledge fyi. (I don't support communism. I just disparage idiocy)
4. I don't even know where to begin with liars... so here's a link for my explanation. http://www.biblegateway.com/
5. President Bush was an alcoholic which is pretty much the same niche as a crackhead; therefore, I will concede to you the point that PZ Meyers occupies a lower niche than a crackhead.
Posted by: Keenacat
|
August 18, 2009 4:31 PM
Obviously, bilbo used a long-winding metaphor.
It all comes down to:
bilbo sez: I iz dense.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 4:31 PM
Sadly, less and less, now. I'm not sure what it is...
Mebbe I'm just getting old. It used to be 'Why, you must be mad!!' from the terrified damsel in distress... Now, the most I get is a sorta half-hearted, patronizing, 'Well, aren't you amusingly eccentric...'
The world's moved on, I guess, upped the ante... Used to be a half-decent death ray was all you needed to be a made madman. Now, if you're not releasing a world-devastating plague a la 12 Monkeys, you're small potatoes...
(/Might also be the laugh, it's true... Never really paid attention to that, and I'm starting to worry it needs work... I'm working with the same vocal coach Doctor Horrible used, and sure, that's a nice name to be associated with, but I think even he's starting to give up on me. Most I've ever managed isn't so much an ominnous maniacal cackle... more a bemused titter, really...)
Posted by: Ploon | August 18, 2009 4:33 PM
What a douche. How is it that the US cardinals haven't disavowed this clown yet? Oh yeah, too busy not disavowing the priests, I guess. I'd love to see the moment when the CC takes notice and goes medieval on BOD to save some of its tattered reputation.
Posted by: Gordon | August 18, 2009 4:33 PM
This man defends rapist priests, and something is capable of offending him?
Posted by: rditmars | August 18, 2009 4:33 PM
When did "secular" come to mean "anti-religion" rather than "non-religious" in the minds of so many people?
I remember the Nun teaching my fifth-grade civics class the value of our secular government institutions (I won't tell you how long ago that was.) As an apotheist I really don't care about the god-thing anymore, but why is secularism so strongly associated with atheism today?
Posted by: littlejohn | August 18, 2009 4:34 PM
What? A president doesn't think this is a Christian country?
Oh, yeah. (Retired) president George Washington wrote the Treaty of Tripoli: The United States is in no sense a Christian country...
President John Adams submitted it and the Senate unanimously confirmed it.
Silly me.
Posted by: Czernobog | August 18, 2009 4:34 PM
@ bilbo #134:
You know, you can diminish religion and its influence while retaining freedom of religion.
Posted by: John Sabotta | August 18, 2009 4:34 PM
Amphiox tries to make me feel ashamed at my ingratitude:
Without science you'd be paying either a whole lot more money for those things, or an infinite amount of money if you wanted those things, since they would not exist.
So what? Without crack addiction, the price of back-alley blowjobs might be fifty dollars. Or more! Scientists are useful, just like crackheads are sometimes useful.
Which means Myers and the rest of his colleagues ought to stop pontificating about religion, God and politics, and come up with more stuff for me to use, perhaps justifying all the money they are leeching off everyone else through the government.
Get to work, nerds! Make it snappy! Start thinking of practical $10 blowjob technology, instead of this "global warming" scam.
Posted by: bilbo | August 18, 2009 4:34 PM
I'll agree on that point, but here's another, more relevant to my original one:
Is there a difference between gloating about how important religious liberty is 2 paragraphs below another point in which you gloat about us needing to get rid of it?
There is. You can't talk about how noble and just it is for people to be allowed to practice their religion yet also claim those same people are 'morons' and should 'fuck off' in every other post on your blog. Well, actually you can, but in doing so you become a flaming hypocrite.
Or you could just call it altering your opinions on the fly to match the current moment's argument. Either works, and I'll actually go with the latter.
Posted by: MIKE | August 18, 2009 4:34 PM
@134
Part of the charter to the club I'm forced to belong to by living here says said club will keep its nose out of religious matters. I like that part, and so does PZ, so them following that guideline is good in our opinions. Both of us also would prefer to live in a less religious club, so anything diminishing the religiosity of my neighbors is also good, so long as it's not the club's leadership doing the diminishing.
As for the "make a living by stirring up people's outrage;" PZ makes a living cutting up zebra fish, the outrage thing is just a hobby.
Posted by: Dexter M.
|
August 18, 2009 4:35 PM
@115
John, I didn't quote you, I paraphrased you. Do you understand the difference? I left out commies because it was the least interesting claim you made. I thought the other four were more noteworthy, and silly.
Posted by: raven | August 18, 2009 4:36 PM
Dildo you are a a moron. Xians spend vast sums of money and time trying to spread their religion around. This is legal is a free country.
Why shouldn't the areligious be able to do the same thing? This is also legal in a free country.
I don't believe your claim that you are an atheist or a scientist. You are way too stupid to be anything but a troll.
Posted by: rditmars
|
August 18, 2009 4:36 PM
When did "secular" come to mean "anti-religion" rather than "non-religious" in the minds of so many people?
I remember the Nun teaching my fifth-grade civics class the value of our secular government institutions (I won't tell you how long ago that was.) As an apotheist I really don't care about the god-thing anymore, but why is secularism so strongly associated with atheism today?
Posted by: crewvy | August 18, 2009 4:38 PM
That`s nice of Bill to take out an ad in Variety for Penn and Teller,it should increase the audience ,especially those desperate to be offended.
I can`t wait.
Posted by: Ploon | August 18, 2009 4:38 PM
Oh yeah, I went to Amazon and voted it down on principle (UK version only, unfortunately; I encourage everyone to do the same on the US site).
Posted by: Stanton | August 18, 2009 4:38 PM
They would first need to know who Bill Donohue is first. Religious fanatics use "secularism" as profanity with which to label others that they despise, just like the way "liberal" is used by the vast majority of conservative politicians in the US in the exact same manner Nazi officials used the term "Jew"Posted by: MikeyM | August 18, 2009 4:38 PM
... Come to think of it, 'And then there's *this* asshole' would also make a pretty good title for a blog, if it hasn't been done already...
IIRC, one episode had Penn leading an English-as-a-second-language class, teaching the students the correct pronunciation of exactly that sentence.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 18, 2009 4:39 PM
"Thanks for the PR.
Bill Donohue"
Ah yes, the "I don't care about your criticism, because all publicity is good publicity" act. Interesting that this isn't Bill's attitude toward Penn & Teller's show.
Ok, actually it's not interesting at all. Only feigned outrage brings in the donations.
Posted by: Pablo | August 18, 2009 4:40 PM
Because the religious are losing control. As such, they have to do things to make them sound like they are poor and oppressed. One way to do this is to give the impression that not being allowed to use government resources to promote their religious activities is a form of persecution. Look through the media (coughFoxNewscough) and you discover that most of the examples they give of, "Oh the horror of religious persecution" simplifies to this (not being allowed to use the government to promote christianity)
A great example of this was Bill OReilly's outrage about how "Santa Claus was banned from school" in Oklahoma. Just another sign of the War on Christmas. Darn secularists! Of course, that sounds a lot better than banning a minister who dresses up as Santa Claus and hands out bibles in school, which was the real story.
Posted by: Tulse | August 18, 2009 4:41 PM
Oddly enough, many of those who consider themselves Christian don't consider Catholics to be.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 4:42 PM
bilbo @ 155
:
Nope, not hypocrisy. It is noble and just for the law to allow people to be morons and to allow other people to criticize them for being morons. That's how freedom works.
This isn't difficult to understand. Consider a religious preacher shouting that everyone who does not believe as he believes is a heathen fit for eternal torture. Is he a hypocrite if he also believes that the government should allow freedom of religion? Of course not.
No, you didn't agree, and you didn't make a different point. You made the same point with slightly different wording.
Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | August 18, 2009 4:43 PM
PZ, excellent post today.
Posted by: Czernobog | August 18, 2009 4:43 PM
Yeah, just like it's hypocritical to support freedom of speech and criticise other people's views at the same time. That makes a lot of sense...
Posted by: raven | August 18, 2009 4:44 PM
It's not. Religious kooks like to combine things they hate with atheism for obvious reasons.
Science, evolution, democracy, the ACLU, Jews, Western civilization, The Enlightenment, the Democratic party, and Universal Health Care also get combined with atheism even though they have little or nothing to do with it.
Religious kooks hate secularism because it prevents them from taking power and forcing their wingnut beliefs on other people.
Posted by: Keenacat
|
August 18, 2009 4:44 PM
John, your fixation on backalley-blowjobs seems quite telling.
What is it with nutjobs and sex?
Seriously... Having all the scientific accomplishments around me is pure awesomeness. So is having sex. Sex is awesome.
Not awesome: Mental illness, addiction, forced protitution, abuse and the like. That you suggest advancing the latter three might be a good reason to seek out your nearest mental health specialist right away.
Posted by: Anri | August 18, 2009 4:45 PM
John Sabotta sez:
"Scientists are whores, and will do anything, fake data or lie like rugs if it will get them another hit of that sweet, sweet grant money."
- citation needed
"When not engaged in sucking off the state, scientists give their unwanted opinions on political, cultural and religious matters they are completely incapable of understanding."
Please explain where the current thread's opinions on political, cultural and religious matters betray lack of understanding. Please quote scientists only, as that is who you are railing about. Please site specific examples. Thank you.
"The political affiliations of a gang of nekulturny test-tube washers are unimportant,.."
Do you mean that they are less important than your affiliation?
Are you allowed to vote?
Should they be?
Please explain your answer.
".. but I’d guess that those who are not crypto-Commies are crypto-Nazis (see “race realists”, Watson, etc) or both simultaneously, with a sprinkling of outright maniacs."
- citation needed.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 18, 2009 4:47 PM
err this isn't really true. Hitler always considered himself a Catholic as I understand it, no doubt learned his anti-semitism from the catholic tradition and was certainly a theist (blathering about Providence all the time) but the exact form of his theism was pretty heretical to the RCC. Also an exclusively Catholic fascist movement wouldn't have taken in Germany which was almost half Protestant.Also there probably were some nazis who took there Nietzsche seriously and were atheists.
Still though, Fascism is at heart a Catholic thing - the base of hierarchy and appeals to ancient tradition... There's that there were no successful fascist movements (unless forced by invaders) in Protestant countries
Posted by: tsg | August 18, 2009 4:48 PM
Wrong. I can believe people should be able to make their own decisions and still criticize them for making bad ones. Nothing hypocritical about it at all.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 18, 2009 4:49 PM
Two things to remember about Bill Donohue:
1. He's a professional victim. He makes an extremely good living whining about how everyone is mean to Catholics.
2. As the title of his book suggests, he's a conservative. Being a conservative is probably more important to him than being a Catholic, but the neocon blowhard biz is getting a bit overcrowded these days, so he specializes in being a Catholic blowhard.
Posted by: Ollie | August 18, 2009 4:51 PM
Thanks, Bill! Now I know what to watch on the 27th!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Interesting how John Sabotta knows what the street price for blowjobs is. No, I don't want to know if he's a purchaser or a vendor.
Posted by: Tulse | August 18, 2009 4:53 PM
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Yeah, that Voltaire was a real hypocrite, no?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 18, 2009 4:53 PM
I'm sure Penn&Teller are estatic for Bill's demands. Maybe the Catholic League should sue them...
Sue them bill!!!!
Posted by: bilbo | August 18, 2009 4:54 PM
I also especially like the part about how children should be allowed to pray in school.
Then you read all the past flaming posts about why children shouldn't be allowed to pray in school (even if not school-sponsored).
Glorious, glorious hypocrisy.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 4:56 PM
Bill, you confused old blowhard...
I don't think any publicity you gain here is going to profit you... Penn & Teller, absolutely... so no... thank you....
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 4:58 PM
Indeed. It would normally go without saying... y'know... assuming the congenitally dense were not present... but since they apparently are, generally, the principle of free speech is: yes, I support free speech even for those whose ideas I disagree with... indeed, even of those whose ideas I find abhorrent. It does follow from this that I am required to contest those ideas as well, however...
So I'd comment that that's just about the stupidest thing our 'Bilbo' has written yet, 'cept that the competition's so very, very stiff, there...
Oh, and related... I must however say I find this whole referring to this 'Bilbo' schmuck as 'Dildo' terribly offensive...
I mean, what's wrong with dildos, anyway, that you must profane their name by so associating 'em? Perfectly good sex toys those, seems to me...
I mean, what, I ask you, has a dildo ever done to you?...
Erm... let me rephrase...
(/Kay... so to JS, specifically, just to clarify, this last question is not to be taken literally... In your case especially, I don't really want to know...)
Posted by: tsg | August 18, 2009 4:58 PM
Translation: "my previous bullshit having been ripped to shreds, I will now spout some other"
I notice you don't link to a single one. I hereby predict you will continue to fail to link to a single one even after I ask you to.
Got a link?
Shiny, shiny mirror.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 18, 2009 4:58 PM
Dildo Bugger hasn't forgiven the Pharnygula ilk for not worshipping (and that is the right word) philosophicizing and philosophicizers. So he's come to this thread to whine that PZ is a big meanie towards goddists.
Posted by: MrFire | August 18, 2009 5:00 PM
As Celtic_Evolution and Liveliest Crib pointed out, you don't get it. We want to diminish religion by informing people, and giving them the means to dump it of their own free will. Not by preventing them from worshipping.
In contrast, people like Donohue would like to "increase religion" - not just by evangelizing, but also by entrenching it, unconstitutionally, in legislation.
Posted by: Anri | August 18, 2009 5:00 PM
bilbo sez:
"I'll agree on that point,..."
Thanks. Protip: You'll have to retract fewer points if you think *before* you post, next time.
"...but here's another, more relevant to my original one:
Is there a difference between gloating about how important religious liberty is 2 paragraphs below another point in which you gloat about us needing to get rid of it?
There is. You can't talk about how noble and just it is for people to be allowed to practice their religion yet also claim those same people are 'morons' and should 'fuck off' in every other post on your blog. Well, actually you can, but in doing so you become a flaming hypocrite."
Is there a difference between wanting to see religion end, by people choosing to abandon it, and calling an individual who does moronic things a moron?
There is. We believe in people's right to be publicly stupid in the name of god. And we believe in our right to publicly mock them for it.
Unless, of course, you think that Ol' Don has a point here?
Let's put it this way, bilbo:
Is Donohue being a moron here? If so, why not call him one? If not, please defend his actions.
"Or you could just call it altering your opinions on the fly to match the current moment's argument. Either works, and I'll actually go with the latter."
Actually, we pretty much call Donohue a moron whenever he does things that are moronic. Since he's so consistent in that, we get to be consistent in our response.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 18, 2009 5:02 PM
I wanted to join this organization, but I can't pronounce the acronym.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 5:02 PM
bilbo... is English not your first language? I can find no other explanation for your stupendous reading comprehension failures...
Children should be allowed to pray in schools... quietly, to themselves... at appropriate times when it does not interfere with school activities (if possible). What shouldn't be allowed is a public school's endorsement of specific type of prayer to a specific god, recognized in any specific way, at any specific time that all must be subjected to.
Please try to keep up.
Posted by: Will Corwin | August 18, 2009 5:03 PM
@173
"the exact form of his theism was pretty heretical to the RCC. Also an exclusively Catholic fascist movement wouldn't have taken in Germany which was almost half Protestant."
Mussolini had support from the Pope in exchange for protection. Hitler could have burned a cross in the square and he wouldn't of done anything because of fear.
I do agree that it wouldn't take hold if it was just a catholic fascist movement. But, it was just throw everything that was in germany's way into a collective category marked as enemies of the state. Not so much a targeted attack or movement.
Posted by: Tuxedo Cartman
|
August 18, 2009 5:03 PM
The idea that Penn & Teller are only attacking Catholics is the absolute funniest thing I've read in a while. Those two have gone after every form of superstitious nonsense out there with both barrels in the past. Hell, they have one show each season devoted to picking on the New-Agers (the least annoying of the religions here, in my opinion) But with Donahue throwing a hissy fit, maybe now the crystal-loving hippies will catch a break, and we can get more Bullshit episodes on Ratzinger and Co.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 18, 2009 5:05 PM
bilbo posted:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
[/Inigo Montoya]
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 5:06 PM
Re #180:
Hey! No fucking fair!
(/Refs, please consider that my musing re 'the stupidest thing he's written yet' technically was composed prior to this last offering... Network latency, that's all it was, man! Latency! I demand a mulligan!...)
Posted by: tsg | August 18, 2009 5:07 PM
It's usually pronounced AllMadSciOutManEntUnDocCan.
Posted by: Keenacat
|
August 18, 2009 5:10 PM
Concerning bilbo: Density gets denser.
Children shouldn't be allowed to be forced to pray or even forced to attend prayer as bystanders. They shouldn't be forced to endure having religious BS imposed on them. They should also not be allowed to peruse time that is dedicated to teaching for prayer.
Still, nobody is suggesting to penalize children who do their silent little prayer during break hours.
There - is - no - contradiction.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 5:11 PM
Start thinking of practical $10 blowjob technology, instead of this "global warming" scam. - John Sabotta
Yes, John, yes, we know, the evil scientists invented global warming just so you wouldn't get any sex without paying for it. Yes, John, come on now, take your nice pills, John, calm down, John, calm down, then you can come into the rec room and watch some nice TV.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 5:12 PM
Keenacat @ 194
So what you're saying is that atheists want to make illegal and ban all prayer, everywhere,...especially in schools. Got it.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 5:14 PM
... thing is, the PR type in charge of workshopping it turned out to be quite mad, too...
(/And the weird thing was, she could pronounce it... So we figured we were better of just not arguing that point...)
Posted by: Mu | August 18, 2009 5:16 PM
I always wonder why Donahue and co give so much free advertising to a show they are sure not to want to promote. But it's the same on the small scale, half the time I find out about offending movies, art exhibitions etc. by someone on the church league softball mailing list having an apoplexy about it. It's a bit like using the christian science monitor reviews to find out about good action movies, the more "revolting spectacle" the better the movie.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 18, 2009 5:17 PM
Tis Himself @ 177
"Interesting how John Sabotta knows what the street price for blowjobs is. No, I don't want to know if he's a purchaser or a vendor."
I had the exact same thought!
As for Bill Donohue, your description in #175 is accurate, but I think Donohue's true frustration stems from the fact that the Catholic Church isn't in charge of the entire world and cannot order the execution of miscreants like Penn & Teller by having them burnt at the stake for apostasy.
Posted by: SmoOMggy Batzrubble | August 18, 2009 5:18 PM
A PLEA TO PENN AND TELLER
Please do not hate the Vatican,
Our Pope is really nice you know,
He gives us more than magic can,
For when the fires of Hell below,
Are stoked to cause eternal pain,
Pope Benny tells us how to gain,
Exemption from the suffering throng,
A free pass through the Pearly Gate,
Just tell your priest what you did wrong,
Count out the times you masturbate,
He’ll need to know each filthy act,
He’ll listen hard and not react,
Except perhaps to grunt a bit,
And ask for more explicit stuff,
About the way you rub your clit,
Or why you like your girlfriend’s muff,
And then he’ll give you prayers to say,
And once you’re gone he’ll start to play…
Meantime, back at the Vatican,
Where men in hats and dresses rule,
They’ve hit upon a cunning plan,
To treat each member like a fool,
By taking all their extra money,
So Ben can shit in a golden dunny.
And those who place a child’s life,
Before the fetus of her rapist,
Deserve to face eternal strife!
Morality is clear if you’re a papist,
There can be no exception taken,
Just Godly excommunication.
And if a Priest molests your kiddie,
Don’t think he’ll face an earthly judge,
There’s a nice room in the Vatican City,
Where pederasts make Holy Fudge,
With this slogan on the packet:
“A penis doesn’t need a jacket!”
Don’t roll a condom down his cock,
You filthy, sinful little slut!
If you’re evil enough to fuck,
Then it’s your fault you got knocked up!
And you deserve to catch disease,
Your suffering will God appease.
So Penn and Teller, listen please,
I’ll tell you what you have to do!
Fall down at once on bended knees,
And bare your bums to Donohue,
Who’s spent his life with nose inserted,
Between the cheeks of men perverted.
An apologist for acts demonic,
He’ll battle for a cracker,
And when it comes to moral panic,
He’s a leader, not a slacker.
But woe betide the altar boy,
Who is his priest’s sexual toy.
For this is what he’ll hear:
“Gentle Jesus meek and mild,
Will surely make you suffer!
And if you spill your secret bile,
You will offend Our Mother
Mary, and then you’ll see
Just how horrid Hell can be!”
AMEN
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 5:20 PM
@Michelle 78
And yet dogs will eat their own poo. Hmmmmmm.
Posted by: Keenacat
|
August 18, 2009 5:20 PM
So what you're saying is that atheists want to make illegal and ban all prayer, everywhere,...especially in schools. Got it.
Ahem. Obviously not. Or maybe it's a language barrier thing, me sporting another mothers tongue and all...
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 18, 2009 5:20 PM
Will Corwin @#189: Just to be clear, "heretical" was only about Hitler. AFAIK Mussolini was a totally orthodox Catholic (as were Franco, Salazar, Pétain...)
I was responding specifically to the claim that Nazis had to be Catholics.
Posted by: squareone | August 18, 2009 5:21 PM
John Sabotta
How many wet suits are you wearing?
And, where is the dildo?
Posted by: Keenacat
|
August 18, 2009 5:22 PM
Quote fail. Dammnit.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 18, 2009 5:23 PM
I think I was having more success with the acronym!
John Sabotta at #115:
Unnecessary aspersion on crackheads aside, by this classification, presumably physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, emergency medical technicians, and medical assistants occupy an equally low social niche, reliant as the medical professions are on the work of biologists? I guess, John, you don't ever seek medical care, hesitant as you must be to have contact with the health care industry you hold in such contempt.
It must pain you terribly to know that, as much as you loathe them, health care providers maintain an ethical standard higher, as well as a willingness, to treat your ailments no matter how big an asshole you are.
With apologies to assholes everywhere for associating you with the likes of John Sabotta.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Foggg | August 18, 2009 5:23 PM
In bilbo's world, if someone says "Fuck off, moron!", they are preventing the audience from practicing their religion.
Q: What did someone say to bilbo to prevent him from practicing intelligence?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 5:24 PM
wow, smogster!
not bad at all. Truly a Telling tale.
Posted by: Acitta | August 18, 2009 5:25 PM
Hmm. . . let me see . . . Roman Catholic Church, 2000 years old, survived conflict with Islam, Schism with the Eastern Orthodox, the Protestant Reformation and the European Enlightenment but a couple of magician/comedians have them shaking in their boots. Ya, sure. This Penn and Teller must have some really powerful magic!
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 5:27 PM
@66
I believe he's the guy who jumped on Scorcese, a fellow Catholic, for his Christ movie, sight unseen.
When I was growing up, I was vaguely aware of right-wing lay Catholic groups like his, but since they aren't part of the Church hierarchy I never really paid them any mind.
There are some right-wing clergy who agree with him (depending on what his current crusade is) and will say so. Other than that, my impression is that he is something of an Irish Catholic bigot running a banner of reverse anti-papacy. Newsflash: the 19th century is over.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 5:28 PM
I just felt that your clear-as-day point needed to be underscored with some mild snark. I think I'm going to unravel the next time I hear the canard about banning prayer. Morons.
Posted by: qbsmd | August 18, 2009 5:30 PM
Or, we could "frame" it as "Public figure wants government employees to facilitate your children's prayers" or something similar, try to let it get back to him, and see if he'll denounce his own actions.
He probably won't learn anything, but it'd be funny.
Posted by: Anri | August 18, 2009 5:31 PM
"I think I was having more success with the acronym!"
You should join the Witch Doctor's Professional Association instead. The Director will tell you what to say, he'll say,
Oo
Ee
OoAhAh
Ting
Tang
WallaWalla
BingBang
*ahem* ...sorry...
Posted by: Keenacat
|
August 18, 2009 5:32 PM
Sorry for knee-jerking.
My Snark-o-meter needs maintenance. :-(
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 5:32 PM
@73
Well, Ann Coulter's books sell like hotcakes, so he decided he'd give it a whirl.
I love how Kookoo Donohue styles himself like the Catholic B'nai B'rith, but every time he starts running his mouth he sounds like Pat Buchanan. ("We're oppressed! By these people we outnumber and are trying to suppress. Oppressed, I tell you!")
Posted by: SmoOMggy Batzrubble | August 18, 2009 5:34 PM
Thank you, Good Brother Itchytic,
I am sorry I didn't manage to get a fish inserted somewhere.
Perhaps I should write another stanza that has Mr D bending over before my friend Floyd Rubber, who happens to be a Piscean.
Yours in reprehensible rhyme,
Smoggy
PS That reminds me, did you ever read the James Bond story about the (I think) 'Hildebrand Rarity'?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 5:37 PM
PS That reminds me, did you ever read the James Bond story about the (I think) 'Hildebrand Rarity'?
why, no, brother B. Do tell?
Posted by: Sanity Jane | August 18, 2009 5:38 PM
This is assuming that you're a buyer and not a seller, but:
Fleshlight® mouth
Though its initial cost may seem prohibitive, prorated over the life of the device the cost per blowjob is considerably less than $10. Given your obvious lack of self-control, wear-and-tear and therefore replacement costs should be negligible.
On behalf of science, you're welcome!
Posted by: Will Corwin | August 18, 2009 5:39 PM
@203
O. misunderstood you, sorry.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | August 18, 2009 5:40 PM
Do you think this fellow would go away if we tell him that his ideas are "not manifestly incorrect"?
Posted by: Svetogorsk | August 18, 2009 5:42 PM
Heads up - anyone in the UK who isn't watching Charlie Brooker's You Have Been Watching should catch the repeat on Channel 4+1 at 11pm British Summer Time.
The second half of the show is basically a massive satirical assault on demented American religious programmes, including superhero Bibleman and the demented YouTube banana video.
Brooker is of course the man who wrote this, so you already know where he's coming from.
Posted by: MikeyM | August 18, 2009 5:43 PM
Batzrubble, the Devil's own rhyme scheme is ababcc.
And I like it.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 18, 2009 5:43 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EwfaHMHdfo
Penn on Bill Donohue.
"Bill Donohue is a dipshit."
Posted by: Mena | August 18, 2009 5:43 PM
I'm sure that an all powerful all seeing god who can create a universe and different life forms is glad that Bill and the trolls that have popped up here are protecting him. Whatever would he do without the three of you? He's probably clutching a big ol' string of pearls as we speak!
Posted by: SmoOMggy Batzrubble | August 18, 2009 5:43 PM
It was "murder by fish". One of my favourite Bond stories.
It appeared as a novelette in Playboy and there's a synopsis here.
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 5:44 PM
@74
I'm probably saying too much on this topic, but:
I grew up in Boston and people like Donohue were frequently given an ear to spout off, not only in the Catholic paper, the Pilot, but in the Boston Herald (Murdoch-owned for at least some of those years). Machine politicians were careful to hoe their line, lest their pious constituency vote them out. (This is how the officials who knew about the pedo priests and sheltered them from prosecution escaped prison themselves--they tricked the pols in their pocket into passing a confessor's immunity law in the early 1990's.)
My theory is that there's a strong Boston/NYC bias in cable. Just look at all the Red Sox coverage on ESPN. I mean, you'd think it was NESN. Look at disgraced liar Mike Barnacle (who used to blab on local Boston TV before the Boston Globe fired him for making up people and quotes in his Metro columns) getting almost daily space on MSNBC. (Excuse me while I go retch.) Bill O'Reilly's catholic, I think a lot of the broadcasting people are catholic (look at all the catholics on Daily Show over the years), so they give Donohue a forum.
Ironically, people aren't listening in Boston any more--the horrific pedophile scandals of Bernard Cardinal Law's tenure saw to that. Once the hysteria was over, the disgust (at the hierarchy blaming the boys for their victimization) sank in. Law himself was run out of town on a rail. Good riddance.
PS: the Herald had taken to calling the arch-bishop "Bernie" by the end. Huge shift from the paper that had denounced Sinead O'Connor for tearing up a photo of the pope.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | August 18, 2009 5:46 PM
I only wish that secularists could, from the outside, do as much damage to Sinister Rouge as it has done to itself from the inside. Only the most horrifyingly deluded votaries can still have any respect whatever for this corrupt and disgusting institution.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 18, 2009 5:53 PM
Scum Donohue is, apparently envious of Muslims who threaten publishers into silence:
Hitchens on the Danish cartoons
But he does rightly condemn those who are all against censorship when there's no real threat against them, unlike when the liar Muhammed is caricatured. I have no reason to think that Penn and Teller are among those, however.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 5:54 PM
@84
But Monty Python did. 30 years ago they ran "fake out" radio ads for The Secret Policeman's Other Ball that consisted of a preacher denouncing the movie.
Really ticked off the Religious Right when they found out, from what I understand.
(Ooo, and an older example: Banned in Boston. Boring play "The Children's Hour" became a movie b/c of the allure of watching a theatre production censored by the Watch and Ward Society.)
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 5:55 PM
bilbo @ 180:
This word "hypocrisy." I do not think it means what you think it means.
See, those two positions only mark hypocrisy if the same person espouses them at once. If two different people (e.g. PZ Meyers in his article & a Pharyngulite in a post to that article) each argue in favor of one of those positions respectively, it's not hypocrisy.
(By the way, who actually argued that children should not be allowed to pray on their own?)
Anyway, once you grasp hypocrisy, then we can move onto more nebulous concepts like freedom of religion.
Posted by: Bob Carroll | August 18, 2009 5:56 PM
From the pen of Tom Lehrer:
First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
To last the distance, you'd need iron knee
(Tip o' the kepi to Ferrous Patella.)
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | August 18, 2009 5:59 PM
I find I am also outraged at Showtime featuring Penn & Teller. It isn't that their attacks on religion offend me. It's simply that they suck almost as much as Bill Maher.
Posted by: heliobates | August 18, 2009 5:59 PM
@ lose
Years of cat tranquilizer abuse have reduced him to this. He trundles his shopping cart over and shouts about "scientists", likening us to commies, Nazis, whores and crazy people. And you know his mange is itching something fierce, the whole time.
It's not even risible.
Now if he had called us jive turkeys...
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 6:00 PM
@95
Wow, John, we've had a whole conversation before we've even met, apparently:
I hear you need to get pure, elemental tin (Sb) to block out the CIA broadcasts; that Aluminum stuff is NOT the real deal. Forewarned is forearmed.
Back to reality, the day Bill O'Donohue the Clown actually succeeds at censoring anything is the day I stop laughing. Note: I'm still laughing.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 18, 2009 6:00 PM
Amen, Smoggy.
BTW, Hildebrand Rarity?
(--scratches head--)
Is there a sermon I've missed?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 6:01 PM
It was "murder by fish".
You are a rare fish indeed.
Don't worry, I don't think anyone will be stuffing you into someone's mouth in the near future.
...well, at least not with Floyd around.
:)
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 18, 2009 6:04 PM
Man, I wish I was here early enough to see the comments that were deleted. Looks like they must've been entertaining...
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 6:11 PM
Maybe about the time right-wing Catholics jumped in bed with the same people who'd been trying to stamp them out (fundagelicals). Secular was out, Xtian nation was in.
Secularism seemed to hit a nadir in public life in the 1990's, with not-very-religious people claiming that Jesus was their best imaginary friend during election campaigns.
It would (seem to) make sense for minority religions to push hard for secularism in the public square. Might be interesting to investigate why they don't.
Ie, Muslims don't seem to sue over prayer in school, but do sue so they can have foot baths to ritually clean. Maybe it's a free-for-all, "I'll get mine" (with the courts' approval) today so they see no reason to find common cause in cleaning religiosity out.
In other words, we're the last ones standing?
Posted by: SmoOMggy Batzrubble | August 18, 2009 6:12 PM
Dear atheists confused by my fish references (which were made for the benefit of Brother Ichthyic),
'The Hildebrand Rarity' is a story about James Bond in the short story collection 'For Your Eyes Only'. In the story a sadistic American millionaire is murdered by having a rare fish forced into his mouth while sleeping, where it lodges and chokes him after its fins pierce his cheeks, preventing him removing it. The collection also includes 'A Quantum of Solace'--not the crap you may have seen on screen, but a nasty little story of domestic cruelty that shows Fleming to be, imho, a truly great writer.
I should add that I only read James Bond because he writes evidently Christian morality tales about contests between good and evil.
Smoggy
Posted by: Steven Carr | August 18, 2009 6:14 PM
Why doesn't this God smite people like Penn and Teller anymore?
He used to be so good at smiting. That guy really smote.
Nowadays, it is as much as he can do to get people to write emails to Mr.Blank.
I think God is all smote-out.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 6:21 PM
not a gator @ 238:
Heh, they'll never top the church that fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for the right to practice polygamy, but later practically led the fight to protect the sanctity of marriage.
;)
Posted by: abys | August 18, 2009 6:32 PM
Oh, and if you guys want to hear more from Penn Jillette, check out his YouTube channel.
www.youtube.com/user/pennsays/
also he's on Twitter as @pennjillette
he put this one up 2 hours ago about "Athiest Eagles", ie, Eagle Scouts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrDKj_5-R2Q
Posted by: MosesZD
|
August 18, 2009 6:33 PM
Quick, someone get PZ a cracker! He needs to reclaim Bill Donohue's "Pout-rage."
Posted by: Ian M. | August 18, 2009 6:40 PM
Penn already did a commentary on Donahue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IVxb5EBR-E
I may not agree with the guy all the time politically, but I love his honesty and promotion of the 1st Amendment.
Posted by: Kwyjibo
|
August 18, 2009 6:40 PM
"Mother Teresa wanted people to live in impoverished conditions so she could identify with the people whom she was serving"
Those are the words of BILL DONOHUE on Penn & Teller's show. Any mockery deriving from that statement is more than justified. Penn's "fucking cunts" statement referred to the lack of financial records from Teresa's organization, Missionaries of Charity.
Attacking the Last Supper doesn't single out Catholics. No Christian denomination focuses on it. In fact, it's ironic that Donohue decries attacks on it, since it contradicts Catholic dogma on transubstantiation. Also, Penn & Teller have gone after the YECs, a group that the Catholic Church has more or less disavowed.
So what if we're 80% Christian? In 1989, we were ~84% white. Did that make us a white nation? Of course not.
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 6:45 PM
@189
Don't forget there were neo-Pagans among the true-believer Nazi party members. (They really (mis)read their Nietzsche.) Look up Nazi weddings.
Despite Hitler's history as a Catholic choir boy, according to the sources I studied for some term paper in HS the Nazis actually gained more traction politically in the Protestant north, before the coup, that is. The Gestapo also had more troubles in the Catholic south, at least as far as ratting out Polish boys (stationed as slave labor on farms) who were dating German girls. They were both Catholic so the parents protected them.
Pastor Niemoller's lament was written in part because the Lutheran hierarchy went right along with "co-ordination" (Gleichanschaltung or something--I forget) after the coup. The Catholics were actually somewhat more resistant because of their historical independence.
(This should not be taken as a blanket pro-Cath anti-Luth statement--Catholics in France (and I mean especially the right-wing sort, b/c left wing in France has been rather anti-clerical since 1792) sold Austrian and German Jews up the river after Vichy, while Lutherans in Denmark saved 99% of their Jews. The reasons for German cath/prot. differences on this issue are complicated. One possibility is that because Nazis tended to draw a lot of anti-Communists, while working class Catholics worldwide tend to have Socialist leanings b/c of certain Catholic teachings, affiliation to Socialism may have clung on longer. Another possibility is that the historical Kingdom of Bavaria had a large portion of Germany's Jews. Fuerth, in particular, was known for tolerance. That would make Catholicism a simple red herring vis a vis party affiliation, though again with the Gestapo thing it's clear RCC-affiliation was playing a role.)
Agree or disagree with Pius IX, but he did get a clause in the Concordat where the church was allowed to pass diplomatic packets unmolested. (Everyone else's mail was subject to inspection.) In the end, though, he was unable to protect very many people (he hid some Italian Jews in the Vatican, but otoh he couldn't even save his own priests in Poland), leading many to conclude that Hitler got the better side of the deal (legitimization) and he's been pinned up in the Hall of Shame alongside Neville Chamberlain ever since.
Posted by: not a gator | August 18, 2009 6:49 PM
@221 Svetogorsk
Thanks for the heads up. I loved News Wipe.
Posted by: Mr T | August 18, 2009 7:02 PM
HA! He called the SHIT a "demographic group"!
Posted by: Czernobog | August 18, 2009 7:04 PM
I just skimmed the review PZ linked to, and came across this:
What the fuck is a "radical gay"?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 18, 2009 7:06 PM
Bill Donohue needs to take the blindfold off and wise up to the fact that the USA is not and never has been a "Christian nation". From its inception it was a direct assault upon the very idea of a "Christian nation".
…the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen …
- G. Washington
Ask yourself, Bill, whether this abomination would ever have been permitted in a "Christian nation".
Why, if the founding principles of the US were ever to infect Old Europe, it wouldn't be long before the Musselmen started disturbing our tranquility! Oh wait . . .
+++
Kome @ 83:
God not infrequently punishes people by giving them what they want.
+++
firemancarl @ 14:
With enemies like this who needs friends?
+++
raven the maven @ 113:
Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
Multum, non multa.
Hospitals, universities and disturbing the tranquility of Musselmen.
(Assuming your definition of fundies stretches to include us.)
You sound just like old Charlie Mordechai.
Does the thought of typing the word C-H-R-I-S-T make you twitchy?
+++
abys @ 90:
You ain't kidding.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 7:12 PM
Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
yes, we know you hate yourself for the lickspittle you are, and project that self-hatred outwards like every other fundy.
just cause you're nuts, doesn't make the bugs you see crawling on your arm real.
Posted by: Beth B. | August 18, 2009 7:14 PM
Is anyone else losing their appetite for fatwa-envy? It's so...boring, anymore.
Posted by: SteveM | August 18, 2009 7:15 PM
Except there is no commentary about Bill Donahue other than the title, "Bill Donahue is a Dipshit". That video is just about the "Free Staters" group in New Hampshire.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 18, 2009 7:16 PM
pfft, like we need Penn and Teller to defame the Catholic Church. Their clergy does a damn fine job of that on their own.
Posted by: Dan | August 18, 2009 7:19 PM
Penn and Teller should be fired for their intellectual dishonesty and shitty show, not for this.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 7:23 PM
Ichthyic @ 251:
Okay, I know I'm a relative newcomer to Pharyngula, and don't know Piltdown Man's typical tenor, but I can't see how he deserved that from what he posted just now.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 7:23 PM
No. It's supposed to make people like you more twitchy.
BTW, Washington was a Deist, not a xtian. And if he were a xtian, it still would not make this a xtian nation. Our Constitution is a secular document. Keep your scabby religious rat-claws off of my government. There is no need for your ancient, crippled, dogma in our government.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 18, 2009 7:24 PM
Can anybody tell me why Teller doesn't talk?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 7:24 PM
Does the thought of typing the word C-H-R-I-S-T make you twitchy? - Pilty
No, just causes a bit of 360 degree head rotation and projectile vomiting, but I'll make a note to myself always to use "xian" here from now on. Just for you, Pilty.
Posted by: Carlie | August 18, 2009 7:26 PM
Can anybody tell me why Teller doesn't talk?
Because it's funny.
Posted by: TalkingSnakeBite
|
August 18, 2009 7:32 PM
That's right John - it's all a giant conspiracy by those money-grubbing scientists.
Now go back to typing on your computer, driving your car, cooking in your microwave, chatting it up on your iPhone, traveling in aircraft, enjoying air conditioning and all those other pleasures and conveniences those pesky scientists have brought you.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 18, 2009 7:33 PM
Liveliest Crib wrote:
It's a fair question. But the answer is this: trust us, he does.
Piltdown's an ardent defender of kid-raping priests, the Inquisition, the Catholic-led genocide of the people of the South Americas, and pretty much everything awful done in the name of his (specifically Catholic) god by dress-wearing professional virgins (well, so they say; I guess they adhere to the tenet that it's better to give than receive). And he'd love nothing more than a return to the feudal system with the world ruled by Vatican-approved kings.
Some people resent him just a little for that, and react accordingly.
And he's a big boy who's heard it all before. He knows what the tenor of the responses to his posts are going to be and it doesn't seem to bother him.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 18, 2009 7:34 PM
I have never met a mad scientist. I've met scientists who were angry, and a fair number who were ticked off or put out, but I have never met a mad scientist. Am I missing something?
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 18, 2009 7:36 PM
Apparently while being a magician in his younger days he found that frat boys didn't throw things at him when he didn't talk.Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 7:36 PM
Piltdown Man @ 250:
Are you seriously blaming the recent history of Muslims in Europe on disestablishment, freedom and equal rights? First, many western European countries remain officially established Christian nations. Second, do you really think European Muslims would take more kindly to a medieval Christian theocracies?
Weird.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 7:40 PM
Obviously, piltdown doesn't.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 7:40 PM
Wowbagger, OM @ 262,
Fair enough. I suppose I'll learn the hard way. :)
At least he understands that the U.S. is not, as a matter of fact, a Christian nation. That's more than many of his ilk understand.
Posted by: Anti.theist | August 18, 2009 7:41 PM
@ 223 & 253 Come - on kids. I already posted this. You need to follow along
"Posted by: Anti.theist | August 18, 2009 2:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EwfaHMHdfo
It does not take a Penn Teller to know Bill D is a dip shit."
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 7:42 PM
Okay, I know I'm a relative newcomer to Pharyngula, and don't know Piltdown Man's typical tenor Liveliest Crib
Catholic dominionist, psychopathic sadist (an admirer of the Inquisition, and of thrashing and enslaving children), misogynist, completely impervious to evidence or rational argument, thinks Latin tags and links to unpleasant pictures are arguments. Probably smells of incense and stale sweat. I pity his family.
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 18, 2009 7:43 PM
Thanks Kel - I was wondering if there was any similarity or connection to Harpo Marx and his choice of staying silent early on in his career. Seems there is.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 18, 2009 7:43 PM
Smoggy @#239
re: Hildebrandt Rarity
Sincere thanks for the enlightenment.
-R
Posted by: raven | August 18, 2009 7:45 PM
Yes, they are quite common. But rather than build monsters or death rays, they act like any other mad person. Many end up in drug and alcohol detox centers. Some join cults. Some become crackpots. Some commit suicide.
These days if a mad scientist started making monsters or constructing a death ray, the DOD would be at their door step with a suitcase of cash in a heart beat.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 18, 2009 7:45 PM
not a gator #246
France has had a tradition of anti-semitism. The attitude of many (but not all) French people about Jews during the Nazi occupation was "these are Jews who happen to be living in France." The attitude of almost all the Danes was "these are Danes who happen to be Jews."
The story of King Christian of Denmark and some other prominent Danes wearing yellow Stars of David is apocryphal. However as noted above, the Danes were able to smuggle almost all Danish Jews to Sweden.
The King rode his horse alone through Copenhagen every morning to underline his claims for national sovereignty. He was a national symbol for all Danes, a positive contrast to German militarism and to the cult of the Führer. Christian rejected many aspects of the occupation, made speeches against the occupying force and became known as a protector of the Jews.
In December 1941, after an arson at the synagogue in Copenhagen, he sent a letter of sympathy to the Rabbi. The welfare of the Danish Jews was important to the king and the Danish government. "There is no Jewish question in Denmark" said Foreign Minister Erik Scavenius to Hermann Göring.
Iceland was a Danish dependency. When Iceland declared its independence in 1944, Christian, who was under house arrest, had a telegram of congratulations smuggled into Sweden and forwarded to the Icelandic parliament.
During World War II the Danes and their king were a class act.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 18, 2009 7:45 PM
Well, honestly, not much. The parties usually kinda collapse to a 'my mutant, shambling perversion of nature is scarier 'n your horrifying, nuclear-powered death robot' sorta schlongfight... Sometimes, it gets kinda hot if enough of the comely young assistants that've been in vogue for the last little while actually show up, but honestly, seriously, otherwise, I'd say take a pass if you get an invite... The dentists' convention usually has better comedians, and so long as you don't go drinking with them, it's safer...
Oh. So that's what's been doing that...
(/Figured the vomiting was just due to Pilty...)
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 7:49 PM
I'm surprised none of the theocrats have invoked the argument that while the United States is a secular nation, its respective states may establish religions within their borders if they so choose. (Sadly, it is an argument that resonates with more than one Supreme Court justice. I do hope Sotomayor will not agree.)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 18, 2009 7:51 PM
That's because he lives in Europe and doesn't give much of a toss about the US either way. He's only really concerned about his own backyard, hence his frequent descent into fearmongering about the invading Islamic hordes and how the only way to prevent a Muslim takeover is to have a Catholic theocracy/monarchy.
Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 18, 2009 7:55 PM
For Brother Smoggy (and everyone else)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ0bqZw6B0A
Posted by: Monkeyman8 | August 18, 2009 7:55 PM
I'll be succinct, Free Speech mother fucker!!!
Posted by: Kwyjibo
|
August 18, 2009 7:56 PM
"Mother Teresa wanted people to live in impoverished conditions so she could identify with the people whom she was serving"
Those are the words of BILL DONOHUE on Penn & Teller's show. Any mockery deriving from that statement is more than justified. Penn's "fucking cunts" statement referred to the lack of financial records from Teresa's organization, Missionaries of Charity.
Attacking the Last Supper doesn't single out Catholics. No Christian denomination focuses on it. In fact, it's ironic that Donohue decries attacks on it, since it contradicts Catholic dogma on transubstantiation. Also, Penn & Teller have gone after the YECs, a group that the Catholic Church has more or less disavowed.
So what if we're 80% Christian? In 1989, we were ~84% white. Did that make us a white nation? Of course not.
Posted by: Ben | August 18, 2009 7:59 PM
Wonderful! Email addresses for both. Here was my email to the CEO of Showtime, with a cc: to Bill Donohue.
Dear Matthew Blank;
I'm writing to say please DON'T cancel Penn and Teller! They may occasionally offend. They have offended some of my personal sensibilities from time to time. But they have a talent for exposing the elephantS-in-the-room (and here I include all of our favorites - ghosts, ESP, astrology) that many are content to ignore. You have viewers who have long been pointing at those elephants and saying "Look, look! Can't you see them?" and, for us, Penn and Teller are two of the very few voices loud enough to make that message heard. The Catholic church should be subject to the same scrutiny and criticism as any other human-conceived institution. It will stand or fall on its own merit or lack thereof.
Thank you for bringing us excellent programming like this.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | August 18, 2009 8:02 PM
On the one hand, I greatly admire Penn & Teller for being right out there at the forefront of skepticism, atheism, winnowing the bullshit, etc.
On the other hand, I despise them for being such gLibertarian fucknozzles.*
[Les Nessman] So, as you can see, I'm a very confused man! And when I feel confused, I watch television. It makes everything seem so...simple somehow! [/Les Nessman]
*Both of these apply to the South Park guys as well.
Posted by: murgadroid | August 18, 2009 8:04 PM
Does anyone else think John Sabotta sounds awfully familiar? His choice of insults, obsession with odd sexual activities and poorly argued points remind me very strongly of a troll from a week or so ago. Don't remember the name or thread. I have to say, it's not a very pleasant sense of deja vu!
Posted by: sornord | August 18, 2009 8:06 PM
Thou canst disheth it out but thou canst taketh it?
Posted by: AndrewB | August 18, 2009 8:16 PM
Donohue is a fascist and the only people who don't seem to know this is the media who constantly treats him with a great undue respect. I don't respect him or his damn opinions but Donohue has the right to criticize both Islam and "secular culture" and liberals, and homosexuals I only wish that he would understand that other people have to criticize his stupid fascist ass and the vile despicable religious death cult that he belongs in.
It's called freedom of speech Donohue. Your fatwa envy is showing.
Does anybody know when the "Gay agenda" replaced the "Jewish agenda" as the fascist crackpot's favorite conspiracy to destroy America?
I'm guessing sometime in the 80's. Since Nixon and Graham are on tape bitching about the Jews.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 18, 2009 8:18 PM
Czernobog @ 249 - You ask: What the fuck is a radical gay?
A radical gay to any conservative (especially religious conservatives like Donohue) is any gay who is out and proud.
A good Catholic gay would deny his or her gayness, feel constantly guilty (of course, Catholic guilt isn't solely for closeted gays), belong - if truly tormented - to Courage, a Catholic ex-gay ministry, and would donate to Bill Donohue's Catholic League.
I also forgot: The unradical gay Catholic would go to confession and get down on his knees and pray. He would pray very hard and long. If lucky, his prayers would be answered.
Posted by: Jing-reed | August 18, 2009 8:26 PM
YouTube clip of Kathy Griffin ripping a new one for Bill Donahue and the rest of the Jesus freaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNOSh5HxA2s
Posted by: rufustfirefly | August 18, 2009 8:31 PM
Donohue should read some Chick tracts and find out what his brothers in Christ think of his brand of Christianity. If evangelicals had their version of a Christian US, Bill would be in deep shit.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 18, 2009 8:34 PM
What kind of fantasy world do people live in where they think that "grant money" is some fountain of riches and that climate scientists are all driving around in Ferraris and such?
Posted by: AndrewB | August 18, 2009 8:35 PM
Yesterday Gruesome Rob posted this quote.
"...Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirt of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
--Adolf Hitler, 1933
I feel its appropriate to post it again.
Posted by: thebigreason.myopenid.com
|
August 18, 2009 8:45 PM
Spittle-flecked FTW!
Posted by: Medievalist Jon | August 18, 2009 8:59 PM
I've read BD's ad a few times. I swear it seems like he's actually plugging the show.
John Sabotta, you are the worst troll ever.
Posted by: F | August 18, 2009 9:01 PM
#281
"On the other hand, I despise them for being such gLibertarian fucknozzles.*"
Aside from the fact that I find "fucknozzles" so amusing, I'll have to agree. In some ways, I am libertarian, but not with a capital "L". But I think that Penn is an asshat for his "debunking" of AGW. Sorry, it's real, regardless as to whatever fucked-up solutions are offered by other fuckwits.
Just looking at CO2, it's as simple as 1+1=2, but I guess Penn's politics don't allow for this. Oh, well. He's right about a lot of other stuff.
Still gotta love him.
Posted by: eyespy | August 18, 2009 9:07 PM
GodDAMN they're idiots.
Christmas is the only good thing about Christianity!
We just like to keep Jeebus out of our solstice festival...
Posted by: Pacal | August 18, 2009 9:13 PM
Regarding Donohue's article in it he says the following:
Now if Penn and Teller did say those things yes I, a lapsed Catholic, would feel offended. I've read some really good critiques of Mother Theresa and her Order, The Sisters of Charity, but even so I would give them some respect. Not this sort of pointless abuse from people who probably wouldn't be caught dead, pardon the pun, in a house of the dying much less working in one. This is assuming Penn and Teller said those things. I know that the ability of fundies and fundy like people to lie and distort is endless and quite unprincipled.
That being said I'm not a fan of Penn and Teller's show Bullshit. After watching a slew of them I got sick of the rather tranparent libertarian bullshit being peddled by Penn and Teller.
Posted by: Babs | August 18, 2009 9:16 PM
Phil Donohue is still relevant?
P&T are against all religion, last I checked. However, Catholics do really have a great big target painted on them.
Posted by: Nova | August 18, 2009 9:28 PM
I really used to admire Penn and Teller for their debunkings on Bullshit until I realised they're quite wacky libertarians. Seriously, reading Penn's Wikipedia article, he says he's anarcho-capitalist now (anarcho-feudalist) and even endorsed Ayn Rand's Objectivism... I find it odd that in 295 comments some of praise of Penn and Tellers admittedly admirable debunkings their libertarian beliefs are only mentioned one other time. This isn't a libertarian crowd and Bill Maher was jumped on for his dodgy medical views despite his otherwise sceptical outlook. Bullshit! though never really shows their libertarianism much I guess.
Posted by: Carlie | August 18, 2009 9:30 PM
Phil Donohue is still relevant?
Phil Donahue was an interesting talk show host. Bill Donohue, on the other hand, is a stain on society.
Posted by: BenW
|
August 18, 2009 9:37 PM
Did he get upset over the organic farming episode? That had Penn as Jesus in the last supper. And boobs.
Posted by: crumblydonut
|
August 18, 2009 9:44 PM
Long time reader, 1st time poster since the website move (yeah).
First, Bill Donohue is a douchey idiot hypocrite, as if that's news to anyone who reads Pharyngula.
However, I didn't see any comments suggesting that Penn and Teller might not be 100% awesome. As magicians and entertainers, I love them. The bits on Bullshit where they poke fun at UFO's and mystics and various hoo-hah hokam con jobs are a riot.
However. One should be aware that they are pretty hardcore libertarians: they like pot and sex (and magic!), but hate the government and anything that stands in the way of free enterprise. Big fans of the Cato institute: in fact, they are fellows.
Frequently one their shows, they'll spew just as much Bullshit as expose it. They think that recycling is stupid, global warming is a fraud, there's no use for meditation, frankenfoods are 100% great, etc.
Here's the wiki for a quick tour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!#Controversial_episodes
here's a more detailed analysis:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bullsheit.html
On personal experience, I remember watching the episode on Global Warming (they think is dum). They presenting the global warming argument via some well meaning, but ill-informed hippie type young lady, then countered by a well spoken, official type man who laughed her off. They did this again not long ago on the Frankenfood's show.
They do this alot. They misrepresent the arguments on the side they are against and unfortunately, for me, it taints the good stuff they do.
One more example: they did an episode featuring yoga and of course thought it, and the people who practised it were idiots. I don't practice yoga, never have, probably never will, but I can recognize it has done people some good and there's alot more to it than just "streching" as Penn scoffs to the camera.
Curiously, on an episode on Chiropractors, they were alot more even handed: agreeing that legitimate chiropractors can offer help to people suffering from back problems, but that people should be aware that there were many quacks in the field that could be dangerous to your health.
What do they have against yoga?
Posted by: F | August 18, 2009 9:49 PM
#77
While the site at the "prosecution" link has a fairly good, if limited, description of the Inquisition, http://www.exposingchristianity.com/
is more than a little fucked-up itself.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 18, 2009 10:03 PM
"Public figure wants government employees to facilitate your children's prayers"
Government takeover of religion! Life after death panels! Cracker rationing!
Posted by: Athe the False | August 18, 2009 10:13 PM
There's three hundred million people in this country that you can replace "Bill Donohue" with; should everybody just sit down and shut up?
I mean, we atheists aren't a majority either. Should we just shut up.
I detest Bill Donohue as he's yet another ignorant blowhard, but I can't ever support such a sentiment. Let's face it, his idiocy being public is the most damaging thing in the world for him -- silencing that would be silly.
Posted by: Stygian Lamprey | August 18, 2009 10:14 PM
FYI, fellow Enemies of Rome, there's an episode of South Park coming on Comedy Central in about 15 minutes (at 9:30 central time) that deals hilariously with Billy Bitch-Tits Donahue.
Also that Jeebus guy is in it.
Posted by: ckitching | August 18, 2009 10:26 PM
Recycling for the sake of recycling is stupid. There has to be a benefit to it. If we're spending more, and producing more waste than would be generated by simply throwing out the item, then the effort to recycle is completely pointless. Recycling metals, and glass has always been popular because it's profitable. We recycle batteries because they have a lot of toxic chemicals in them that are better to reclaim than let seep into groundwater. It's the paper and plastic recycling that is questionable. I don't agree with P&T's focus exclusively on the monetary costs of recycling, but it's good to consider regardless. Yeah, they got this one pretty wrong. One thing I do agree with them on is that global warming isn't the end of the world. Even if it ends up eradicating us from the planet, the planet will continue to harbour life. "There is no global warming" and "global warming will destroy the planet" are both irrational positions. We need to get past this nonsense, and start discussing what we are going to do about it, and what the costs will be. If sea levels are going to rise, we need to worry about protecting our coastal cities, etc. I'm with P&T here: Show some peer-reviewed scientific evidence that genetically modified foods are harmful, then I'll consider believing you. I've seen people offer personal anecdotes, but never evidence. In the absence of evidence, I'd rather have crops grown that require less land use (and therefore, less pesticide, and fuel use as well) for similar output levels.Frankly, you shouldn't worry about the genetically modified foods so much. Instead worry about the processed foods. They're usually extremely high in saturated fat (because it doesn't oxidize as quickly, and therefore contributes to a longer shelf life), sodium and sugars.
Posted by: jrudy | August 18, 2009 10:45 PM
so what? P&T can trash whoever they want to. maybe mother teresa and her nuns are c-nts....why is catholocism so immune to ridicule and criticism???? would you be writing this whiny article if penn jillette was bashing your favorite sports team? or your political stance? or preference towards PC or Mac? ......soooooooooo why is it so outragous to criticize an organization that unarguably has some sketchy practices and history? the tone of this article screams "how dare you!!" when i wonder "how dare i what???" i'm not even going to get into the whole free speech thing (isn't that obvious?) ...what needs to change is this assumption that religions have this "armor" that makes them think they are not allowed to be criticized. in the words of penn and teller "that's bullsh*t!!!"
Posted by: John Morales | August 18, 2009 10:46 PM
crumblydonut,
Good on ya. The more, the merrier!
They did an episode without stating what they have against it? ;)
I'll have to check it out.
Posted by: Tony | August 18, 2009 10:53 PM
I just fired this off:
Dear Mr. Blank:
It has come to my attention that Showtime, its parent company CBS, and the comedy/magic duo Penn & Teller are under attack by Bill Donohue and his Catholic League. Mr. Donohue has made a career of bullying and browbeating any persons or organizations whom he deems offensive. His attacks on your organization are unsurprising, as he has a new book coming out in early September; I suspect he is taking advantage of you and your artists in a tawdry effort to publicize what would most certainly be a book palatable to only the outer fringes of mainstream America. I ask that you and your colleagues in the media stand up to Mr. Donohue and his sensationalistic tirades, not just for the sake of Penn & Teller, but for the sake of your own Constitutionally protected freedoms as purveyors of information, entertainment, and opinion.
I would like to take this moment to express my thanks to Showtime and CBS for your continued support of Penn & Teller and their show. I look forward to the season finale and to future programs of theirs on your network.
Best regards,
Tony
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 11:02 PM
Pacal @294:
After watching a slew of them I got sick of the rather tranparent libertarian bullshit being peddled by Penn and Teller.
Nova soon after:
"Bullshit!" though never really shows their libertarianism much I guess.
so which is it?
Bullshit is a transparent vehicle for pseudo-libertarianism, or carefully constructed to leave out reference to same?
Posted by: Sastra | August 18, 2009 11:05 PM
rditmars #151 wrote:
I think that at least part of the blame for the confusion rests on some atheists themselves, who here and there, over the last few decades, have co-opted the word "secular" and specifically employed it to mean "atheist." It's not necessarily a complete mis-use of the word -- it means, loosely, "of this world" and was originally used as a contrast with the spiritual realms of religion. So I've seen atheists use it to mean philosophically non-religious. Some atheists prefer to be called "seculars" or "secularists."
But this means that there are now two kinds of "secularists." There are the political secularists who are in favor of the separation of church and state -- and they might or might not believe in God. And then there are the secularists who are of this (natural) world, and believe in only this world, and they are, by this definition, atheists.
The problem of course is that this confusion about terms is being encouraged and promoted by the Religious Right and others (such as Donohue) who want to pretend that a secular political system is not neutral between religious and non-religious, but actively hostile to religion. So one of my pet peeves is when atheists get sloppy with the word "secular" and use it in place of 'atheistic' or 'humanistic', as if it were the same thing. It feeds into the talking points of those who want God in government.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 18, 2009 11:08 PM
F @ 292:
Yeah, fucknozzles struck me funny as well. :)
And I'll second your small-l libertarianism. I am most definitely a civil libertarian. Are you of the age of consent? Then you, and all others of the age of consent, are equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Lest you infringe on someone else's pursuit (or other rights), the government should step out of your way. Down with the war on drugs; down with vice laws; etc.
But I'm certainly not a Penn-style, anarcho-capitalist Libertarian. I'm socially progressive. (In fact, I would argue that equal freedom requires the government to tax and spend on programs like universal health care. But I'll refrain.) ;)
In any case, I'm more than happy to ally with Penn and Teller and any other Libertarians to marginalize authoritarians and theocrats.
Posted by: John Morales | August 18, 2009 11:09 PM
crumblydonut, having seen the segment in the episode, I think it's pretty clear that P&T consider that yoga is no more than exercise*, but it's promoted as a form of enlightenment/spirituality.
Isn't that promotion, um, bullshit — just as they claim?
--
* Yes, it's more than just for flexibility; it also promotes strength and balance — maybe even mental focus. Still only exercise, though.
Posted by: crumblydonut
|
August 18, 2009 11:16 PM
ckitching:
recycling: I didn't say that all recycling programs in the nation were unflawed and perfect in everyway. P&T however used their program to say that at base, recycling as a concept is stupid and a complete waste of time. they are fundamently against it. I can't imagine that most readers of this blog would agree with them.
global warming: same deal here. there's definately a fair amount of hysteria that the end of the world is around the corner...but there is a real problem that we have to be concerned about. Again, I would be surprised and disappointed if the readers here agreed with P&T, who don't think the sea levels are rising or that the ice caps are melting.
frankenfoods: did I say they were 100% bad? no. are they at base a bad idea? no. are they 100% the best thing on the planet and crunchy granola hippies should stfu? not at all. when large argicultural companies engineer terminator seeds that deplete the soil after they have been harvested, all in the name of profit, i'd say that's something to be concerned about. also: some people just don't like the idea of bio-engineered. I don't particularly care - i'll eat cheato and steakums all day, but some people like organic foods. If they are willing to plunk down the coin to pay for the premium, what bad is that doing for me, you or anyone else?
John Morales: yoga. Perhaps they did give a "reason", its been a few years, but as I recall, it's one of their generic reasons for not liking anything: "it's harmless, but it makes people suseptible to other, less benign frauds". I'll break out the dvd and rewatch.
Posted by: Anri | August 18, 2009 11:19 PM
ckitching sez:
"I'm with P&T here: Show some peer-reviewed scientific evidence that genetically modified foods are harmful, then I'll consider believing you. I've seen people offer personal anecdotes, but never evidence. In the absence of evidence, I'd rather have crops grown that require less land use (and therefore, less pesticide, and fuel use as well) for similar output levels."
Equally to the point, almost everything we eat is already a genetically modified food - selective breeding is genetic modification.
We've just begun to figure out ways to do it without the Hot Kow Sex step, that's all.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 11:31 PM
"I'm with P&T here: Show some peer-reviewed scientific evidence that genetically modified foods are harmful
There's no compelling research I'm aware of that there are any physical health issues to worry about with regards to GM crops. Some apparently even have BETTER vitamin and mineral contents.
the only concern that has merit IMO is horizontal gene transfer, which has been documented, and is why the FDA has strict regulations regarding containment of GM crops. Whether those regulations will be effective, or properly enforced, even, is another argument.
example:
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/3/806
So long as THOSE risks are adequately regulated, I've never had a problem with GM foods myself.
Posted by: Stephan Goodwin | August 18, 2009 11:34 PM
At worse this will be an assault on Catholicism, not Catholics. It is an assault on how the religion is organized, not those who follow it.
Would Bill also argue that no one should be allowed to talk any smack about atheism, because it is talking bad about atheists? Yeah, didn't think so.
Posted by: multipath | August 18, 2009 11:42 PM
Although some Penn Says/Donahue youtube links have been posted, I didn't see this one (but didn't read through all 300+ comments).
Penn has specifically talked about how Donahue will respond to this specific episode, way back in March:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S64GMMe3i60
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 11:44 PM
We've just begun to figure out ways to do it without the Hot Kow Sex step, that's all.
not quite.
transgenics are just that, things that simply would never have occured without direct genetic manipulation.
this isn't "test tube selective breeding", it really is combining completely different things to get a new result.
as such, it's quite hard to predict what the impacts will be wrt to the organisms these completely new things will be interacting with.
gentetic markers have been attached to transgenic organisms to try and track geneflow through the environment, but there's also the issue of the different proteins produced and released by new organisms, and what those impacts might be as well.
this work is pretty much cutting edge right now:
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/13/4128
that was from 2007, for example.
There is reason to keep track of impacts and keep researching the surrounding issues, but right now it looks like the FDA has taken a pretty conservative tack.
OTOH...
ever read "Blood Music" by Greg Bear?
;)
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 18, 2009 11:48 PM
I have two words for Penn and Teller:
Caesar's Messiah
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16326821/Caesars-Messiah
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
August 18, 2009 11:52 PM
PZ, your comment on Christmas caught my eye.
In Japan, they're very big on celebrating Christmas too, although it's not an official holiday there. The stores are done up with Santa and reindeer and colourful decorations, and bakeries sell special "Christmas cakes", which are closer to our vanilla cakes rather than being the British and North American rum-soaked fruitcakes we use as doorstops and paperweights here.
And Japan, remember, followers of Christianity are about 5-10% of the population (if you're Christian, you lean toward the higher number). Instead, the majority of Japanese are split evenly between Buddhist (90% of the population) and Shinto (another 90% of the population).
(Yes, that's 180% of the total population of the archipelago, but few Japanese seem to have a problem with being followers of two or more religions at the same time. Typically you're married in a Christian and/or Buddhist ceremony (even if nobody in the room but the minister is a Christian), and buried in a Shinto ceremony.)
I have to wonder what North America's Jeebus phundamentalist phreaks would think of Japan? ...assuming they could drag their heads out of their collective arses to actually cogitate on the issue...
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 18, 2009 11:53 PM
On recycling, I will say that I once saw a cogent analysis which indicated that recycling aluminum encourages more aluminum mining. You can kinda see how it works, but I don't know about the math...
Back on topic, which is Bill "I Am the Catholic League" Donohue and his idiocy. I've got a gem to add. I thought about blogging this over at Kos, but never got to it. While at my dad's house the other day, I noticed the July-August 2009 issue of Catalyst , Bill's newsletter. My dad is a Roman Catholic. He's been an organist all over Reading for decades. Not even his home church is doing anything at all to help him now in his last years, in his hours of need. He made enough money to pay them for an annulment, so he could re-marry, but he's not rich, so they don't care.
Anyway back to Bill Donohue, self-appointed Catholic Leader. Here's the front page editorial that caught my eye, based on the headline:
http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2009&month=July-August&read=2614
The middle is filled with, believe it or not, even more vial and horrible things. What gets creepy is when you recall the name of the publication, which is "Catalyst".
Let me know if you don't get it. I'll try to explain without using the 'N'-word.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 19, 2009 12:05 AM
Interlude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI
I've not read the thread, but I've argued recently about the GM issue. If people want to have a discussion, why don't we start here?:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
and be clear whether we're talking about marker-assisted selection (very useful) or something else.
Posted by: Happy | August 19, 2009 12:09 AM
"If it means that the nation ought to be ruled by "Christian" laws and held to "Christian" standards, then whose version of Christianity will be used?"
Mine. Duh.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2009 12:19 AM
and be clear whether we're talking about marker-assisted selection (very useful) or something else.
have that discussion in THIS thread, or somewhere else?
Posted by: arensb | August 19, 2009 12:23 AM
I call bullshit (no pun intended). It seems out of character for Penn to say "F-dash-dash-dash-ing". Maybe BillDo has P&T confused with those people who seem to worship Gdashd.Posted by: Sherry
|
August 19, 2009 12:25 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there seven Catholics on the Supreme Court?
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 19, 2009 12:25 AM
The Amazon description:
Product Description
This assault is not happening from accident or whim. It is happening because disaffected liberals have deliberately set out to upend our Judeo-Christian traditions. Indeed, they are determined to tear down the traditional norms, values, and institutions that have been part of American society from its founding. The cultural debris that these saboteurs have created will take decades to clean up.
[...]
Donohue takes no prisoners as he digs out and exposes the groups behind this all-out attack on our Christian traditions. Among these are the radical atheists, the proponents of multiculturalism, the sexual libertines, the Hollywood elite with their not-so-hidden agenda and lawyers who collaborate for profit.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 19, 2009 12:28 AM
Eh, bleh. I've had some of it.
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2009/06/gmo_plants_and_herd_immunity.php
Not that interested in more here.
:(
(Hope you're doing well, btw - haven't heard from you in a fair bit.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2009 12:32 AM
(Hope you're doing well, btw - haven't heard from you in a fair bit.)
many distractions of late.
I'll catch up soon.
I hope.
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 19, 2009 12:33 AM
I hope many readers here and perhaps PZ yourself will take a moment and look over the thesis of Joseph Atwill in his book, "Caesar's Messiah". I'm convinced those of us who believe the world would be better off without Christianity are missing a surprising and profound opportunity by neglecting Atwill's work.
Atwill's thesis, if I can do it justice, is that the Roman Flavian imperial family, who quashed the second Jewish rebellion in 70 CE, invented Christianity in an attempt to supplant militant messianic Judaism with a more benign form they could control.
Now, it seems to me this idea should be considered at least plausible on its face. The Flavians had motive and means (through the imperial cults, which the Catholic church uncannily resembles) and the historical timing is perfect. The true compellingness and I think irrefutability of the idea stems however from the fact that these clever and mischevious fellows actually wanted posterity to appreciate their feat. They put literary clues and puzzles in the gospels themselves, and published, under Caesar Titus' signature, Josephus' War of the Jews as a decoder ring for the gospels. Reading the gospels and WotJ in parallel, Jesus'ministry is seen to parallel Titus' Judean military campaign. The parallels themselves have a richness, and especially, a vicious and cruel humor that is both disturbing and convincing. For example, the famous story of cannibal Mary from Josephus, who roasts and eats her baby while making a strange speech that he will be a bane on the "seditious varlets" (i.e. rebels) can hardly be seen as anything other than the setup for the cruel joke of Jesus as the Passover Lamb.
Please check into it if this seems plausible and interesting. Some day it will be the conventional wisdom. Christianity is unique perhaps in having planted within it by its own creators the seeds of its destruction.
Posted by: tsg | August 19, 2009 12:39 AM
Few of them are as patently stupid as Donahue and claim to speak for a larger segment of society than just themselves.
Donahue should shut up because he's an idiot, not because he's not a majority.
There's a difference between suggesting someone shouldn't say a thing and suggesting he not be allowed to. Telling Donahue to shut up is the former, not the latter.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 19, 2009 12:41 AM
I do, too.
Take good care!
Posted by: aratina cage | August 19, 2009 12:42 AM
Quite the find! I'm slavering over it already and suddenly have the urge to reread the Gospels as satire. I bet they will make more sense that way.Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 19, 2009 12:43 AM
Sherry @ 325:
Six.
Two Jews (Ginsberg & Breyer), one Protestant (Stevens) and the remaining six (Sotomayor, Kennedy and the RATS) are Catholic.
Posted by: Sanity Jane | August 19, 2009 12:47 AM
crumblydonut wrote:
That explains why they did such a transparent hack job on the environmental movement. They interviewed a young, naive organization rep and pranked some clueless college-age kids with a petition to ban "dihydrogen monoxide" but didn't have the balls to go up against a single scientist or anyone with real environmental cred. Disingenuous clasperheads.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2009 1:03 AM
Disingenuous clasperheads
me likes.
Posted by: Dan W | August 19, 2009 1:06 AM
Bill Donahue sure is a pretentious, whining asshole, isn't he? Somebody show this man a copy of the Constitution. Perhaps the First Amendment, which says: "Congress shall make no law law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Thus, all Donahue's crying and complaining about how people are mocking his ridiculous beliefs, how (his) religion isn't allowed in schools, and his false claims that the government is preventing them from believing in nonsense are foolish. And I'd like him to read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and tell everyone where in either of those documents it states that "the U.S. is a Christian nation", among other things. Having read both documents in their entirety, I have yet to find any mentions of this country being a "christian nation".
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 1:06 AM
Cheesis K,
Nah. We have a hard enough time using factual and historical arguments without introducing conspiracy theories.
Nor does it seem plausible, as it flies in the face of documented persecution of Christians by Rome (until Constantine I) long after the Flavian dynasty.
Posted by: Dan W | August 19, 2009 1:10 AM
August 27th on Showtime, eh? I'll be back at college by then, and while I'm not sure that Showtime is one of the cable channels provided by my college, if it is then I'll be watching Penn and Teller.
Posted by: MrFire | August 19, 2009 1:13 AM
Murgadroid @282
Hmmm... possibly the coprophilic 'Deface liberal facism' from just under a month ago?
Posted by: Monado | August 19, 2009 1:19 AM
Yes, but "Blood Music" is unlikely.
Current worries are like these: insecticide properties of crops killing bees or transferring to other plants and killing bees; weed-killer resistance transferring to weeds; engineering root crops so that insecticide circulates within them (some people get allergic reactions), but I don't think that's genetic engineering, just saturation.
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 19, 2009 1:27 AM
John Morales, please suit yourself.
But, despite the title, it's hardly a conspiracy when a head of government with a religion-creating bureacracy engages it for its intended purpose.
Unquestionably thousands of messianic Jewish rebels were crucified or met death in the Coliseum. I'm not so sure how many actual Christians met this fate, at least until much later. It was a turbulent era and in any case, whether the plan was sustained or not has little to say about the likelihood of its inception.
Posted by: Veep | August 19, 2009 1:53 AM
So where's this guy's money?Posted by: Syd | August 19, 2009 1:58 AM
Delurking to say that, upon reading the ad, I immediately email Matthew Blank...to tell him Penn & Teller deserve another five years, and to not give in to pressure received from those whose faith calls for the censoring of free speech.
Relurking to read the comments...
Posted by: Syd | August 19, 2009 2:01 AM
Delurking again to correct my #343: "emailed Matthew Blank", that is...
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 19, 2009 2:07 AM
Of course. Pilt strongly opposes disestablishment, freedom for non-Catholics, and equal rights (since Catholics are superior, non-Catholics are inferior, and have no rights that a Catholic is bound to respect).
Since a number of those are not Roman Catholic, they do not count in Pilt's mind.
What Pilt most likes about medieval Christian -- or rather, Roman Catholic -- theocracies is that they had the death penalty for not being Catholic. He proudly supports the mass murder of all who are non-Catholic.
Believe me, you have no idea.
Oh, it's uglier than just that. Pilt lives in England, and is of the opinion that Freemasonry is profoundly evil, and is associated with and inspired the anti-clericism that led to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Since the Founding Fathers were Masons, the American Revolution was equally Mason-inspired, and therefore equally evil. He points to the Masonic imagery in American art with a horrified glee (reminiscent of Protestant conspiracy theorists pointing to Catholic hegemonic imagery). It follows from his association of Enlightenment ideals with Freemasonry that he therefore opposes freedom (for non-Catholics), equal rights, and disestablishment.
Pilt is simply impervious to seeing his own disingenuous hypocrisy, much like the Pharisees in the Bible supposedly were.
Posted by: Dan W | August 19, 2009 2:23 AM
Might I add, what's with all the libertarian hatred? The way I see it, libertarians want more social and economic freedom. Many of my political and social views fit with the libertarian ideology. Not all, but enough that I can identify with libertarians well. I like Penn and Teller, both for being atheists who aren't afraid to mock ridiculous superstition and religious nonsense, and for their libertarian views.
...I suspect I'm going to catch some flak for this. Keep in mind, those who wish to hate on me for my support of some libertarian views, I don't agree with everything in the libertarian ideology, just many ideas.
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 2:49 AM
Dan @346,
Discussion of libertarianism tends to derail threads, because its proponents typically employ selfish and ad-hoc arguments, and the SIWOTI syndrome is strong in many here.
So, do you disagree with every single idea espoused by authoritarianism?
(Note too that there are more political axes than authoritarianism/libertarianism).
Posted by: scooter | August 19, 2009 2:50 AM
Penn Jillette is a very entertaining dumbass. I'm a big fan but taking his head up his ass douchebaggery seriously is to be taken in by a serious huckster.
Jillette has had nowhere to go to push the P&T act on non paid subscription TV outside of Glenn Beck, where he is a regular.
The question is, who will stoop lower, Beck or Jillette on their anti american gov't bullshit to achieve their common goal, making a shitload of cash on the suckers.
There is not a genuine bone in Jillete's Body, he doesn't care or believe in libertardian nonsense, nobody with a brain bigger that trig Palin would appear on Gelenn Beck pretending to speak wrds in a sentence.
And Teller has NEVER weighed in on any of Penn's whoring wingnuttery or libertardian assholery.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 19, 2009 2:51 AM
Dan, there are two main points that are responsible for the disregard people here have for libertarians; one scientific, one humanitarian.
the scientific one is simply that too many libertarians are willing to deny science when its consequences might conflict with their ideology, most notably the AGW denial that's rampant among them.
the humanitarian one is that past a certain point, Free Market-ism results in increased human misery, which most libertarians (especially the very vocal ones on this blog) either pretend doesn't exist, or try to diminish, or just callously declare unavoidable ("better them than me").
between SfO, AG, and a couple other of the rabid looneytarian variety, people are now pretty much allergic to libertarianism
Posted by: scooter | August 19, 2009 3:05 AM
Truth be told, given a choice between Bill Donahue's eccentric bleeding jesus cracker munching distopian guilt sucking morass, compared to Penn Jillette's idiocracy where everybody builds their own roads and water treatment plants on their individualist plantations like where he lives in Las Vegas, I'm leaning toward the milder of the two fascists, Donahue, though not sure how many negroes and Mexicans are required for either of their rugged individualist gone Galt lifestyles.
I'm guessing Jillette is all over Donahue for underpaying his mexicans, Donahue most likely relies on a few negroes to maintain hios estate.
Posted by: Veep | August 19, 2009 3:05 AM
I've got a much simpler reason for disliking libertarianism: It's really nothing more than a religion.
Want proof? Point out a failing of free-market capitalism in action. Their reaction will, without fail be "well, they weren't truly libertarian/free-market". You know, just like how any Xian who does wrong is "not a True Christian".
Posted by: scooter | August 19, 2009 3:08 AM
Not a true scotsman?
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 19, 2009 3:48 AM
Sherry@325:
Yea, but they're all American Catholics, which makes them kind of like Protestants, really. Thank God.
Posted by: Didac
|
August 19, 2009 3:57 AM
A very interesting thesis indeed in http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/ . The "Jewish problem" in Roman Empire was solved manu militari. However, ideological tools were often used by Roman powers. I suppose that Joseph Atwil is a Jewish guy, but I love to use Jews against Christians, the same way I love to use Christians against Jews, Muslims against Budhists, Budhists against Raëlians, and so on, and so on. The true is that in Flavian times, Christians were essentially seen as a Jewish sect. For Roman power, there was no important difference in the subversive character of both ethnic Jews and "proselytes" (converted from Goyim). Julian's paganism tended to favour Judaism in order to put evidence in the non-Roman, non-Greek character of Christianism. The post-Julian restoration shows an official Christianity clearly adopting anti-Jewish theses. The relationship between ancient Christianity, Jewish identity and Roman power is of great interest. Because it shows the contingent character of the "final" triumph of Christianity. Roman co-opted finally Christianity to advance Imperial consolidation.
Posted by: Veep | August 19, 2009 4:00 AM
Man, they are really spamming that crap here, aren't they?
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 4:02 AM
tmaxPA @353, your jocular comment betrays your ignorance* about Catholicism.
You're far better at concern than at humour.
PS cf. #333.
--
* Unless, of course, you deliberately ignored the facts for the sake of your little joke. But that's what makes it fall flat.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 19, 2009 4:05 AM
Yea, no. Neither. A hapless theory obviously meant to support a political belief. Thanks anyway; let me know if a real historian shows up.
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 4:07 AM
Didac @354, nice post!
I too believe it was a case of quid pro quo.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | August 19, 2009 4:10 AM
Awesome. Best punctuation since "eats, shoots and leaves". My monitor wasn't quite as impressed, though.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 19, 2009 4:14 AM
I don't know what you classify as Catholicism, but since I was educated in a Catholic parochial school through a full twelve grades, I'm afraid you're making shit up.
I suck at both; I think that's obvious.
WTF
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 19, 2009 4:18 AM
Dan W@346:
But their method of getting it is providing less of it, which simply doesn't work. Libertarians are anarchists in denial.
Posted by: Katy | August 19, 2009 4:23 AM
"Donohue insists the United States should be considered unequivocally a Christian country. Eight out of ten Americans consider themselves as such."
Eight out of ten Americans consider themselves Christian countries??
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 19, 2009 4:28 AM
It gets worse than that, Katy. The centerfold is a letter from a convicted child molester (Catholic priest) serving a prison sentence who tries to defend Catholic Diocese against civil findings. As if the Vatican couldn't come up with the scratch, if it needed to.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 19, 2009 4:29 AM
lose_the_woo @ 257:
That was kinda my point.
+++
Wowbagger @ 262:
That is untrue. I've stated my opinion on this blog that pederast priests should be flogged, castrated or executed as appropriate. (Which triggered a fresh round of bleating about what a cruel sadist I am.)
Imagine if organised criminals in America got really organised and succeeded in overthrowing the government, disbanding the police, taking over the courts etc. Mafiosi become the ruling caste in American society. How do you think the new revised history books would depict the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Last I looked the South American Indians were alive and well. It was their monstrous serpent-worshipping human-sacrificing religion that the Catholics suppressed. (-I daresay it'll be making a comeback pretty soon given the current climate. I remember seeing some crappy documentary about the mummified corpse of a little girl who had been ritually sacrificed by the Incas or Mayans or Aztecs or whatever sicko cult it was ... The syrupy female North American voiceover warned us not to be too judgmental about the practices of this ancient civilization and assured us that the little girl would have experienced her hideous death as an ecstatic apotheosis that gave her short life meaning.)
I have a dream, a fantasy
To help me through reality
+++
Liveliest Crib @ 265:
How many Mohammedan ghettoes were there in Christendom?
"Officially" as in "nominally". Not good enough.
What the paynim think about militant Christians is beside the point. The whole point is that militant Christians don't care about what the paynim think & don't tailor domestic and foreign policy to suit paynim sensibilities.
+++
Knockgoats @ 269:
Not too far from the truth, although I would never use such an uncouth Protestant term. It's called the the Social Kingship of Christ or Social Reign of Christ the King:
That the State should be separated from the Church is an absolutely false and most pernicious thesis. ... [S]ince it is based on the principle that religion should be of no concern to the State, it does a grave injury to God, He Who is the founder and conserver of human society no less than He is of individual men, for which reason He should be worshipped not only privately but also publicly. - St Pius X, 1906
+++
Wowbagger @ 276:
On the contrary, the US is of vital concern as it's the source of so many modern political errors.
Things seem to be hotting up nicely.
+++
Owlmirror @ 345:
A pack of lies.
Correct, although I don't assume all Freemasons are evil.
Not an unreasonable position given that the Masons themselves boast of it.
Are you "on the level"? ; )
+++
Cheesis K:
You forgot to mention the Mary Magdalene/Knights Templar/Psilocybin Mystery Cult connection.
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 5:10 AM
tmaxPA @360,
Argument from authority? :)
I too was brought up Catholic, and actually lived in Jesuit boarding schools for several years. I was also an altar-boy until I was 14 years old, and spent several weekends at seminary. Oh yeah, and I'm married to one, and my family (other than my siblings) is also practicing Catholic.
So, unless you too have been to seminary, I probably know a tad more than you about it.
The issue is that all Catholics, by their profession of faith and (definitional) acceptance of the Catechism purportedly espouse the same precepts and adhere to the same rules, regardless of where in the world they live. Protestants are considered heretics by them.
I grant that a salient feature of Catholics is their hypocrisy, and it's exceedingly rare that adherents act according to their putative beliefs.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 5:12 AM
Liveliest Crib wrote:
And I give you post #364 as evidence of exactly the kind of slimy equivocation Piltdown specialises in. I'm amazed he's not a criminal defence lawyer; with the array of oleaginous weaseling skills he demonstrates here I'm sure he'd be a great success defending the worst kind of scum from justice.
Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords
|
August 19, 2009 5:24 AM
What? That guy again? There's no point in being civil, or even clever with a useless, evil leech like B.D.
Hey, Bill! Yeah, you! The guy with the face they used to make gorilla cookies! Fuck off and die.
Posted by: Cain
|
August 19, 2009 5:24 AM
@364
The zombie worshiper is mocking the serpent worshipers?
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 5:32 AM
Piltdown: (my bold)
Don't forget your hypocrisy, given the 5th commandment you claim to espouse.
Oh yeah, and presumably you're familiar with your obligation as a Catholic to defer to the successors of the Apostles. Your questioning of the Magisterium's handling of pedophile priests is disturbing and would've earnt you a little visit by the inquisitors, back in those halcyon days which you claim to yearn for.
Posted by: Spiro Keat | August 19, 2009 6:34 AM
Steve Carr @ 240
"Why doesn't this God smite people like Penn and Teller anymore?
He used to be so good at smiting. That guy really smote.
Nowadays, it is as much as he can do to get people to write emails to Mr.Blank.
I think God is all smote-out."
God stopped smiting and doing miracles at about the same time as education and communication got going properly. He really gave up when the means of recording events became common place.
Mind you, that could just be a coincidence.
Posted by: AdamRutherford | August 19, 2009 7:31 AM
Such a shame the head of Showtime is not called Martin. That would be way kewl.
Anyhoo, I just dropped him a note of support.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 7:40 AM
There is an old joke that the continued existence of the RCC is proof of God's existence, since only a divinely protected organization could survive 2,000 years of grotesque mismanagement and corruption. The RCC thinks and plans in terms of centuries and will be here long after the "new" atheists are just an historical footnote.
Ignore Donohue (and Mel Gibson and his old man), like Penn and Teller (and PZ), they represent the fringe of their respective movements. They all use obnoxious behavior, offensive language and cynical PR stunts to increase notoriety. In today's fractured media market, that is the only way to get noticed. Whether you work for Fox News or are a "new" atheist the PR methods are the same. Only people like Glenn Beck, Jerry Springer and Prof. Dawkins get noticed in today's media world.
A pox on all their houses.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 19, 2009 7:41 AM
Old, but everyone needs to listen to this interview with Donohue. Apologies if it's already been posted here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/bill_donohue_is_a_vile_and_dis.php
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 19, 2009 7:45 AM
Andyet, a pox on your house of non-intelligent thinking too.
Posted by: Frank d'Escutcheon | August 19, 2009 7:47 AM
Spiro Keat (370) by way of Steve Carr (240): as you
both no doubt know, god has always used believers to
do his smiting for him. In the OT he occasionally
helped out (making the sun stand still, for example,
so the Hebrews could finish up slaughtering the
Midianites IIRC) but it was always willing, heavily-
armed minions who did the work.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 19, 2009 7:49 AM
You could onlt be serious if you've never read Dawkins' books nor heard him speak. He's actually exceptionally mild. No comparision with ("shut up! just shut up!") Bill O'Reilly (or anyone else at Faux News) or Jerry Springer.
I'll grant that PZ is pretty incendiary. So what? What are you afraid of? Worried that the US population will be scientifically illiterate? That they won't read books?
There are some religious people who are susceptible to stepping back (actually reading the Bible!) and assessing their faith. These aren't driven off by Dawkins or PZ or Hitchens. Please see:
http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner
My own atheism, though long present, was crystalized by reading Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow and subsequently The God Delusion.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 19, 2009 8:02 AM
Pius the would-be dictator. Why would we care what "saint" Pius thought? The religious just can't get off the argument from authority for some reason.
I prefer these quotes, written by a committee:
True giants walked the earth in those days. Only they were about 5-1/2 to 6 feet tall.
Posted by: Frog Gnosis | August 19, 2009 8:03 AM
Bill Donohue is an example of a complete PRAT
(that is, a Presuppositionally Religious
Authoritarian Theist). For these folks, there
can be no such thing as a neutral secular
position. You're either with 'em or else
you're against 'em.
Posted by: Matt v | August 19, 2009 8:16 AM
Jeez, PZ, brutalizing crackers?
I can just imagine Donohue's next rant: Atheist professor shamelessly admits to brutalizing Southerners!
Posted by: JB | August 19, 2009 8:22 AM
DanW @336
You may find this quote of interest as well:
[Treaty of Tripoli, signed at Tripoli, in 1796]
This statement was made because of the long history of state-sponsored religious enmity between Europe and the Muslim nations of Africa and Asia. The US was making it clear that it does not have a state religion and was not founded as a "Christian Nation," "in any sense."
This treaty was ratified by the Senate unanimously.
President Adams added a signing statement:
Posted by: codedsignal.myopenid.com
|
August 19, 2009 8:26 AM
Pilty gibbered:
An eye-witness (more precisely a Dominican friar, Fray Bartolomé de las Casas) wrote:
[Una brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias]
Your definition of suppression is strangely akin to religiously inspired/justified genocide, no?
Posted by: sharky | August 19, 2009 8:33 AM
Piltdown Man, 364: The Aztecs had the ideal of willing sacrifices. The little girl was probably drugged to the gills; it doesn't make it right, but she still probably went easier than, say, a little girl thrown onto the rocks in an early Israelite attack. Nobody's ancestors were very nice, especially for their gods.
Also, because someone survived the initial attack of invaders, the invaders were right? Is that really what you meant? The Spanish conquest of the Aztecs was about gold, not about freeing them from their 'snake god.'
(That sounds like Quetzacoatl, who was the only god of the pantheon who would NOT accept human sacrifices.)
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 8:38 AM
I'll grant that PZ is pretty incendiary. So what?
Desecrating a communion wafer is what Donohue or Glenn Back would do if they were atheists (stay classy PZ!). Their tactics and methods are identical, you may as well try to argue that either Nazis or Communists were better than the other.
As for PZ, it's hard to take seriously or respect anyone who acts like Jerry Springer.
As for his little group of sycophants, their a bunch of suckers - nodifferent thant he Birthers and townhall meeting brownshirts that have been suckered by Fox News.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 19, 2009 8:38 AM
Last I looked the South American Indians were alive and well. - Pilty
Always difficult to tell with you whether you're lying, or just ignorant. The natives of Hispaniola and many other Carribean islands were exterminated completely; as were those of the southern cone (Chile and Argentina) later. Elsewhere, vast numbers died as slaves in the silver mines and on the plantations. Admittedly, introduced diseases such as smallpox and measles killed more than were murdered directly - but people tend to be less resistant to disease when they have been robbed of their land and enslaved. The Pope gave Spain and Portugal title to the whole of the "New World"; the monarchs of those countries in turn gave huge land grants to the nobility - and the right to enslave the inhabitants accompanied such grants. Brutal, the Aztec and Inca Empires certainly were - but compared to the Catholic (and later, Protestant) invaders, they were the veriest amateurs when it came to enslaving and killing people.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 19, 2009 8:43 AM
Andyet, it is hard to take you seriously. You have no business posting after your debacle the other day. You have nothing to offer to the discussion, as you are in no position to criticize anybody on religion due to your illogical ideas. Also, the last few twits who thought they could save us reside in the dungeon.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 8:48 AM
andyet bleats...
but not you andyet... you're different... the only free-thinking, non-agenda driven, rational soul trolling these threads... right? Fucking hypocrite.
Once again I must ask you... do you have an actual point to make beyond displaying your PZ-inspired vapors? It's getting old. Get over the whole cracker thing already... obsessiveness is unhealthy.
Posted by: John Morales | August 19, 2009 8:54 AM
andyet, you have a singular talent: when you make factual claims, they're wrong; when you express an opinion, it's stupid.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 9:00 AM
My, my I have struck a nerve haven't I?
Oh well, I suppose a doctrinaire Stalinist would be apalled to be compared with a fanatical Nazi.
And have a similar reaction.
Posted by: codedsignal.myopenid.com
|
August 19, 2009 9:01 AM
@andyet
Thank god someone was brave enough to point this out.
I mean, who here amongst us hasn't worn an assault rifle to a town hall meeting or shouted "Heil Hitler" at a Jew?
Posted by: sharky | August 19, 2009 9:04 AM
...nice work setting up a beautiful comment juxtaposition, John.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 9:06 AM
Andyet, you struck nothing. Your stupidity and vapid arguments still shine through. Your intelligence is much less than what you think it is. Your opinions and alleged facts are laughable. And we laugh at you. If you don't want to be laughed at, you know what you need to do. And since you can't figure it out for yourself, it is to remove us from your bookmarks, and cease posting here.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 19, 2009 9:06 AM
Well guy, thing is, there are a lot of those in your own feet...
(/Condolences, I guess...)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 19, 2009 9:07 AM
Could you be more ridiculous? I'm betting you'll give it the old college try.
Posted by: Stanton | August 19, 2009 9:07 AM
Last I looked the South American Indians were alive and well. It was their monstrous serpent-worshipping human-sacrificing religion that the Catholics suppressed. It was the Mesoamericans of Mexico and Central America (i.e., the Nahuatl-speaking and Mayan Indians) who worshiped serpents and practiced human sacrifices, and Catholics did more than just stamp out human sacrifices, such as outlaw the use of indigenous languages, suppress their culture, destroy artifacts, such as the burning of the Mayan, Aztec and Mixtec sacred books/codices, and at one time, outlaw the cultivation and consumption of amaranth, an important grain to the Aztecs.As for the South American Indians, well, only a smug idiot would assume that they're "well," given as how the various Andean groups have been institutionally oppressed by the local governments for 500 years, and how the Amazonian Indians are often exploited by missionaries and are under constant threat from being murdered by ranchers and oil workers.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 19, 2009 9:10 AM
My, my I have struck a nerve haven't I? - andyet
This is number 1 on the list of popular-but-stupid self-justifications that convince nobody. It translates to "People disagree with me strongly - I must be right." Wrong.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 9:12 AM
Ahhh... the old "methinks thou dost protest too much" canard...
You really are quite taken with yourself, aren't you? Why is it that stupid people, when they say stupid things, and are called stupid by a multitude of other people, somehow manage to take it as a confirmation of their statements? It's complete lunacy.
Trust me on this, andyet... you're not nearly as smart as you think and less than half as clever. You're not even the most coherent troll on this thread alone.
What I can understand least about you is how a person who has such a personal, deep anger and hatred for PZ would spend so much time and energy devoted to posting on his blog, all the while lining PZ's pockets. If I didn't know better I'd think you had a secret crush on him, like the 6th grader who shows a girl he likes her by pinching her and throwing spitballs at her.
Posted by: toth | August 19, 2009 9:15 AM
This looks like it'll be awesome. I love Penn & Teller and I love Bullshit! (their occasional off episode--like the global warming episode--notwithstanding). In the words of Mr. Jilette:
And then there's THIS asshole.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 19, 2009 9:26 AM
In all honesty, I'm a bit disappointed in P&T -- they could do their jobs a lot better than they're doing them now. I saw an episode of "Bullshit" where they completely exposed and debunked the practices of astrologers and the like; and I thought a show as educational as that should be on prime-time, not after midnight when the kids who need it most would all be in bed. Seriously, those guys are smart, and they know how to entertain; so there's no excuse for their failure to present a telegenic attack that's both credible and kid-friendly.
Do P&T really need profanity to discredit the Catholic Church? They'd be a LOT more effective if they could clean up their act and present themselves as people who know what they're talking about, and care enough to give us a clear message, not just as buffoons looking for quick jabs and cheap laughs. (Same goes for Bill Maher, BTW.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 19, 2009 9:34 AM
Sure, but would Showtime (or most any other network) pick it up then? Part of the show, a very large part, is the entertainment aspect. In fact that is the only thing that matters to the network. It's what sells. The Maverick crude and quick style appeals to their fans and audience and I doubt we'd be seeing the show at all without it.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 9:37 AM
"This is number 1 on the list of popular-but-stupid self-justifications that convince nobody. It translates to "People disagree with me strongly - I must be right." Wrong."
Who said anything about convincing anyone? I fully realize that I have about as much chance of convincing anyone here that God exists as I do of convincing a fundy that evolution is true. Close minded dogmatism being a prominent mental trait in both groups.
Speaking of evolution, you all really should try and show a little gratitude to the RCC for never having a problem with evolution, accepting it as established fact. John Paul II declared evolution to be "more than a theory".
The RCC has always had a tradition of emphasizing Reason and its requirement that all religious experience must pass the "test of reason". This is made clear the Summa Theologica of St.Thomas Aquinas:
Test everything; keep what is good.
and
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.
Modern science is simply the application of Aquinas' philosophy. During the same century, Muslim philosophers chose Faith over Reason based on the theory that logic and natural law would limit the omnipotence of God. The results of both decisions can be seen today. As a result, Europe went on to become scientific and industrialized while Islam remained moribund and stuck in the Middle Ages both technologically and culturally.
The RCC has NEVER taken Genesis to be literal. This tradition goes back even farther to St. Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century who warned against the foolishness of a literal interpretation of Genesis:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
Augustine also speculated that organisms changed form over time, though he didn't have any kind of fossil record to back up his claim. Given his lack of fossil evidence and the tools of the scientific method, it would be too much to expect him to express a modern theory of evolution — though he was on the right track.
Posted by: toth | August 19, 2009 9:39 AM
@398: I actually think the quality of the show would be compromised if they were to censor themselves. A large part of why the show is so great is the passion and personal interest P & T bring to the show. Their "profanity" is part and parcel with that. If they were to censor themselves, I feel it would be little more than another "educational documentary".
It would also mean they couldn't have naked people on every other episode.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 9:43 AM
all the while lining PZ's pockets.
Dude, why do you think he desecrated the communion wafer in the first place? If you think he actually was trying to make some deep philosophical point, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
In today's fractured media market you have to be an obnoxious jerk in order to get noticed, generated ratings (or blog foot traffic) and increase revenue.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 9:43 AM
Ah, Andyet is still without a logical argument. No evidence for his imaginary deity. Still thinking the babble and dogma mean anything other than those using them for authority (other than for satiric purposes) are delusional fools. In order for this to change he needs to 1) recognize we are smarter than him, and 2) recognize his deity is only a figment of his imagination. Show us some intelligence.
Posted by: sharky | August 19, 2009 9:50 AM
Why should I be grateful that an organization not associated with science didn't oppose science that one time?
... and yes, the RCC has a WONDERFUL time with facts! That's why the Pope recently gave helpful tips to avoid getting a fatal disease during an epidemic.
Oh, wait. He declared that the best prevention method available did nothing.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 19, 2009 9:53 AM
andyet are you forgetting the RCC's treatment of Galileo?
Do you truly believe a blessed cracker turns into the body of Christ?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 9:55 AM
And that you don't simply shows that you were too busy being stupidly and needlessly offended by meaningless wafer trashing to bother to read the actual post that accompanied it. It was perhaps one of the best PZ has ever authored, and largely ignored by pretty much every godbotting, bible-thumping, respect demanding asshole like you.
Your insistence that it was in any way a means of "attention-whoring" shows you for the hypocrite you are... all the while calling us "sycophants" and accusing us of being blind followers while you simply parrot the shouts of "offense" without even the slightest understanding of the background or context behind the whole event. Talk about a fucking sheep, andyet... have a look in the mirror.
Oh... right... I forgot about your reading comprehension skills, which have been noted before. Might explain everything... like your entire post at #400, in which you completely fail to understand the complaint being levied against you... that being that stating you must have hit a nerve does not convince anyone that you have. That's the "convince" being referenced you moron.
Posted by: co | August 19, 2009 9:55 AM
Right. Bruno. QED.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 19, 2009 9:57 AM
... well, sure, that must be it, guy...
Well, either that or you're just a spectacularly incompetent prosyletizer...
But no doubt that god of yers has a purpose in all this either way, man, and no doubt, you can take great comfort from this. Clearly, He has closed the minds of yer opponents, and deeply desires that we find you more amusing rather than convincing... And, no doubt, there will be plagues of frogs coming shortly. I understand this sort of thing is standard procedure, for those.
And, similarily, presumably, He has doped yer frontal lobes in methyl alcohol, and had you dropped on a few concrete floors early in your childhood, so that ye, his missionary unto the unsaved, might sound so very much like a gibbering howler monkey with a brain hemorrhage who's just been handed a keyboard, and who is now wrestling randomly with it on the floor, possibly with the intention of copulating with it, possibly just intending to eat it... It's hard to tell from here...
Anyway: Glory!
(/And don't fight it, man... Like I said: clearly all is as it's supposed to be. God is in his heaven, all's right with the comments threads... Chill, babe...)
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 19, 2009 9:58 AM
andyet, two points: first, the positive accomplishments of the RCC, laudable though they are, do not make anyone less obligated to expose and ridicule the RCC when they go wrong. In fact, those accomplishments prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the RCC can do better in other issues, and therefore should be forced to do so, for the good of Humanity.
Second, you're seriously wrong -- or at least grossly oversimplifying -- when you lapse into this bit of Christian apologetics/propaganda:
During the same century, Muslim philosophers chose Faith over Reason based on the theory that logic and natural law would limit the omnipotence of God. The results of both decisions can be seen today. As a result, Europe went on to become scientific and industrialized while Islam remained moribund and stuck in the Middle Ages both technologically and culturally.
Here's a little clarification: "Europe went on to become scientific and industrialized" by building on Muslim accomplishments in math, medicine, astronomy, architecture, etc. That process began when Arab writings began to be translated into Latin. Ever ask yourself why our numbers are called "Arabic?"
If you want to bash Islamic backwardness, go ahead; just get your facts straight, and remember they were for progress before they were against it.
Posted by: Coryat | August 19, 2009 9:59 AM
Bill Donahue: Where's The Birth Certificate?
Posted by: co | August 19, 2009 10:01 AM
Andyet, the "deep philosophical point" made by the Cheezits escapade was figured out long ago by anyone who's looked at Catholic dogma and snickered. If you'd like to characterize that as *any* sort of philosophical point, be my guest.
The fact that it had the effect it did, and that you're still upset by it was the whole point in the first place. Grow up, realize that, and enjoy your life.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 19, 2009 10:03 AM
Oops, I forgot to add: "...and Christians were against progress before they were for it. Which was before they were against it again..."
Oh, and it should also be mentioned that one reason the RCC accepts progressive thinking, is that LOTS of people had the guts -- and the freedom -- to call them out on their BS. Let's hope that continues.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 10:08 AM
Oh, and to refute this vapid generalization, I would point out to you that other than Pharyngula, one of the more popular science blogs on the internet is Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog. I don't think even his most ardent critics could call him an "obnoxious jerk". (Well, maybe Jenny McCarthy and Sylvia Browne.)
Tell me, how could this be? Since we know your broad-brushed, fact-deprived assertions must be valid (otherwise you wouldn't repeat them over and over and over and over...).
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 10:13 AM
andyet are you forgetting the RCC's treatment of Galileo?
Right. Bruno. QED.
The battle between religion and science is complex and the lines are not simply drawn. As Paul Harvey would say, "Here's the whole story":
Giordano Bruno: Who was not burned at the stake for advocating the idea that there were other inhabited planets orbiting around other stars. He was condemned for being a pagan advocate for the hermetic tradition. Hermetic writings treated the sun as a god, and the rest of the universe as moving, and hence alive. This it turns out is the real reason Bruno was attracted to Copernican heliocentricism. His belief in the sun's divinity nicely dovetailed with a heliocentric worldview. Was the Chruch wrong to burn this man at the stake for his views? By our standards of course it was wrong. But Bruno was a martyr to pagan mysticism, not scientific free thought.
Galileo Galilei: Whose friends and admirers included the Pope and Jesuit college in Rome. There was much more involved in Galileo's trial then a simple confrontation between religion and science. Ironically, the majority of church intellectuals were on Galileo's side while the clearest opposition came from secular ideas of the academic philosophers (see "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santilanna). The truth is, on the whole, the Church had no argument with Galileo's theories on science. Their objections lay with his attacks on Aristotelian philosophy (As formulated for the Church by Thomas Aquinas' Scholasticism) — and all the metaphysical, spiritual and social consequences associated with it. Aristotle's philosophy was thought necessary for the formulation of religious and moral laws. Galileo was also caught up in an intellectual power struggle between the older secular elites which ran the universities and had a vested interest in defending Scholasticism and a new generation of pragmatic young Turks like himself. The Church, being threatened by Protestantism felt it imperative to defend Aristotle.
His friends in the Jesuits in effect told Galileo, "We know you're right, but give us time to break the news to the masses. The middle of a religious war with the Protestants is no time to be undercutting what we consider to be the basis of our theology. So please publish in Latin for the elite and not in the vernacular for the masses." Not only did Galileo ignore the advice of his Jesuit friends, his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Principle Systems of the World" includes a dim-witted buffoon named Simplicio, a thinly disguised caricature of the Pope who had been Galileo's friend and admirer. Is it any wonder that the Pope and the Jesuits turned against him? Galileo was an arrogant prima donna and publicity hound who betrayed an agreement with his friends in the Church.
Kopernick (Copernicus): Whose heliocentricism was proposed without a single shred of empirical evidence. Such evidence would not be available until Galileo saw through his telescope that Venus had phases like the moon. In fact, the original Copernican system was more complicated than the preceding Ptolemaic system with all of its epicycles. Copernicus could not explain the movement of the planets with his theory because he assumed planetary orbits (as befitting denizens of the celestial spheres) moved in perfect circles. A mechanical explanation for planetary orbits would await Newton's "Principia". (Newton, BTW would remain a devout Christian who spent more time in Biblical study than in scientific pursuits). So until evidence was available supporting a heliocentric view, Copernicus failed the test of Occam's Razor when compared to the Ptolemaic view. What motivated Copernicus wasn't science but neo-Platonist philosophy that taught that the sun was symbolic of God's ability to create and therefore deserved primacy at the center of the universe. This was in opposition to the Aristotelian view (which dominated the Church as Thomas Aquinas' scholasticism) which assumed that the Earth was the enter of the universe.
Posted by: co | August 19, 2009 10:17 AM
And that shows that the RCC was rational... how?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 10:23 AM
Wow... a more completely misguided and disturbing display of catholic apologetics regarding Galileo I have never seen... Bill Donohue would indeed be proud... are you sure you're not him?
Please standby whilst we rip that screed to shreds...
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 19, 2009 10:24 AM
Point of order: Urban very clearly thought Simplicio was intended as a caricature specifically of him. Far as I've ever heard, it was far from clear this was ever exactly Galileo's intent in the Dialogue, however, despite certain Catholic apologists regularly repeating (without, as always, much in the way of critical appraisal of their own rather self-serving position) that it was.
But then as now, popes do tend to be thin-skinned nutters by nature, who, seeing a broad parody of profound stupidity, assume it refers personally to them...
(/Funny, that. Can't imagine why...)
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 19, 2009 10:26 AM
So what are you trying to convince me of? The Pope had the power to exonerate Galileo, yet he did not. Is Mother Church for science?
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 10:26 AM
"In fact, those accomplishments prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the RCC can do better in other issues, and therefore should be forced to do so, for the good of Humanity."
You'll find that catholic theology agrees with you. Doubt is an integral part of faith, faith without doubt isn't faith at all. At the heart of Catholic theology, and the foundation of the Catechism, is the concept of the "Primacy of the Informed Conscience", courtesy of St. Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica. To make a long dogma short, the IC allows a Catholic to question — even disbelieve — a non-infallible Church teaching. Last time I check there were only two infallible doctrines in all of Church dogma, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. It is practically a get out of dogma free card.
Well almost, there are certain rules governing the exercise of the IC:
1. The burden of proof is on the individual, not on the Magesteria. Vatican theologians think about these things for a living, and they are very good at it. So the assumption is always that the Magesteria is right and has to be proven wrong. They can be wrong for any number of reasons as they are imperfect human beings and can be in error
2. The reasoning governing the exercise of the IC is thorough and the result of long study and prayer.
3. It is not for selfish reasons but for moral reasons that a conclusion is arrived at.
4. It does not directly contradict the clear word of God (i.e. no amount of IC could justify cold blooded murder).
An "informed conscience" is an absolute necessity for the individual Catholic since over the centuries the church has been in favor of the following:
a. Burning heretics (burning witches was a Protestant thing).
b. Torturing people by the inquisition.
c. Waging holy wars against Muslims in violation of its own "Just War" doctrine.
d. Committing genocide against the Albigensians (among others).
e. Promoting the corrupting sale of indulgences, a major trigger of the Protestant reformation.
f. Claiming until quite recently that there is no salvation outside of the church (at least we no longer have to believe in moral absurdities like Mahatma Gandhi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu).
g. Opposing the lending of money at interest.
h. Warning against the dread heresy of Americanism.
i. Though it has tried to mitigate (whenever it could) the abuses of slavery it never opposed it as an institution, and when slavery died it did so without benefit of clergy.
j. And though individual Popes have protected and sheltered Jews whenever possible, the church on the whole has until this century persecuted Jews or connived at their persecution (JPII recently apologized for such sins).
In short, Church dogma is subject to change and has often defended or promoted morally repugnant behavior. Can anyone in their right mind consider the Borgia Popes to be infallible or exemplars of morality?
I take the long view concerning the recent scandals in the Church. As the saying goes, "Ecclessia perpetua reforma" (the church is always in need of reform). As the old joke says, the continued existence of the RCC proves the existence of God — since only a divinly guided organization could survive two millenia of often corrupt and incompetent mismanagement.
It will cleanse itself as it has time and again and emerge stronger and better. The genius of Catholicism is that it actually stands for something in this post-modern world of ours. It has outlived feudalism, monarchism, socialism, nazism, fascism, imperialism, communism and a host of other beliefs more or less intact and on course. A thousand years form now, when all our current "isms" are mere footnotes in history books, the Catholic church will still be here. I believe that the Church could even survive a nuclear war (see "A Canticle for Liebowitz").
The Church is the source of our culture, science and civilization. The good it has done far outweigh the bad (though of course, the bad gets all the press). Its sins are few compared to its many (often unheralded) good deeds.
Posted by: Jenna Bella | August 19, 2009 10:28 AM
I love this part of Donohue's remarks:
"There is no legitimate place for this kind of frontal assault on any demographic group."
Indeed Mr. Donohue? Perhaps you should take a long hard look at the kinds of "assualts" people have had to endure at the hands of so many of the followers Catholisism. Including, but not limited to: abortion doctors, same-sex couples, women who don't want to have children, unwed mothers...etc.
Nevermind the fact that the same outrage Mr. Donohue feels about this "assualt" is the same outrage many people feel about the ridiculous, politically motivated/created, and outdated religious idealism he touts as the way to salvation.
I find this hysterical, seriously I do.
Posted by: co | August 19, 2009 10:32 AM
Then you herald them, so we can all learn what a fantastically helpful, humanitarian, rational organization the Church is. You just herald the shit out of them, because that claim is going to take extraordinary evidence, heretofore extraordinarily lacking.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 10:33 AM
Andyet, we don't give a shit about the RCC's dogma. Quit citing it, as it is meaningless drivel, just like your posts. You are trying to defend the indefensible. The RCC doesn't need you, any more than it needs Bill Donowhore. It is a big organization, and can defend itself. We eat self-appointed idjits for lunch.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 19, 2009 10:34 AM
Since you are such a great propagandist for the RCC, when will Vatican III take place?
Posted by: heliobates | August 19, 2009 10:39 AM
[citation needed]
Emphasis mine.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 19, 2009 10:54 AM
Andyet apologetically whined:
"The Church is the source of our culture..."
So the Catholic Church is responsible for Tom DeLay getting on 'Dancing with The Stars'?
"...science..."
The RCC figured out Evolution and Relativity? Bet they invented the Internet as well!
"...and civilization..."
Nope, no Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Indians or Arabs involved folks!
POPEDIDIT!, Andyet wrote it, AND I BELIEVE IT!!
All hail the great god, Pope! (As revealed by Andyet, his prophet). - DJ
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 10:55 AM
So, Galileo was an "arrogant prima donna" because he refused to defer to the church and instead chose to speak his theory freely to the world for anyone who wished to listen? Wow... you're quite the theocrat, aren't you? I shudder to think of the world in which you would have us live...
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 10:57 AM
Is Mother Church for science?
Very much so, just ask Father Coyne of the Vatican Observatory (an interview by Dawkins can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc)
In supporting sceince, the Church also defends human dignity. While it accepts the mechanics of evolution as a simple fact, it utterly opposes the philosophic (not scientific) conclusion derived from evolution that life and existence are meaningless and pointless.
Furthermore, the Church is the only organization opposing what CS Lewis called "the abolition of man", the degrading of human dignity by the likes of Prof. Singer of Princeton and other heirs to Dr. Mengele. The greatest threat to human dignity these days comes from the misuse of science and the materialistic assumption that we are merely animals and can be treated accordingly.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 11:01 AM
Since you are such a great propagandist for the RCC, when will Vatican III take place?
Joke:
When Vatican III occurs,the Pope will bring his wife.
When Vatican IV occurs, the Pope will bring her husband.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 11:05 AM
Wow... you're quite the theocrat, aren't you? I shudder to think of the world in which you would have us live...
Not really. I completely agree with CS Lewis when he wrote:
"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication,"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 11:06 AM
Oh really, what about all those kids all over the world abused by their priests, and then the cover-up for the criminal activity being orchestrated by the one who was later elected pope. Quit lying to yourself. Then you can quit lying to us. Your favorite church is a corrupt and amoral organization. Nothing you can say will convince us otherwise. We are looking at the actions, not the words, of the RCC.Posted by: co | August 19, 2009 11:07 AM
I.e., trust the dude in the Big White Hat to take care of us? Are you fucking nuts? Learn what materialism is before you post crap like that.I did like the joke, though.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 19, 2009 11:13 AM
It is more than a bit disturbing to hear this (yet again) in this context. 'Yet again' insofar as the general whining from the apologists that Galileo was just too full of himself, it does come up. A. Lot.
Me, I'd freely acknowledge: sure, it sure as hell sounds like he was. But then, so what? And hearing a Catholic apologist especially going on about that is a bit like hearing a man caught terrorizing his wife insisting to the judge: 'Well, yer honor, she did have quite the mouth on her...'
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 11:13 AM
POPEDIDIT!, Andyet wrote it, AND I BELIEVE IT!!
All hail the great god, Pope! (As revealed by Andyet, his prophet). - DJ
Not the Pope per see DJ, but the culture of Western (Catholic) Christianity.
Through sheer practical know how and rules of thumb, several cultures in antiquity - from the Chinese to the Greeks to the Arabs - produced a higher level of learning and technology than medieval Europe did. Yet it was Christianized Europe and not those more advanced cultures that gave birth to modern science as a systematic, self-correcting discipline. Only in Western Christendom did science come to full fruition. Every place else it was still born or whithered on the vine before it achieved its full potential. The historian is bound to ask why this should be so. Why did Christianity form the matrix within which this novel approach to the natural world developed?"
This fertile intellectual soil was present nowhere else but in Western Christendom. (The irony being, then, that even though the Church would oppose what it considered to be dangerous heresies, the very culture created by the Church made the scientific paradigm possible. A classic case of the "Law of Unintended Consequences".)
The above points can be debated, both those who disagree are left with the task of explaining why science emerged and came to full fruition in Western Christendom only - and nowhere else.
Another intriguing wrinkle is that this theory also provides a neat answer to Fermi's Paradox: the scientific method (and associated mentality) required to build starships and explore the galaxy is made possible only by a rare set of circumstances and cultural mindsets. There may indeed be millions of civilizations across the galaxy, each hundreds of thousands of years older than ours -- but none of them are more advanced than the Iron Age, because the emergence of science is such a fluke.
Posted by: DingoJAck | August 19, 2009 11:18 AM
Andyet - Unless Father Coyne believes that The Roman Catholic Church is "the source of our culture, science and civilization", he's not much of an authority to argue from is he?
When Vatican V happens, the Pope will bring his husband. - DJ
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 19, 2009 11:20 AM
At least I know where you are coming from. The RCC is slowly retreating from peoples lives. In fact the acceptance of evolution had to be done or it would have been further removed from the populace that it wanted to influence.
Again you have failed, at least for me, to show that the RCC or any form of religion creates a superior life for people.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 11:20 AM
Andyet, we don't need your god for anything, and that bugs the shit out of you. And the shit is flowing. You are a delusional fool since you can't provide physical evidence for your deity. You try to defend an amoral and corrupt organization who is far out of touch with modern reality. And that is not needed in the modern world. Even more delusional behavior on your part. And you wonder why you get nowhere? Your presuppositions are wrong, which makes everything beyond those wrong.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 11:21 AM
Continuing with the above, the Greeks, Chinese and Muslims all started down the road to science, and never got there. Only in Western Christendom did science come to complete fruition as a mature, self correcting discipline and mindset. All other efforts were stillborn for various reasons:
First, the Bible teaches that nature is real. If this seems too obvious, remember that the Hindus teach that that the everyday world of material objects is Maya, illusion. Any culture that denigrates the real world is infertile soil for the growth of science.
Second, a society must be persuaded that the study of nature is of great value. The ancient Greeks lacked this conviction, equating the material world with evil and disorder. Manual labor was left for slaves while philosophers sought a life of leisure to pursue higher things. Hands on, practical empiricism was alien to the Greeks. In contrast, Judeo-Christianity teaches that the world has great value as God's creation. "And God saw that it was good". There has never been room in either Hebrew or Christian tradition that work was degrading. Science as we know it is hard work, which would make it unacceptable to the ancient Greek philosophers who denigrated hard work as being unfit for a citizen or gentleman. The Greeks were dilettantes; never bothering to do the hard work required to actually test their elegantly logical theories. This is why Aristotle never bothered to actually count the number of teeth a horse has.
Third, in the Christian worldview, God made the world, but is not the world itself. Nature is de-deified — a crucial precursor for scientific study of nature. So long as nature is worshiped, dissecting it would be considered impious, an advantage Christianity had over most Pagans and Animists.
Fourth Christianity established a legacy of a rational God creating an orderly world. To become an object of study, the world must first be regarded as a place where predictable events occur in a reliable predictable fashion. Unlike the Greeks and Romans, the Christians and Jews did not face a pantheon of capricious, unpredictable, immoral, and often childish gods.
Fifth, belief in an orderly universe made possible the belief in a universal, fixed natural law. The use of law in the context of natural events would have been unintelligible to every other culture except the Abrahamic faiths.
Sixth, the modern emphasis on the use of mathematics to precisely measure nature can also be traced to the Biblical teaching that God created the world ex nihilo. This is an alien concept to all other cultures, whose gods merely reshaped existing primordial matter. For example, the ancient Greek worldview consisted of eternal matter structured by eternal rational universals called Forms or Ideas. Plato's demiurge did not create from nothing he merely injected Ideas into reasonless matter. As a result, the Greeks expected a certain level of fuzziness in nature, which could never be considered to be precise or represented mathematically.
Seventh, Christianity believed that humans could discover the inner workings of natural order. An orderly precise universe presupposes that it could be interpreted by rational minds. This was absent in other cultures. The Chinese came close, sensing some order in nature but they conceived it as an inherent necessity inscrutable to the human mind.
Eight, by preaching free will as opposed to deterministic fate, Christianity made it possible to believe that humans could actually do something about nature. Instead of being forever the victims of uncontrollable fate, Christianity made possible the belief that Mankind could improve its existence. Contrast this with the Muslim emphasis on kismet and its stultifying effects on progress. Back during the days of Thomas Aquinas, the House of Islam was having a similar debate about whether reason and the scriptures could contradict each other. Christendom chose one way, Islam the other.
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 19, 2009 11:21 AM
Perhaps we should look forward to Vatican V then, when the Pope brings his boyfriend.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 11:23 AM
andyet has fallen face first into full-blown, nonsensical, baseless, fact-less, contradictory RCC apologetics... and I'm getting fully sick to my stomach. DONE.
Why don't you and piltdown man go off somewhere and commiserate about how badly mis-represented the church was regarding the Inquisition or the Crusades... I'm frankly sick of dealing with someone so obtuse as to blindly defend the indefensible.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 11:24 AM
In fact the acceptance of evolution had to be done or it would have been further removed from the populace that it wanted to influence.
Catholic acceptance of evolution occured in the 5th century with the writings of Augustine.
Posted by: tsg | August 19, 2009 11:26 AM
andyet, what is with the absolute refusal to mark what your quoting in any way whatsoever? If you can't take the time to write it comprehensibly, why the fuck should I waste any time reading it?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 19, 2009 11:27 AM
Another thought is with the acceptance of evolution by Mother Church, the RCC is retreating in areas of claims of the power of God. So yes, the Church is flexible when faced with evidence that goes against previous teaching. What other areas will the Church cede to science?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 11:32 AM
Andyet, still no cogent arguement. You need to take a break and collect what little wits you have. You are getting nowhere, just like your debacle the other day. Logic and consistancy are not your friends.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 11:33 AM
"andyet has fallen face first into full-blown, nonsensical, baseless, fact-less, contradictory RCC apologetics... and I'm getting fully sick to my stomach."
You can always refute them logically and/or factually at any time.
Please feel free to do so. Though I must warn you that it will take much greater intellectual effort than hurling insults or making blank statements.
You may not be up to the challenge.
Posted by: Butch Colophon | August 19, 2009 11:34 AM
"The Primacy of the Informed Conscience". I like that.
But see, we don't have to join your organization to
enjoy this benefit. Also, why do you assume that
being treated 'like an animal' means being mistreated?
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 11:38 AM
"What other areas will the Church cede to science?"
The RCC believes that we learn about God from two "books": the Bible and the book of "Nature".
That makes science and reason as holy as the gospels and faith.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 19, 2009 11:40 AM
Odd that it took over 1400 years to accept evolution by the Church. You are over inflating Augustine's writings of evolution. What launched the scientific revolution was the breaking of the RCC's monopoly of religious belief in Europe, not the esteemed colleges and great thinkers of the RCC.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 11:40 AM
Andyet, we don't refute nonsense, especially yours, as you have nothing but ilinformed opinion. Until you actually give us a cogent argument, which starts with the RCC is an amoral and corrupt organization, you aren't cogent. Get it? Fast meaningless posts and avoiding the amoral character of the heirarchy doesn't help your cause.
Posted by: tsg | August 19, 2009 11:41 AM
And what has the latter ever provided us that suggests we should give it any credence whatsoever?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 11:42 AM
This is just so blatantly ignorant as to not even warrant a retort. I mean you can't have just said that. No-one can that deluded without the help of mental disease.
Well, real in the sense that it exists in the form god created it in, in the way stipulated by the bible, which is of course contradicted in almost every way by modern natural science. So if by "real" you mean "not real", then yes... we agree.
Another absurd and totally unfounded, un-cited assertion. Where the hell did you learn your history?
WTF?? Now we're really getting into "batshit crazy" territory. No... they were just good guessers.
BWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA... wait, wait... it gets better...
HHHAAAAAAHAHAHAHA. See? I told you. No andyet... they just had the one. Have you actually read the bible?
I just.. I just can't can't go on reading anymore of that completely insane post... i just can't... one of the rest of you is going to have to... good luck.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 19, 2009 11:43 AM
"As for PZ, it's hard to take seriously or respect anyone who acts like Jerry Springer."
You are fully entitled to your personal opinion.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 19, 2009 11:51 AM
The biggest contribution of the RCC was the continuance of the Dark Ages and the dampening of human curiosity. The Guttenberg press and the fall of Constantinople led to the diminishment of the Roman Church, of which we should all be thanful of.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 11:53 AM
No, andyet... that has been done, over ad over again, by myself, Sastra, E.V., and many, many others several times... your stating that it hasn't been is simply lying on your part.
All you are doing now is repeating yourself, and blathering insane assertions with no foundation in fact. You've been asked to provide citation for several of your ridiculous claims several times and have yet to do so...
I'm not going to argue against that which you invent without citation. It's a pointless exercise in futility. Your last few posts have utterly, and finally, revealed just how deeply deluded you are... you have no understanding of history, and what little you do know has been twisted and deluded in a writhing, tangled exercise in christian apologetics. It's bizarre beyond the point of reason... your apologetics are not "facts"... you are simply a deluded believer who will stretch truth to whatever means are necessary to sustain those beliefs.
The only "challenge" for me where you are concerned, at this point, is to completely avoid your drivelings.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 11:57 AM
"What launched the scientific revolution was the breaking of the RCC's monopoly of religious belief in Europe, not the esteemed colleges and great thinkers of the RCC."
Well as I said,it is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences.
But without the cultural and intellectual soil created by the RCC the scientific revolution never would have occured in the first place. It would have withered on the vine as it did every place else.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 19, 2009 11:57 AM
I have, and the Communists are much better than the Nazis.
What does that make Catholicism? The inbred Hick trying to sleep with his little boys?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 19, 2009 12:07 PM
Andyet @ 440;
"Catholic acceptance of evolution occured in the 5th century with the writings of Augustine."
I must confess that my knowledge of the sayings and doings of Christian saints is somewhat limited, but all the same I was surprised to read this. When you say that Augustine accepted evolution in the 5th century what exactly do you mean? I would be interested to know exactly which of his writings you are referring to.
Since there was no scientific theory of evolution in the modern sense in existence at that time, I do not understand how he could accept 'evolution' in the term's common, modern usage. Was there an early proto-theory that you are referring to? Or did Augustines writings contain propositions that mirrored an evolutionary understanding of the development of life? Perhaps in a simplified or anecdotal form? Did Augustine establish a base position that was subsequently built on by other Catholic thinkers that created a chain of causation leading to the contemporary attitude of the Holy See toward evolution?
When you say that Augustine's writings evince an acceptance of evolution, I assume that this acceptance was qualified. Did he accept the idea of an evolutionary path of development commencing after a supernatural creation? If so, how did he discern the difference between those attributes of a creature which were a product of evolutionay development and those that had been created directly in their final form? Would this distinction have mattered to him in your opinion?
If it is no undue imposition, I would find clarification of your position on these points most illuminating.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 19, 2009 12:07 PM
The only reason the RCC started universities is that they were embarassed by illiterate priests and friars giving sacraments. Education then, just as now, as indoctrination. The RCC was never for educating the masses. Augustine's writing was never meant for the masses.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 12:08 PM
"Continuing with the above, the Greeks, Chinese and Muslims all started down the road to science, and never got there.
This is just so blatantly ignorant as to not even warrant a retort. I mean you can't have just said that."
Funny, I don't recall the scieintific revolution and the industrial revoultion it made possible starting anywhere but in Western Christendom. Perhaps you could provide a citation?
"I'm not going to argue against that which you invent without citation."
Last time I checked this was a blog where scientific peer review and citation was not required by anyone, yourself included. But FYI, the points concrning the Catholic roots of modern science come from "The Soul of Science" (Pearcey and Thaxton).
"It's bizarre beyond the point of reason... your apologetics are not "facts"... you are simply a deluded believer who will stretch truth to whatever means are necessary to sustain those beliefs."
Then it should be remarkably easy for you to refute them. Kindly do so.
Posted by: tsg | August 19, 2009 12:13 PM
Shifting the burden. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Posted by: andyet | August 19, 2009 12:15 PM
"When you say that Augustine's writings evince an acceptance of evolution, I assume that this acceptance was qualified."
First I should have said "began" instead of "occured" in teh 5th century. My apologies. The origins of this belief are in Augustine's "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis".
You are right, the acceptance was qualified given the limited knowledge, lack of an accumulation of fossil evidence and the absence of scientific method.
Posted by: Epicurus | August 19, 2009 12:16 PM
A suggestion for Mr. Donohue (actually, I have a couple.) Dear Bill: If you think you will be offended by the content of this program, I strongly suggest you NOT WATCH IT. As far as I remember, however, if you want to force ME not to watch, I kindly suggest you shove it up your fat ass. As for Bozo-ell's suggestion that the US is a "Christian" nation, please see Amendment #1 to the Constitution. You ignorant, fuzzy-thinking idjyit...guess he went crazy mouth-reading the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Perhaps the language was not quite clear enough for him.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 19, 2009 12:19 PM
Certainly the RCC was fully justified in imprisoning the greatest scientist of the age to assuage their hurt feelings. Oh yeah! All I can say is, thank fucking Hank that the RCC is no longer in the driver's seat!
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 19, 2009 12:19 PM
It appears andyet has bought all of the backfill spin Christianity has concocted to excuse itself. It should be pointed out that none of their forebears made the distinctions andyet is claiming at the time they lived. We've simply had a century of modern Christians ruminating about the past and fitting a story to it. Their past actions were all deliberate, yet now they try to impart a level of intelligence and presence of mind that was never actually there. Everything in the past was done on faith, and whatever success they did have were successes science now shows occurred in spite of their religion, especially with respect to evolution and biology. But this is assuming Christianity has always accepted science with open arms. Surely it hasn't, as has been pointed out millions of times on this and other blogs, let alone history books.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 19, 2009 12:22 PM
And how does this imply that Christianity contributed in anyway to the scientific revolution? Not to mention the fact that much of the foundations for the European scientific revolution came from Foreign nations.
And even if science was rooted in catholicism, which it is not, it does not change the fact that modern science is a direct challenge to all religious authority.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 19, 2009 12:23 PM
China?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 12:25 PM
Funny... I don't remember you mentioning the "industrial revolution" at all. And as far as the "Scientific Revolution", you attributing it to "Christendom" is nothing more than an unsupported assertion in your own mind. In fact if you want a citation concerning the advent of the Scientific Revolution, here's J.D. Bernal:
Hardly an endorsement of "christendom" as a catalyst for the scientific revolution. Andyet, you are confusing the fact that science was often furthered at that time done by men who subscribed to christian faith with chritendom having had anything substantive to do with it. History has shown (despite your loony apologetics concerning Galileo) that science had to overcome religious oppression more often than it was supported by it. Science succeeded despite christianity, not because of it.
Irrelevant, inaccurate ad-hom... figured it would come from you sooner or later. Your christianity is showing, andyet.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 12:29 PM
yikes... poor job of proofreading on this sentence in my post:
Should read:
you are confusing the fact that science was often furthered at that time by men who subscribed to christian faith, with christendom having had anything substantive to do with it.
Posted by: codedsignal.myopenid.com
|
August 19, 2009 12:35 PM
You're the person hypothesising that the church fostered the industrial revolution. You provide the evidence of a causal link.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 19, 2009 12:36 PM
Andyet still can't show anything cogent. We know history and science. He knows nothing but apologetics, which he is doing wrong. That should start with apologizing for the amoral and corrupt leadership of the church.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 19, 2009 12:39 PM
Western science also would not have happened (when and how it did) without an enormous amount of other contingency. So what?
You can look at science as a "prodigal child" who has turned on its parent (the RCC). You are welcome to your metaphor. It says nothing about the truth claims of RCC dogma.
You claim that science could only have emerged in "Christendom" (whatever that means.) You are arguing from a single contingent historical fact (science developed in western Europe during the last few centuries) to a universal (science could only have developed there and then, under the loving care of the RCC (snort).) This is nonsense. Leaving aside the borrowing from other cultures by western Europe, the incidents of proto-science elsewhere indicates that science would have emerged somewhere, fairly soon, rather than indicating it never would (the alternative inference seems preposterous to me. We have many examples of independent "discoveries" of techniques and tools around the world: This is the norm.) It's simply an historical accident that western Europe got there first.
Posted by: tsg | August 19, 2009 12:47 PM
That would be Nancy Pearcey, a fellow of the Discovery Institute1 and scholar of the World Journalism Institute whose self-stated mission is "recruit, equip, place and encourage journalists who are Christians in the mainstream newsrooms of America."2, and Charles Thaxton, a creationist and (surprise!) fellow of the Discovery Institute.
Excuse me while I consider their arguments not at all.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 19, 2009 12:47 PM
And it took over a millennium to do so. Much of that time they were behind the Chinese and the Muslims in the sciences.
To say that science didn't come around until Western Christendom started getting ahead in the game is also absurd. Most historians take Alhazen as the father of the scientific method (read here). During Medieval times the Islamic world was well ahead of Europe. Its decline probably has much to do with the 13th century Mongol invasion (and to a lesser extent the Crusades). During the Battle of Baghdad the Mongols destroyed all The Great Library of Baghdad. The Tigris was said to be black from ink of all the books the Mongols threw in the river. The philosophy of Al-Ghazali everything happens because "Allahdidit" and reason be damned probably didn't help either.
Also, the Chinese gave us the compass, gunpowder, and paper. Jared Diamond has suggested Chinese's relative geological isolation made by the Himalayas to the West, the Pacific ocean to the East and Siberia to North hurt them. He also suggests that the many European states competing created an environment where innovation was prized while the united Chinese weren't under such pressures. Finally the Europeans proximity to the resource rich Americas probably helped much as well.
History and history of science as told in the West tends to be very Eurocentric. This may lead you with the false impression that there was little progress made in sciences during the Middle Ages. There was, and much of it was outside of Europe. The Europeans benefited greatly from advances made by the Muslims and Chinese.
Your suggestion that Christianity was responsible for the rise of European science ignores the fact that Western Christendom was backwards for more than a millennium. The historical circumstances and geographic advantages the Europeans had over others seems like the best explanation. If anything I think Christianity and the RCC hurt the progress of science.
As Galileo found out they didn't like it pointed out that one book contradicted the other.
Posted by: heliobates | August 19, 2009 12:50 PM
This statement is correct as a historical fact. As support for your primary thesis that Christianity in general and Catholocisim in particular caused or were directly responsible for the rapid scientific advances from the 15th through the 20th centuries, not so much.
Thoroughly refuting this would require several book-length treatments. We'd have to talk about:
* what happened to the Greeks? Rome happened
* the overall causes contributing to the long decline of the Roman civilization
* the flowering of Renaissance Humanism and its effect on education, science and culture; planting the seeds of the Enlightenment
* the Mongol invasions and their effect on Chinese expansionism
* the fact that you're ignoring the cumulative effect of the Crusades, the long Sunni-Shiite conflict, the Mongol invasions and the eventual resulting decline and collapse of the great Muslim states; and assuming (essentialist that you are) that Islam failed because Christianity is somehow "better" (similar causes for Roman decline, and as for the Greeks, well "Rome happened")
* the age of Colonialism, which, by stripping the 'New World' of resources, fuelled a period of enormous prosperity in the European nation states and created the wealth and leisure that prepared the ground for the Enlightenment
* the Enlightenment
* the American Revolution, the European wars of the 18th Century, the Industrial Revolution, the European Wars of the 19th Century, 20th Century scientific flourishing...
Are you sure that our contemporary technological and scientific flourishing are entirely attributable to the fact that the RCC is just the gosh-darndest force in history?
That's an extremely myopic and biased view of history you're advancing.
Posted by: gdlchmst | August 19, 2009 12:50 PM
I'm curious, are Penn and Teller the acceptable douchey kind of Libertarians or the batshit crazy, "No-taxes-ever" kind of Libertarians?
Posted by: tsg | August 19, 2009 12:54 PM
The most recent episode I saw was "Taxes" which I had to turn off after five minutes (and I like P&T). If you can find it, it might answer your question.
Posted by: Whitt | August 19, 2009 1:05 PM
@45 "I'm wondering, what is Bill Donohue's position on displaying "the ten commandments" in government facilities?"
The missionary position of-course.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 19, 2009 1:16 PM
"'No-taxes-ever' kind of Libertarians"
If this kind ever gets in charge, I strongly recommend taking a crash course in flint-knapping. We'll be back in the stone age before you can turn around.
We tried gang-rule/bully-rule throughout the world until very recently. How did it work out for individual liberty?
Posted by: Sastra | August 19, 2009 1:57 PM
Andyet #437 wrote:
'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?'
I think you grossly underestimate the significance of Greek thought on the development of science, and its later influence on Christianity. The revealed religion which came out of the MidEast was a matter of prophets proclaiming truths from God, which people are urged to accept and obey on God's authority.
The great contribution of the Greeks, however, was the idea of debate: a competition between minds, seeking to persuade to a consensus. The Catholic Church originally had its roots in Eastern mysticism: scientific thinking couldn't have evolved from the prophetic traditions of Judeo-Christianity. The fact that Aquinas borrowed so heavily from Aristotle shows a break with religion, not a continuation of it.
Church fathers separated the City of God, from the Secular World. They were two different realms. That was Christendom's greatest contribution. It stood back enough to allow what the Greeks began, to evolve.
1) European science was a direct continuation of Greek science.
2.) the distinctive feature of European culture was its tendency to develop autonomous self-governing institutions.
3) capitalism provided a force and class that could stand up to the nobility and clergy
4) the printing of inexpensive books spread new ideas among the learned, and also made possible an increasing number of students from the middle class. (from Alan Cromer's Uncommon Sense.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 19, 2009 2:22 PM
I recently listened to an excellent podcast that debunks andyet's thesis that "Western Christendom" was responsible for the rise of science:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2009/07/stark-on-ancient-science.html
Carrier specifically addresses that false accusations against the Greek and Roman philosophers that Stark makes, and which are paraphrased above by andyet.
Carrier does not exactly condemn Christianity for turning against science and the rational and empirical world in it early years -- he notes that both pagans and Christians were becoming more mystical at that time. But of course, he notes the obvious point that after all of the discoveries by post-Aristotelian philosophers, Christianity did not return to science as soon as it gained political power, but rather, more than a thousand years passed before any scientific headway was made. And of course, this change was quite often due to rediscovery of the ancient pagan philosophers, sometimes transmitted via Muslim or Arab philosophers.
Carrier has many more interesting essays about the early history of Christianity, here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/#history
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 19, 2009 2:29 PM
"the source of our culture, science and civilization",
We got the concept of zero from the Hindus via the Muslims, the major legal traditions which took hold in Europe were born of the vikings (The Dane-law), the bulk of our philosophy is derived from the fucking pagan Greeks and ancient Indians - the Catholic Church reigned supreme in the West for about 1000 years of either trying to get back to where we were under the pagan Romans or stagnant.
The major advances during the Catholic era came thanks to very pagan figures such as the afor mentioned vikings, and far eastern raiding parties from the very brutal Mongols - who opened up trade routes with far more advanced nations with far better ideas.
About the only thing the Church did was support feudal political systems that equalled systematically starving people for not being born of the right caste. Wankers talk about how brutal the French revolutionaries were on the Church, it was because the Church were the very worst landlords in France at the time. The priests who got beheaded mostly deserved worse.
It took the systematic degredation of the Church's authority to move society in the least bit forward, first in the form of splits in the Church (Martin Luther for example) then in strong political leaders who lead without the Church (King Henry VIII, and Queen Elizabeth the First for example.)
You talk about Galileo being arrogant or how he should have deferred to the Church, well guess what, the Church does not get to dictate solid reality. Galileo was right, the church wrong, and who the fuck are you you piddling pissant to claim your faith comes before the truth?
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 19, 2009 2:33 PM
Oh, that's right, Pilt. I completely forgot that as far as you're concerned, the killing of a non-Catholic by a Catholic does not count as murder. I should of course have written "He proudly supports the the Bible-mandated mass slaughter (Deut. 17; Deut. 20) of all who are non-Catholic."
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 19, 2009 2:45 PM
Andyet and Piltdown are making me think we need to play Survivor: Pharyngula again sometime soon.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 2:59 PM
add in Shran and Bradford and I think we have the makings of a spirited competition... I'm sure we could find others... the trolls have been lively lately.
Posted by: JeffreyD | August 19, 2009 3:04 PM
Andyet, Piltdown, and Shran, meet Killfile. Killfile, meet three who could most contribute to society by volunteering to have the organs harvested.
Cia y'all
Posted by: Qwerty | August 19, 2009 3:09 PM
Since he's has more than three posts, I think it's andyet's name that bothers me the most. He wants to be an authority and answer everyone on everything. You say and Andyet says "and yet." Yea, he shoved these two words together to get his handle.
Or maybe it's Andy ET as he seems to be an other-worldly authority on all matters pertaining to everything.
He reminds me of Cartman in the episode of "South Park" in which he plays a kiddie cop. "Respect my authority!" was Cartman's commone line throughout the episode.
If PZ plays Survivor: Pharyngula again, I am voting for andyet.
Posted by: Sastra | August 19, 2009 3:13 PM
PZ Myers #482 wrote:
No, I disagree. Andyet and Piltdown are critics, not trolls. Despite what I suspect may be a bad habit of cut 'n pasting, Andyet is making arguments, and backing it up with evidence. Same, I suppose, for Piltdown (though I haven't dealt with him as much.) Being mistaken -- even repeatedly mistaken -- is not the same as trolling.
They're both outnumbered. They're usually civil (at least enough to fit in with the crowd.) They bring up substantial points from apologetic literature. We need to engage with opposing views. They're easy enough to skip, for those who are uninterested. And it's not PZ's job to save people from SIWOTI Syndrome.
I vote 'no' on having another Survivor:Pharyngula. I think they're kind of tacky;/mean anyway. But imo these two aren't candidates, even so.
Posted by: tsg | August 19, 2009 3:18 PM
Where?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 3:31 PM
All due respect, Sastra... this is giving far more credit than has been earned. andyet began this whole thing by jumping in to call PZ, effectively, a loudmouth blowhard, comparing him to Glenn Beck and Jerry Springer, claiming that his only motivation is fame and fortune... something he has done on many other threads. As repeatedly as he has done it, I can't argue with PZ's notion of putting him up for a plonking.
Andyet is still having a fit of the vapors over "crackergate", and that is his first line of attack in any thread he jumps into... he sees hypocrisy everywhere, assumes he is above it all, has made outrageous claims with regards to science, history, and christianity / catholicism, and I'm sorry, what he has provided are either his own assertions, or other people's quoted assertions... I don't see anything that amounts to "evidence".
Posted by: Sastra | August 19, 2009 3:32 PM
tsg #487 wrote:
Most of his/her posts bring in some event or writing to back up a claim. See #437.
Perhaps I'm using the word "evidence" more loosely. I'm distinguishing an empirical argument, from a presupp. You can argue either against his points, or claim that the evidence should be interpreted differently. He's not just mindlessly intoning that we ought to 'open our hearts,' for example.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 3:35 PM
holy shit... I almost forgot bilbo... if forced to choose, he'd be the clear favorite in my mind.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | August 19, 2009 3:40 PM
A new round of Survivor: Pharyngula sounds like a good idea.
I'd just like to add one more refutation to Andyet's pathetic theory about Catholicism causing the Scientific Revolution. Both Islam and Medieval Christendom were starting from the same place. The works of the Ancients that survived could have been retranslated and absorbed by either. Yet Islam was first. Why?
In my opinion, the difference between them was confidence. Christendom was threatened by Islam to the east and south, and vikings from the north. Meanwhile, Islam was on a roll, and that gave them the confidence to learn what their previous existence in the Arabian desert hadn't taught them.
About the turn of the millennium (on the Christian calendar), it began to become obvious to them, however, that they were not going to conquer the entire world, as they had been promised. The crisis of confidence that that caused was the source of the various "fundamentalist" movements that within a century or two had completely dominated the Muslim world--until today, effectively.
Europe might have taken up where they left off, but were probably set back a century or more by the Black Death. The Renaissance marks the point where they had enough confidence in their security, particularly against Islam, that they could loosen the stranglehold of religion on human thought.
The fact that the Catholic church allowed themselves to be dragged kicking and screaming along with parts of this advancement doesn't mean that they contributed to it in any way. Quite the reverse.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 3:51 PM
Fair enough... but too much of what he posts is directly copied and pasted from someone else's intellect... in fact, his entire post at #437, for example, was lifted directly, verbatim, from here.
Make your arguments, and quote from supporting ideas as needed, that's fine... but simply regurgitating entire screeds seems disingenuous and shows a lack of effort.
Posted by: tsg | August 19, 2009 3:53 PM
He's inventing facts to back up his preconceived notions. I wouldn't call that "evidence" by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by: bilbo | August 19, 2009 3:56 PM
Glad to see I left a lasting impression, my mostly unwashed Celtic friend!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 3:58 PM
Whaddaya mean "mostly"?
Posted by: Sastra | August 19, 2009 4:01 PM
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge #491 wrote:
I think that your post here -- along with recent posts by Celtic_Evolution, JBlilie, gdlchsm, Feynmaniac, heliobates, Owlmirror, Bruce Gorton, and others -- shows why we shouldn't kick out Andyet. Your responses could not have been so substantial, informative, and interesting if Andyet's argument wasn't even worth addressing.
Right now, a lot of Catholics are claiming that their Church was directly responsible for the rise of modern science. Not just a contributing factor, but the necessary source of scientific thinking itself. Hot topic in apologetics.
Not everyone who reads this blog can address this, and not everyone who can address it can address it just the way it ought to be addressed. Group efforts are valuable. We learn things from each other, and from the argument itself -- things we would not learn if the issue wasn't allowed to come up, because poor Andyet is still pissy over Crackergate, or whatever.
I don't care if he's pissy. He can have any bad attitude he wants. So can we. So what?
Good post. Are you right on your history? I'm not sure. But I can consider it, and would have missed it had it not been there as a counterclaim.
Posted by: Sastra | August 19, 2009 4:15 PM
Celtic_Evolution #492 wrote:
Ah, I was afraid of that. Facilis used to do the same thing. I'm not sure if they're trying to impress us, or are genuinely curious to see how we will answer the "good" arguments they're not quite equipped to make themselves.
In their defense, I think both at least answered, or tried to respond, to rebuttals, in their own words. It's not just a mind-numbing blur of constant cut ' paste. We've seen those, at their worst, and there's no need for the coy, nasty little Survivor game. Out they go to a well-deserved dungeon. Theists and apologists are also terribly outnumbered here, so I tend to cut them a little extra slack.
I suppose another defense is to argue that we don't really care about the individuals as people: we're not the personality police, or teachers grading students. If it's an interesting or relevant argument, it doesn't really matter who wrote it originally.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 4:25 PM
Mmm... ok... that's true to a point... however I'd argue that I'd prefer to debate / argue / discuss ideas with a person who can convey their thoughts in their own words... or at the very least give credit to those they are quoting, and use those quotes attached with at least some modicum of original verbiage as to how that quote is relevant to their point, in their mind... that way I know at least a little about the person I'm debating and their thoughts and ideas, instead of having to wonder if the person has arrived at their conclusions independantly or is simply parroting someone else's thoughts. It makes a significant difference to me... and were I you, Sastra, I could probably explain why much more eloquently than I've done here.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 19, 2009 4:44 PM
and while I'm going through this exercise...
andyet at #414, lifted word for word from here.
#433 again lifted from here.
Perhaps he was the originator of these comments to begin with, I have no idea... but it still feels disingenuous and lazy to not at least indicate that you are simply cutting and pasting... your own words or not.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 19, 2009 5:08 PM
I agree with Sastra, another round of Pharyngula Survivor isn't warranted...yet. andyet is not as smart as he thinks he is and Piltdown Man is a Catholic Dominationist, but neither of these sins are mortal. I'm more anti-andyet for plagiarism than apologetics.
Posted by: Grendels Dad | August 19, 2009 5:19 PM
Tangential to the topic: When you see ‘andyet’ do you see it as “and-yet” (as in, he doesn’t have anything to say, and yet he keeps talking) or is it andy-et, a sort of diminutive andy.
These burning questions keep distracting me from what I am sure must be his well reasoned argument, and his mountains of supporting data…
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 19, 2009 5:34 PM
Who said anything about convincing anyone? I fully realize that I have about as much chance of convincing anyone here that God exists - andyet
It wasn't that I was referring to of course, but to your sneering @383.
Second, a society must be persuaded that the study of nature is of great value. The ancient Greeks lacked this conviction, equating the material world with evil and disorder...
Through sheer practical know how and rules of thumb, several cultures in antiquity - from the Chinese to the Greeks to the Arabs - produced a higher level of learning and technology than medieval Europe did. Yet it was Christianized Europe and not those more advanced cultures that gave birth to modern science as a systematic, self-correcting discipline. Only in Western Christendom did science come to full fruition. Every place else it was still born or whithered on the vine before it achieved its full potential. The historian is bound to ask why this should be so. Why did Christianity form the matrix within which this novel approach to the natural world developed?"
This fertile intellectual soil was present nowhere else but in Western Christendom. (The irony being, then, that even though the Church would oppose what it considered to be dangerous heresies, the very culture created by the Church made the scientific paradigm possible. A classic case of the "Law of Unintended Consequences".)
The above points can be debated, both those who disagree are left with the task of explaining why science emerged and came to full fruition in Western Christendom only - and nowhere else. - andyet, cutting-and-pasting some creationist wackos.
Others have already taken much of this apart, but I'll add a little. Andyet, if you're going to rely on this sort of historical apologetics, it's advisable to actually know some history.
First, what is said of the ancient Greeks certainly does not apply to the Hellenistic era, and in particular to Alexandria and Syracuse (actually, not even to Aristotle, in practice if not in theory). Calculating the diameter of the Earth to a very good approximation, working out the principle of displacement, and devising the Antikythera mechanism, Hero's steam engine and Archimedes' screw - to mention just a few highlights - hardly suggest "equating the material world with evil and disorder". Alexandria housed a school of engineering by the first century C.E. - as well as the priceless library which Catholic fanatics later destroyed. Incidentally, if we're counting pre-scientific speculations about evolution, the materialist Roman philosopher Lucretius anticipated Augustine by several centuries.
Second, as Feynmaniac has noted, the Muslim Alhazen was the first to outline scientific method, in the early 11th century C.E. - disposing of all the claims for the unique suitability of Christian philosophy to give rise to science at a stroke.
Modern science emerged once the material and technological conditions for it to do so were met. Considered globally, technological progress had continued more or less monotonically for millennia - that is, there was no long period where the most advanced societies were not scaling new heights of knowledge and technology. This process was highly likely to produce a scientific revolution somewhere, given enough time: the "stagnation" of societies outside Christendom is a self-serving myth.
Modern science probably emerged in western Europe rather than elsewhere largely by default: Islamic civilisation was badly damaged by the Seljuk and Almoravid invasions of the 11th century - these nomadic conquerors placed little value on knowledge - and the process was completed by the Mongol invasions. The debt western science owes to its Islamic predecessor is clear in the many scientific words of Arabic origin, and in the "Arabic" (in fact originally Hindu) numerals. The Renaissance was enormously boosted, if not actually caused, by the translation of Greek and Arabic works, particularly after the reconquest of Toledo in 1085. (The Greek works thus rediscovered were taken to Baghdad in the 8th century by Nestorian Christians fleeing Catholic persecution, and translated into Arabic at the command of Haroun al-Rashid. Baghdad was also the conduit by which the key Chinese invention of paper reached the west.)
China and India suffered similarly to Islam from a succession of nomad invasions, culminating in the Mongol conquest and the depredations of Tamurlane respectively. Had Ogdei Khan not died in 1241, causing the Mongol invasion of Europe to be abandoned, western Christendom would have suffered similar damage.
However, there were positive factors in western Europe's favour: political and later religious division meant that no single power could halt scientific or technical progress; western Europe had by 1450 accumulated a set of key technical discoveries - many of them made elsewhere (notably paper, clear glass, Arabic numerals, the compass, clockwork, moveable type printing - the last two were indigenous, but not obviously dependent on scholastic philosophy); and 15th-16th century European imperialism brought in a huge surge of both wealth and new information. I guess this surge must be attributed to the RCC - along with the mass murder and enslavement that it involved.
Finally, I note that andyet thinks we should be grateful to the RCC for accepting the fact of evolution. Why is gratitude due to anyone or anything for accepting something for which the evidence is overwhelming? Like the RCC itself, andyet has a completely unjustified sense of entitlement.
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | August 19, 2009 5:44 PM
Grendels Dad @ #501:
I read it as "and yet", and it makes me think of Galileo's famous words (probably muttered under his breath, and understandably so) after being forced to recant his heretical ideas about heliocentrism: "...and yet, it moves."
There are few things less appropriate than a supporter of Galileo's persecutors adopting as nick Galileo's words of defiance; but to be fair, andyet may well be unaware of the connection. He's certainly unaware of a lot of other things.
Posted by: Nova | August 19, 2009 6:09 PM
@#474 Well here http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_136178.html Penn says he's anarcho-capitalist, so yes that is the batshit crazy variety.
Posted by: Lee Picton | August 19, 2009 6:58 PM
Dear Knockgoats,
Thanks so much for the comprehensive history lesson. At my age, I no longer have the time to read all the weighty tomes that would allow me to synthesize so much history in the way you just did. Are you a professional historian?
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 19, 2009 7:13 PM
Continuing the game of "track that plagiarism", I note that andyet@#419 is from here.
I don't think andyet is daniel duffy (original author of those words), who I note is careful to cite his sources, at least in that comment.
Posted by: E.V. | August 19, 2009 7:23 PM
Does Andyet care to dispute the accusations? Hello?
Yoohoo...AAAAndYEEEEEEeeeeet?!!
Hmm, maybe he's in the loo.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 19, 2009 7:33 PM
andyet -
In a spirit of fraternal correction, I must respectfully take issue with a number of your statements in posts #419 and #427.
This is extremely misleading. It is true that the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are the only dogmas which have that status by virtue of ex cathedra papal pronouncements. But ex cathedra papal pronouncements are not the only sources of Church dogma. Far more common are the dogmatic decrees of Ecumenical Church Councils, which carry the full weight of the infallible Magisterium.
So (for example) when the Council of Trent declares:
or when Vatican Council I declares:
-- those Councils are defining dogma. You must believe these doctrines to have the Catholic Faith. More precisely: You cannot knowingly dissent from them and remain a Catholic.
A "dogma" means a divinely revealed truth and divinely revealed truths don't change. "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever." We do say dogmas "develop" in the strict sense that magisterial pronouncements can clarify and amplify prior pronouncements -- by removing ambiguity, making explicit what was previously implicit and so forth.
You list a number of supposed dogmas that have been abandoned or modified:
Of these, all but the sixth seem to me to have no bearing whatever on matters of dogmatic belief. They relate to prudential and disciplinary positions. They thus do not bear the stamp of infallibility and, as you rightly say, Catholics are not obliged to give their assent to non-infallible statements or positions.
Nor, I might add, are Catholics obliged to assent to any subsequent retractions of said positions, since these retractions are every bit as prudential and non-infallible as the original positions. As a Catholic I am thus at perfect liberty to withhold my assent from Pope John Paul II's opposition to the death penalty; from Benedict XVI's rejection of the traditional teaching on Limbo; from John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II & Benedict XVI's disconcerting statements appearing to sanction the godless 'United Nations' as the model for a global political authority; from mealy-mouthed "apologies" for the actions of long-dead Catholics who shed their blood in defensive wars against Islamic aggression; from craven capitulation to the sin of usury; and so on.
As you say, "only a divinely guided organization could survive two millennia of often corrupt and incompetent mismanagement"!
Point No 6:
Now that IS a dogma. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (Athanasian Creed)
The most Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in eternal life, but that they will go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels unless before death they shall have entered into that Church; and that so important is the unity of that ecclesiastical body that only those abiding within this unity can profit from the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive a reward for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Council of Florence)
If any one shall say that baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent)
Since without the Faith it is impossible to please God, no one is justified without it, nor will anyone attain eternal life unless he perseveres to the end in it. (Vatican Council I)
Sorry.
Papal infallibility is restricted to ex cathedra pronouncements and has nothing to do with personal impeccability.
I doubt you'll be able to produce a single Church document that says any such thing. On what do you base that extraordinary assertion?
Posted by: codedsignal.myopenid.com
|
August 19, 2009 7:36 PM
@ Knockgoats
Great post... and one that beautifully illustrates Sastra's thoughtful point at #486.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 19, 2009 7:41 PM
Owlmirror @ 481:
More lies. (Or can you back up your statements with quotations from my posts?)
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
August 19, 2009 8:09 PM
penn and teller are awesome. their show doesn't prove very much, of course, but it's fun to watch them scream the bleeding obvious and crackpots, and make fun of the people who are deserving of ridicule. it's a nice reminder that there is still sanity in the world. i watch it every week. i wish it were twice as long.
oh, and while i recognize that the catholic church probably has more power, if they didn't get taken off the air for advocating the violent overthrow of the US government, pissing off a few religious people ain't gonna do much. see, we have this thing call the first amendment -- that very thing that protects catholicism also protects criticism and ridicule of catholicism.
it's one of the only reasons i love america.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 20, 2009 4:13 AM
Do you deny that you consider all non-Catholics to be threats to Catholicism?
Do you deny that you consider it right and proper for threats to be exterminated?
Do you deny that you consider Deuteronomy 7 and Deuteronomy 17 and Deuteronomy 20 and Numbers 25 and Numbers 31 as being mandates from God for Catholics to slaughter and exterminate non-Catholics?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 20, 2009 4:21 AM
Owlmirror:
Yes.
Depends on the nature of the threat.
Yes.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 20, 2009 4:43 AM
Seems the biggest threat to Catholics are the Catholics themselves.
Would I be surprised that you would want to eliminate Vatican Council 2 and 1?
Posted by: Damian | August 20, 2009 4:52 AM
I don't know if this has already been linked to, but Richard Carrier spent well over an hour talking about science in the ancient world — and particularly that of ancient Greece and Rome — on the Polyschizmatic Reprobates Hour (there's two parts), rebutting much of Rodney Stark's mangling (by the sounds of it, he ignored pretty much all of it) of ancient history in order to fit a predetermined conclusion about science and Christianity in both, "For the Glory of God" and "The Victory of Reason".
There's some discussion in the second part about the decline of the Roman empire, which is well worth listening to, as well.
There's also an interesting discussion that is ongoing concerning contra causal and compatibilist free will between Richard and Tom Clark (of naturalism.org), which ties in nicely with some of what has been discussed in this thread, as well as others.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 20, 2009 6:37 AM
Andy et @ 400 and 414
As has been pointed out, both amazingly wrong, I don't know if you are ignorant, lying or just trolling.
Andy et @437
Again as been pointed out, science as we know it may have made major advances within Western Christendom, but that does not go demonstrate that it did so because of Western Christendom.
The rest of your post is just excuses, trying to give credit to religion where little is deserved.
I particularly liked point 4, "Christians and Jews did not face a pantheon of capricious, unpredictable, immoral, and often childish gods". I like this because you are ignoring just how right you are. Christians and Jews had a single capricious, unpredictable, immoral, and often childish god (although the bible hints at other gods). No pantheon required.
I too would like to thank the other contributors for their educational posts, although I doubt very much if andy et will learn anything :(
Posted by: andyet | August 20, 2009 8:22 AM
"Now that IS a dogma. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
No, that's Feenyism and its been condemned by the magisteria
http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm
Unless of course you are one those SSPX nut jobs like Mel Gibson's old man.
"I doubt you'll be able to produce a single Church document that says any such thing. On what do you base that extraordinary assertion?"
A declaration by John Paul II The Great to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that evolution was "more than just a theory".
http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/pope&evolution.html
Furthermore, "There is no established way to reconcile evolution and creationism, but most theologians no longer see the Book of Genesis as a scientific account, they are theological accounts. God is still the why of creation But evolution is a possible how of creation."
Posted by: andyet | August 20, 2009 8:26 AM
Hmm, maybe he's in the loo.
No I juat happen to have a life (family, job, etc.). Don't you?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 20, 2009 8:32 AM
Piltdown Man vs. andyet: Catholic kook fight!
Posted by: andyet | August 20, 2009 8:35 AM
"Andyet and Piltdown are making me think we need to play Survivor: Pharyngula again sometime soon."
Oh please, why would I care about the opinion of an immature, boorish buffoon who desecrated a communion wafer as a publicity stunt? That is something I'd expect from a sophomoric frat boy, not a tenured professor. I'd rather value the opinion of Jerry Springer. He's more honest and open about his motivations.
And he's got more class.
Posted by: spurge | August 20, 2009 8:47 AM
"Oh please, why would I care about the opinion of an immature, boorish buffoon who desecrated a communion wafer as a publicity stunt?"
Liar.
If you did not care you would not post here.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 20, 2009 9:07 AM
You know what... I'm going to change my mind and agree with Sastra... no need for a round of Pharyngula Survivor...
Just plonk this plagiarizing, ad-hom slinging, insipid, godbotting louse. Tout de suite.
Posted by: aratina cage | August 20, 2009 9:11 AM
@andyet
Yet you believe in a god who started out imposing childish rules on his followers and publicity-whoring throughout the lands until he was king of the hill? Yet you believe in that god's human manifestation who indulged in frat-boyish pranks on the local religious leaders and governing officials until he went too far and got crucified for it (which didn't stop his fraternity brothers from continuing to ridicule believers in competing religions)? Maybe you like PZ more than you let on.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2009 9:40 AM
Andyet, lets take a look at your lack of class. You come to this blog, you have your say, and you didn't like the response you got. So, you have essentially been throwing a temper tantrum like a two-year-old who isn't getting their way. You need to correct that, by apologizing for your behavior, before you can legitamtely talk about other peoples lack of class.
If you had bothered to read the 30,000+ posts on Crackergate, you would understand where we come from. We respect your right to be Catholic. However, we will not allow you to dictate how we must behave with respect to certain inane beliefs by Catholics. So, we can mock your cracker, since idea the it is the body of Jebus is crazy, but not you. However, if you think your cracker deserves special consideration, then you must first show the same consideration to other beliefs. Like not eating meat so it doesn't offend Hindus, not eating pork so you don't offend Jews and Moslems, etc. Put up or STFU.
You have another erroneous idea. That is that professors are moral role models outside of the class room. They are not under the same considerations expected from priests, pastors, and other religious leaders. They are expected to behave with professional decorum in the classroom, with their peers, and their administrators. Outside of the campus, they, like most other professions, are on their own. So what PZ does on his own time is his business.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 20, 2009 10:07 AM
Andyet,
Are you going to answer the charges of plagiarism?
Posted by: becca | August 20, 2009 4:47 PM
*crickets*
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 20, 2009 4:50 PM
Lee Picton@505, codedsignal.myopenid.com@509,
Thanks! No, Lee, I'm not a professional historian. About 30 years ago, I started reading what you might call "large-scale" history - trying to get an overall grasp of the human past. Almost all professional historians, inevitably, spend most of their time working on some small segment of that past. I have a particular interest in the history of science and technology, but it's all from what a real historian would call "secondary sources".
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 20, 2009 8:35 PM
andyet @ 517:
It is not Feeneyism. As I understand it, Fr Feeney denied the possibility of salvation for those who had the desire for baptism but were physically unable to obtain it. This was presumably heretical as it contradicted the Council of Trent: [Salvation] cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) .
So no get out of Hell card for Gandhi. Or are you claiming he desired to be baptised a Catholic?
I'm not associated with the FSSPX, who in any case are not Feeneyites.
And I don't think it's very charitable to refer to fellow Catholics as "nut jobs". Or are you claiming the FSSPX are not Catholics?
Hutton Gibson has nothing to do with the FSSPX. He's a sedevacantist and the FSSPX disavow sedevacantism.
*Ahem*
Of course a speech by a pope ≠ an infallible papal pronouncement. But in any case what he actually said was: "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis." ("Aujourd’hui, près d’un demi-siècle après la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaître dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une hypothèse.")
Note "led to the recognition" ≠ "leads us to recognise". The Pope's acknowledgement that the theory has gained widespread acceptance does not carry the implication that the Pope includes himself among those who accept it.
It is untrue to say that the Church "accepts the mechanics of evolution as a simple fact". What the Church accepts is that the theory of evolution can be reconciled with the Faith provided one does not deny the special creation of the individual immortal soul or maintain the false theory of polygenism.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2009 8:39 PM
You sure spend a lot of time flappin' your beak about it.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 20, 2009 9:38 PM
Cripple fight!!!
50 Quatloos on
Hannibal LectorPilty.Posted by: spurge | August 20, 2009 9:46 PM
100 Quatloos on the newcomer!
Posted by: CunningLingus | August 21, 2009 9:15 AM
There is a website that streams most of the cable shows for free, usually within hours of them being screened on TV, Penn & Teller is one of the shows available .. http://www.fastpasstv.com/
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 21, 2009 10:10 AM
Apparently not...
I don't know if he's shown up in other threads as I can only keep up with so many at a time... but I'd ask him this same question in any thread he pops up in going forward, until he either addresses it or goes away completely.
Posted by: Paul Riddell | August 21, 2009 4:40 PM
Poor Bill Donohue. I guess he and I were the only altar boys who weren't molested by pedophile priests, and unlike me, he's going to take out his frustration on everyone else. (Me, I get even by asking my family members "If Battlefield Earth is supposed to be Scientologist propaganda, then are Dogma and Orgazmo Catholic and Mormon propaganda, too?") Will someone please give him the six-foot sandstone strap-on he's been crying for over all these years so he'll finally shut up?
Posted by: Chuck | August 21, 2009 9:19 PM
I was going to ridicule these misguided children, but I figure that is what they revel about, so I will tell them that God loves them despite their attacks on His Church. I can only pray that God will show them the errs of their ways and bring them peace. I am not surprised. Catholic bashing is the norm today and very acceptable among the "elite" of show business. The Church will outlast these terrible attackers and will outlast all the evil one. May God bless them in their hatred.
Posted by: John Morales | August 21, 2009 10:22 PM
Chuck,
Nah. You guys are the ones who feel vindication by perceived persecution.
If God loves us, what's your problem? :)
Oh wait, it loves us but will torture us for eternity, nonetheless, right? Heh.
Or, you could try to argue your case. But I suppose you're smart enough to realise you don't have a convincing case, because you rely on faith.
About what?
Calling it as it is is not bashing. And pomposity is easy to ridicule, not only by the elite.The Church is falling into desuetude, and widespread literacy and modern communications mean that the methods it has historically employed are no longer efficacious.
I'm not sorry that it's lost temporal power.
Mockery is not hatred.
May you grow up and progress past your moral infantilism.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 10:42 PM
God loves them despite their attacks on His Church
what about other churches?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 21, 2009 11:20 PM
and you decided it was a better idea to just keep them away from the priests?
Yes, they just can't wait to hear what Chuck has to say.
Nah, you can be condescending and self-righteous too.
Awww, is someone sad that others say mean things about a misogynistic, old relic of an institution that protects child rapists?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 21, 2009 11:28 PM
Another Christian playing the "we're a poor, persecuted majority" card. Yawn.
Posted by: John Morales | August 22, 2009 12:50 AM
Feynmaniac, spurge @530, 531: looks like the incumbent Catlicker wins by a TKO.
The Piltdown may be a maniacal, atavistic lunatic, but he's got stamina and chases off competing blighters. (He's smarter than the average Catholic*).
I designate him Pharyngula's tolerated instrument of Integrated Pest Management.
--
* Faint praise, I know.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 22, 2009 1:07 AM
Someone's taking their suet away? The bastards!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 22, 2009 1:30 AM
When it comes to his Church what Pilty lacks in critical thinking he makes up for in rote knowledge.
Piltdown seems like a well-educated 16th century clergyman who through an unfortunate event got frozen in ice and was only thawed out of it a few years ago. While being able to master the computer and linking to images he has had trouble adjusting to modern life.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 1:37 AM
Piltdown seems like a well-educated 16th century clergyman who through an unfortunate event got frozen in ice and was only thawed out of it a few years ago.
ah! In support of your hypothesis is the nice little essay he gave us the other day in which he espoused how it would be so great if the US became a Feudal society.
Heck, he'd be quite happy to be an unthinking serf.
NOW it makes sense.
thanks.
Posted by: John Morales | August 22, 2009 1:45 AM
They once lived off the fat of the land; lean times ahead, though :)
Posted by: Peter Mehit | August 22, 2009 4:54 AM
...wha....wait. I thought this was America....zzzz
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 22, 2009 10:06 AM
Ichthyic @537
There are no other churches.
John Morales @536:
That's been said many, many times before.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 22, 2009 10:15 AM
<Darth Vader>The denial is strong with this one.</Darth Vader>
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 22, 2009 12:30 PM
There are, by exact count, almost a bazillion other churches.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 22, 2009 2:03 PM
it seems the most obvious thing in the world that Roman Catholicism and Rabbinical Judaism must necessarily be at odds, because Church and Synagogue both claim to be the sole legitimate heir of the Temple. Each regards herself as the one true Israel, hence each poses a fundamental 'existential' threat to the other that is not duplicated in their relations with any other religion. Hence the 'bad blood' that cannot be expunged by fawning words from recent (doubtless well-meaning) popes. -- Piltdown Man, February 26, 2009 7:13 PM
Remember that Christendom, as it once existed, was a political entity. Since religion was the foundational principle of the state, how could it possibly be a private matter? Organized heresy was a direct existential threat to the entire fabric of societ - just look at the chaos and bloodshed caused by the Reformation. -- Piltdown Man, March 12, 2009 6:03 PM
The above are specific quotes where you describe Jews and heretics as existential threats to Catholic Christianity. Do you now reject your previous words?
Do you deny that you consider pagans and Muslims as also being existential threats?
Is it right and proper for existential threats to be exterminated?
I don't see any significant difference at all between the aims and methods of the Inquisition and the passage from Deuteronomy: (Deut. 17:2-7) -- Piltdown Man, February 26, 2009 7:13 PM
What I defend is the institution of the Inquisition, ie a system of tribunals authorized to confirm reports of heresy and punish heretics, sometimes even by death. -- Piltdown Man, March 12, 2009 6:03 PM
Do you now reject your previous words? Is it now your claim that the Inquisition and other massacres of non-Catholics by Catholics were not mandated by the Bible or by God?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 22, 2009 2:26 PM
Piltdown is an RCC fundamentalist wacko. I wonder how the present Pope would react to his mad statements?
Posted by: warriorwoman | August 22, 2009 3:08 PM
It seems to me that if Bill was a true believer he would be able to let the attacks on his religion run off his back. He is a hypocrite, and I would love to see the things he looks at late at night on his computer, with his hand in his pants. Can't stand the heat Bill, get out of the kitchen. Long live Penn and Teller!!
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 22, 2009 7:03 PM
John Morales @540:
And you're smarter than the average atheist.
What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.
- Thomas à Kempis, "The Imitation of Christ"
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 22, 2009 7:14 PM
What good does it do to speak learnedly about
the TrinitySanta Claus if, lacking humility, you displeasethe TrinitySanta Claus? Indeed it is not learning that makes a manholy and justworthy to receive presents, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing toGodSanta.Fixed it for you. Makes as much sense this way as Kempis'.
Posted by: John Morales | August 22, 2009 7:25 PM
Piltdown, Tom also wrote: He who knoweth himself well is vile in his own sight; neither regardeth he the praises of men.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 22, 2009 7:35 PM
Is it just me, or do others feel like every time they see Pilty has posted, the old Twilight Zone theme music starts up? Any relationship between his posts and reality are purely coincidental....
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 22, 2009 8:05 PM
I can't tell if he is a Tridentine (Latin Mass Society) or a Preterist.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 22, 2009 8:13 PM
I was thinking accidental time-travel, but that works too. Certainly explains why he thinks there are no other churches (among other things)
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 22, 2009 8:44 PM
'Tis Himself @548:
You're right of course, there are a bazillion churches. But there is only one Church.
+ + +
John Morales @554:
A consoling thought.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 22, 2009 8:51 PM
Cue the MusicPosted by: JefFlyingV | August 22, 2009 8:59 PM
Piltdown must have been getting ready for a late night vigil with a hair shirt, chains and rod readying himself for self flagellation. If your going to go thirteenth century in ardor, attitude and pretentiousness, might as well go all out. Can an ascetic own a computer?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 22, 2009 9:07 PM
Sure, sure. That's what they all say.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 22, 2009 9:11 PM
Is it what all Christians believe, Pilty? Because if it's not what all Christians believe then it's invalid, since any Christian can say that about any church and provide exactly the same amount of objective argumentation (note the use of the word objective) to support their claim.
Why, I could begin the Church of Wowbagger right now and have just as much right to call it the 'One Church' as you do yours.
If not, why not?
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 22, 2009 9:26 PM
JefFlyingV @556:
The Tridentine Mass isn't limited to the Latin Mass Society, of course. (A Traditional Latin [Tridentine] Mass; A Novus Ordo [post-Vatican II] Mass.)
I don't know much about preterism, but I believe Catholic eschatology can to some extent be described as amillennial partial preterist.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 22, 2009 9:32 PM
Nerd of Redhead @559:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20KNqu8H8O8.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 9:38 PM
I believe Catholic eschatology can to some extent be described as amillennial partial preterist.
*yawn*
jargon fails to impress where logic is so poorly used.
Posted by: Adam Weishaupt | August 22, 2009 9:47 PM
Immanentize The Eschaton!
fnord
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 22, 2009 9:49 PM
Piltdown, have you considered the floopydoop of the school of thought known as Oogywoogyboogism? I mean, it takes into account the rama-lama-ding-dong of beshnozzleology - not to mention the problems of zipzapdoodle and wingtingdingbing.
Which says it all, really.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 22, 2009 9:52 PM
Piltdown the way you sell it the RCC is the only Church. Therefore the Mother Church must have a copyright on Jesus's visage. How much is the ZigZag roller paper company paying the Vatican for the use of Jesus's picture on each book of papers it sells?
Posted by: John G. O'Connell, III | August 23, 2009 2:41 AM
Hey! That yiu, Bill?? Your doing a great job protecting the Catholic stuff of Der Velt!!! False parades about comics "making fun" about yourself when you "call yourself "a christian warrior" like "Blackhawk" killing the IRAKS for Christ!!!" Hey! Great Job!! "Wild Billie" Donohue
protecting things Catholic, while you missed "former catholics Bormann, PinoChet, Batista, Marcos, Ratzinger, a few others, and A. Hitler... whew! I know I can count on you the "break like the wind," with Annie Coaltarr on a crowed elevator at The Vatican!!!
Posted by: Jerry Anderson | August 23, 2009 9:36 AM
Why don't they do an equal show about Jews? Oops. I forgot, they've both been bar mitzvah'd and of course, we know who has the power structure in their world.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | August 23, 2009 11:57 AM
Owlmirror @ 549:
I will attempt to make my meaning clearer. When I described Roman Catholicism and Rabbinical Judaism as "existential threats" to each other, I was referring to an intrinsic theological antagonism (as opposed to a mere theological incompatibility). This theological antagonism will inevitably often manifest itself as political antagonism but it does not imply that individual Jews and Catholics are necessarily always mortal enemies who pose an immediate real and present danger to each other.
Regarding the social menace of heresy, please note that I used the expression "organized heresy". If I were an anti-communist activist in the USA of the 1950s, I would draw what seem to me to be elementary common-sense distinctions between obscure individuals with private communist beliefs; influential individuals who use their positions of influence to promote communist ideology; and organized rings of militant communist subversives.
As for pagans and Muslims, I would consider them potential threats. I would certainly not advocate unprovoked aggressive actions by Christian states against heathen or Islamic states that were minding their own business. But I would say that Christian states are perfectly justified in using lethal force to repel attacks from - or to reclaim Christian lands overrun by - pagan or Islamic armies.
If by 'existential threat' you mean the real and present danger posed by an invading army or revolutionary social movement, I would say one is justified to use the minimum lethal force necessary to eliminate the threat.
Firstly, I reject the description of the Inquisition as a "massacre of non-Catholics by Catholics".
Secondly, my reference to Deuteronomy 17 was not intended to imply that the Catholic Inquisitions were directly inspired by or explicitly attempted to derive legitimacy from the Mosaic inquisition.
Thirdly, regarding Old Testament "mandates" in general, I wrote the following in another thread:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 23, 2009 12:13 PM
All the Spanish Jews tried by the Inquisition died of typhoid or starvation. Thanks for explaining.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 12:26 PM
Pilty keeps trying to revise history. Unfortunately for him, historians don't agree with his revisions. Mostly because of a little thing called the truth. Then Pilty sticks his fingers in his ears, and keeps mumbling to himself.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 23, 2009 12:29 PM
Piltdown, it is obvious that you survived your self flagellation from last night. It must be depressing for you to know the RCC is only a shadow of its former powerful years. Keep the faith and self abuse going, maybe God will grant your wishes.
Posted by: Tony | August 23, 2009 12:40 PM
Thank you Penn and Teller!
NO GODS NO MASTERS
http://www.ffrf.org/
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 23, 2009 12:48 PM
I would certainly not advocate unprovoked aggressive actions by Christian states against heathen or Islamic states that were minding their own business. But I would say that Christian states are perfectly justified in using lethal force to repel attacks from - or to reclaim Christian lands overrun by - pagan or Islamic armies. - Pilty
So would that include Turkey, the Levant, and north Africa, or is there some kind of "statute of limitations"?
Regarding the social menace of heresy, please note that I used the expression "organized heresy".
So that would include all the Protestant denominations. You'd like the Inquisition to be heating the pincers for the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury even now, I presume.
If by 'existential threat' you mean
The term is yours.
Firstly, I reject the description of the Inquisition as a "massacre of non-Catholics by Catholics".
Of course you do; you're a shameless liar. If the Papal Inquisition had left any alive, the Cathars and Waldensians would disagree. As would those "New Christians" and "Rice Christians" who converted under duress or for gain, and were then discovered (or believed) to be secretly practising their former religions by the Spanish and Goa Inquisitions.
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 23, 2009 12:48 PM
Didac @ #354:
"The true is that in Flavian times, Christians were essentially seen as a Jewish sect."
By Flavian times, do you mean already in the 70s CE? Do you believe there were Jesus followers in the 70s already? If so what is that based on? Is it based on the assumed genuineness and dating of the Pauline literature to the 50s?
The existence of the Pauline literature is probably the most common objection I encounter to the possibility that the Caesar's Messiah conjecture is true. But, it does not seem to be a problem to me because the dating of it to the 50s is based entirely on an assumption that it is a genuine and noncynical autobiographical literature. Atwill argues however that it's deliberately constructed political propaganda, a later part of the religious fraud perpetrated by the Flavians (in this case added by Domitian). It depicts satirically the vision of instead of fighting the Jewish zealots, of converting them to a pacifistic religion. Now that is enough to knock you off your horse.
Atwill provides a lot of support for that Domitian wanted to get in on the act and so extended the work of Vespasian and Titus. Vespasian is of course God the Father (and legally so by virtue of deification by the Roman senate) and Titus the Son, but Domitian is the Holy Ghost. Atwill finds there's a decoder for Revelations as well, and many convincing parallels. They used to be posted on his website but I think now you have to register. I don't understand why he took that private.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 23, 2009 1:06 PM
Piltdown Man, #571: But I would say that Christian states are perfectly justified in using lethal force to repel attacks from - or to reclaim Christian lands overrun by - pagan or Islamic armies.
Is this because "Christianity" as an abstract ideology has a higher claim on those lands than the people who actually live there?
Posted by: ButMadNNW | August 23, 2009 2:30 PM
This seems appropriate:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i106/ButMadNNW/Opressed.gif
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 23, 2009 7:13 PM
"Political antagonism" meaning things like requiring Jews to wear identifying yellow stars or other clothing, passing laws preventing them from owning land, evicting them from the country with nothing but the clothes on their backs, and inflicting the death penalty by fire on them for observing their religion if they stay?
Despite the fact that neither HUAC nor the Inquisition you so admire made any such "elementary common-sense" distinctions?
Yet if they are "potential threats", then "minding their own business" is meaningless. For them to simply exist is a threat.
Are there any examples in history of unprovoked aggressive actions by Christian states against heathen or Islamic states that were minding their own business that you specifically repudiate?
By "Christian" do you intend "Roman Catholic", and by "pagan or Islamic armies" do you intend "non-Catholics"?
And define "Christian lands" more specifically.
As noted, 'existential threat' is your term. You define it. It's the same term you used about Jews and heretics, after all, and implicitly about pagans and Muslims.
In other words, any group of people who object to Catholicism, for whatever reason? Jews, pagans, Muslims, heretics?
What is your definition of "minimum lethal force"? The same as Arnaud Amalric's, or the author of Deuteronomy?
Why? The Inquisition was Catholic. The ones they tortured and killed (or ordered to be killed, by Catholic rulers) -- Muslims, Jews, heretics -- were non-Catholics.
You directly contradict the cited statement from February 26, 2009 7:13 PM, which does indeed make that implication -- especially since you use the term "inquisition" for both sets of events. If the implication was not your intention, what was your intention?
So what actually determines this acceptability?
Posted by: Stanton | August 23, 2009 7:56 PM
Technically speaking, weren't many of the Inquisition's victims also Catholic, such as the Knights Templar and peasants accused of being witches/werewolves, or were they automatically expelled from the Church through excommunication before the Inquisition tortured them to death?Posted by: Dale Husband | August 23, 2009 8:05 PM
Who is worse, Bill Donohue, Phil Donohue, or Bill O'Reilly?
Just wondering. They are all Catholic.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 23, 2009 8:38 PM
Oh, but they weren't True Catholics™. Just like other sects aren't True Christians™, and everyone else they didn't want around weren't True Humans™, and it was okay to kill them 'cause that's what their god wanted.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 23, 2009 9:08 PM
I'm sure Pilty is all in favor of the Inquisition's use of torture. If one denied being a heretic, a Morrano (a secret Jew who pretended to be a Christian), a Muslim, or an unbeliever, then torture was applied until the correct answer was given. Then the heretic, Morrano, etc. was turned over to the civilian authorities for execution.
I'm sure if Pilty was strapped to a chair and a couple of hundred volts (low amp) were run through his genitals, he'd confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, committing the Whitechapel murders, flying aircraft into buildings on 9/11, and being a heretic Jewish Muslim.
Posted by: Stanton | August 23, 2009 11:54 PM
After all, one Inquisitor boasted that his pet torturers could convince even the Pope to confess to being a baby-eating sorcerer, given the opportunity.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 24, 2009 12:06 AM
really? I thought Christians didn't believe in situational ethics and moral relativity...
...must be a different flavor of Christian I am thinking of.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 24, 2009 12:40 AM
Yes, Dear Jadehawk,
You are thinking of the ubiquitous 'Literal' flavored Christian. Literal flavored Christians taste like good ol' KJV-seasoned wholemeal bread and beef stew. For a Literal flavored Christian what you see is what you get--or to be more accurate, what you read is what you believe.
The less common, 'Theologically Sophisticated' flavored Christian disguises his or her dish of superstition with a complex blend of apologetic herbs and semantic spices. Their Dish of Bible is subtle and complex, and carefully hides any underlying hints of credulity or disquiet.
The third flavor of Christian is the 'Public' flavored Christian. Public Flavored Christians know their Bible Stew is an unwholesome and discredited dish, but they also know that they'll have to seem to be devouring it in public if they are to remain in the bosom of their brainwashed Literal Christian family, make money by preying on Literal Christian believers, or hold elected office in a land dominated by Bread-and-Beef Literal flavored Christian voters. 'Public' flavored Christians are the ones you most often find illicitly snacking on forbidden fruit in the secret bedrooms behind God's Holy Hotel.
Yours in Christian Cuisine
Smoggy Batzrubble
PS I haven't gone into the less common flavors of Christian: the 'Poisonous Christian'; the 'Sexually Stewing Christian'; the 'Questioning Christian Quiche' etc.
Posted by: Ronald Seto | August 31, 2009 12:17 PM
"obsession with bashing Catholics and their religion. There is no legitimate place for this kind of frontal assault on any demographic group". P & T are not bashing Catholics and their religion, just the Vatican and if the Vatican can't defend itself, then it's time for them to step down.
I was born and raised a Catholic and brainwashed all through my parochial schooling. From the beginning, I knew something wasn't right. I couldn't understand why questioning, (or even just thinking) Catholic dogma would be a sin. The pope covers his ass by claiming infallability and good Catholics can never (under pain of sin)question him. Mr Donohue is obviously one who was brainwashed successfully during his formative years. I don't know if there is any hope for him. Let the facts speak out.
Posted by: jbarone | September 2, 2009 4:28 PM
I have no problem with people who have a low opinion of Bill Donohue, but why is he wrong to attack a vulgar video which uses lies distortions and half truths to attack his religion? Are there any intelligent well informed viewers who think that the video was historically accurate? that it was well researched? That its reasoning was not formally defective? People enjoy it because it attacks the Catholic Church. Fair enough. But if a show were produced attacking Judaism or Islam or any other religion of group in a similar fashion its creators would be immediately fired. I am a theist, but if some religious extremist (for argument's sake Donohue) produced a video attacking atheism in the same way that this one attacks Catholicism I would be offended. Shouldn't fair minded atheists,secularists and agnostics likewise be offended by this travesty? Doesn't it appeal to your basest instincts in much the same way that a Nazi propaganda film would appeal to anti-semites? Was there any attempt at fairness? Penn and Teller are purportedly entertainer and this is part of their schtick, but they are not entitled to a free pass to violate all conventions of decency to spread bigotry. That's what this is. And bigotry is bigotry even when it's" politically correct" bigotry aimed at an what to the readers of this blog is an unpopular institution,
Posted by: Conn St. | September 6, 2009 3:04 PM
Strange.
Penn and Teller are of Jewish descent yet are they going after Judaism?
Why not?
They defuse their connection to Judaism by hiding behind the generic label of "atheist".
There may be more Rabbi child molestors than priests yet everyone is silent on this one.
Posted by: strange gods bless 'merica | September 6, 2009 3:14 PM
Probably because Judaism is not a major threat to civil society.
What exactly is "their connection to Judaism"? Could Henry Ford tell us?
[citation needed]
Posted by: hotpinkone
|
July 31, 2011 2:41 PM
I realize this is an old post but Conn St. they have attacked Judaism before.
Watch their episode on the Bible. They attack Old Testament God quite a bit, they even mock the plagues of Egypt.