…and this is a 
Bill Donohue has put me on his mailing list, so I get these 'alerts' from the Catholic League several times a day. Here's the latest (the colors are as sent to me: I guess it was very important!)
On Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 8:45 am ET, Catholic League President Bill Donohue will appear on Fox News Channel's "Fox and Friends."
He will discuss the recent attack on Jesus on HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm."
"Attack on Jesus". Jebus, what a loon.
Well, you know what the only reasonable response to such foolishness is. We must watch the Attack on Jesus, and laugh, even if I didn't think it was that funny.
You know, I still have a stash of holy crackers. I might just have to escalate some more, just to witness Donohue's public meltdown, and make a point: nobody, especially anyone who is not Catholic, has to revere Catholic icons, and demanding that we do is only gonna get Jesus hurt some more.
I'll be traveling tomorrow, so I'll have to miss the execrable Fox and Friends…but I'm sure the swollen and empurpled spitting Donohue will be on youtube when I get back.
Comments
Posted by: KZT | October 28, 2009 6:16 PM
That font...is that...Comic Sans? Stay classy Bill.
Posted by: MaleficVTwin
|
October 28, 2009 6:16 PM
Empurpled? I need to use that in a sentence today.
Posted by: Deacon Duncan | October 28, 2009 6:18 PM
The problem isn't that unbelievers are attacking Jesus. The problem is that Jesus is losing.
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
October 28, 2009 6:19 PM
I don't know; I thought it was funny, but then again, I enjoy sophomoric humor and I already knew that Bill Donohue had popped a fuse over this. :-)
@KZT
PZ always quotes clowns using that font.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
October 28, 2009 6:20 PM
Don't forget the associated poll.
It appears to be getting hammered by both sides; but it currently shows the pro-blasphemy-law-esque support from Faux fans.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 28, 2009 6:21 PM
It may be that I'll have to agree with Donahue. If he says that snippet wasn't funny, he's right.
Posted by: Canuck | October 28, 2009 6:22 PM
I thought the funniest part was when he fell from the roof and grabbed her fat midriff. Now that was funny. The pissing on Jesus? Who cares?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 28, 2009 6:22 PM
He will discuss the recent attack on Jesus on HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm."
Just how helpless is this Jesus if Bill Donohue has to keep protecting him. Why would I want Jesus as a savior if Jesus is in such desperate need for his own savior?
Posted by: CJO | October 28, 2009 6:22 PM
Jesus attacked, turns other cheek; Donohue claims non-receipt of memo.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 6:26 PM
I'm with Larry, "every erection is a miracle"...
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 28, 2009 6:26 PM
Winston Wolfe is very concerned.
Is this blog the only place you can find some science?
Posted by: druidbros
|
October 28, 2009 6:27 PM
Oh it was a great episode. I laughed so hard. I didnt know Jebus needs help to be defended by ole Billy.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
October 28, 2009 6:27 PM
BTW, that clip is a riot, as is most CYE.
Posted by: Kane148 | October 28, 2009 6:30 PM
Yeah he seems to forget how Jesus handled people mocking him: he kept his mouth shut and forgave them. But for people like Bill, being Christian isn't about being like Jesus.
Posted by: formosus
|
October 28, 2009 6:30 PM
I looove the Fatwa Envy on the Fox poll. And the fact that there are 2 yes answers and 1 no answer. Very fair and balanced.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 28, 2009 6:31 PM
Bill Donohue should rather use this story to illustrate the imprudence of placing a picture of Jesus in the bathroom, next the toilet. Many a pious though careless worshiper has been saved through parables. Thank God it is not yet forbidden to show devout Catholic characters on cable television shows, that they may act as role models -- or cautionary figures.
I mean, it's not like it happened on purpose, even.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 28, 2009 6:31 PM
Winston Wolfe,
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/archives.php
By Category
Cephalopods (420)
Communicating science (130)
Development (204)
Environment (92)
Evolution (399)
Fossils (99)
Genetics (81)
Molecular Biology (133)
Neurobiology (70)
Organisms (682)
Pirates (35)
Science (792)
If you just want to read about science (or pirates) feel free to. No one is forcing you to read all the threads.
Posted by: Biology Blogger | October 28, 2009 6:36 PM
PZ, don't they have to send u a conformation email. Before your signed up?
Posted by: Copernicus | October 28, 2009 6:36 PM
ummm, Winston... did you somehow miss the expose on how the flow rate of urine can be seen as a determinant of renal countercurrent multiplier systems, or how acute increases in the urine flow rate result in a concomitant increase in the sodium concentration of the urine, or the relation between urine flow rates and urine osmolarity?
Posted by: Max Fagin | October 28, 2009 6:37 PM
"You know, I still have a stash of holy crackers. I might just have to escalate some more"
I'm all for that! We can have Mary's Monday Metazone, Friday Cephalopod and Sunday Cracker Desecration.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 6:37 PM
It figures Bill wouldn't like one of the funniest shows on TV right now.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 28, 2009 6:37 PM
Did someone lob another mortar at Jesus? I really can't approve.
It looks like someone's been hacking the liars for Jesus at the DI, and running a distributed denial of service attack as well. Evolutionnews.org, if you're interested.
"Ambivalence" is the word here, as I very honestly do not approve, but fail to see a great deal of damage as their ability to lie is diminished.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 28, 2009 6:38 PM
I thought the idea was hilarious, but the acting and execution was poor.
Posted by: CSue | October 28, 2009 6:39 PM
Yay! Crackergate II!!
Posted by: Jafafa Hots
|
October 28, 2009 6:41 PM
should have gone like this:
"No, I know it wasnt just water, because.. well, I just couldn't resist touching it, you know? And I tasted it, and was salty just like tears."
Strained smiles around the room, etc.
Posted by: william e emba | October 28, 2009 6:42 PM
The following Tony Auth cartoon depicted a bishop and a chalice, so naturally enough received outraged responses.
Keep it up, morons, please. More people will notice you really are a bunch of worthless idiots.
Posted by: B166ER
|
October 28, 2009 6:43 PM
I thought the clip was entertaining, yet not the funniest thing I have seen from CYE. Ol' Billy boy is always finding something new to get his panties in a bunch over, and this seems to be the most recent one.
Speaking of sophmoric humor, I have a great video that I think many of you would appreciate.
http://www.shutupwomangetonmyhorse.com/
or go to youtube and look up "get on my horse"
FUCKIN HEELARIOUS!!
No Gods, No Masters
Cameron
Posted by: Waterwhich | October 28, 2009 6:46 PM
Once when I was pregnant I inadvertently peed all over the floor in the womens restroom which splashed a lady in flip flops. I was horrified but can laugh at the awkwardness of this scene.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 6:47 PM
Definitely not, but taken in context with everything still pretty damn funny.
That show is gold 90% of the time.
My brother swears I'm a slightly fatter and slightly less neurotic and assholish version of Larry David.
I know it's not a compliment, but what the hell.
Posted by: steve | October 28, 2009 6:56 PM
Thank god the male urinary tract is intelligently designed so that the urethra passes thru the protstate which enlarges with age and restricts the flow of urine.
I couldn't think of a better reason for pissing on jebus.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 6:57 PM
B166ER #28... kachcha...
Posted by: Chris Tucker | October 28, 2009 6:59 PM
If Pope Panzerfaust wanted to show actual responsibility for the sex abuse scandals, he could ship Cardinal Law back to Massachusetts to face investigation into his role in covering up the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests here in the Commonwealth.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 28, 2009 7:00 PM
Poor baby jebus, always being attacked. Worse yet is all the help he needs from frothing lunatics to help him put up his dukes!
Hey Billy, no one has the right to not be offended. Fuck your jebus and your silly notions about your make-believe reality. You're a kook. Go grow a brain you ninny.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
October 28, 2009 7:01 PM
So essentially;
Miracles = slightly unusual, but still pretty mundane, events as witnessed by gullible morons.
It may not make top-flight comedy, but it is still true.
Posted by: Victor
|
October 28, 2009 7:04 PM
Funny idea, not real great execution. Of course, if there weren't all those horribly stupid stupid stupid miracle stories about Jesus statues crying, this all could have been avoided.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 28, 2009 7:06 PM
I'm sure people would all stop attacking jesus if he'd just stick up for himself now and then. His spokespeople are a joke.
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
October 28, 2009 7:16 PM
I found it odd that someone would have a picture of Jesus looking down on them while they use the toilet.
Is this a normal Christian thing? To keep their idols in the outhouse?
If PZ has lots of those crackers left, we should do a concerted act of blasphemy. Various users desecrate the holy cracker and then we compile a video for YouTube. :)
Posted by: eddyline
|
October 28, 2009 7:17 PM
Yeah, it's kinda tough for Jebus to win, considering his imaginary nature.
Posted by: Happy Tentacles | October 28, 2009 7:17 PM
Not wildly funny but possibly revealing; do devout Catlicks really keep a picture of Jesus in the bog where he can see all their intimate squelchy moments? Does that explain something about catholic guilt?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 28, 2009 7:18 PM
I'm with comment 8.
(How did they get her to not-dress like that? And then, how did they get her to step in front of a camera? Two miracles for the price of one, I suppose. Ugh.)
Posted by: Marley Fitz | October 28, 2009 7:22 PM
What's the big deal? I use to pee on Jesus all the time...........sophomore year in college.......VERY experimental time in my life.
Posted by: john | October 28, 2009 7:22 PM
You remind me of Kim Jong Il in Team America singing I'm ronery. You seem to be missing the spotlight and national attention and want to get it back apparently. Give it a rest yourself!
Posted by: raven | October 28, 2009 7:25 PM
This is very stupid even for xians. Jesus is supposed to be god. The all powerful being that created the universe in 6 days. The one that genocided the human race except for 8 people in the Big Boat flood incident the last time he was mildly annoyed with us.
So why does god need defending from mere humans? Nowadays jesus can't even avoid being covered in bacon-cheese dip and served with beer. So why call it god?
Donohue is running out of material. And jesus is running out of believers.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 28, 2009 7:25 PM
Bill Donohue is whinin' 'bout persecution. All's right with the world.
(/Tell me what he stops. We'll send the EMTs 'round...)
Posted by: IaMoL
|
October 28, 2009 7:25 PM
I think those crackers would be great in a Cloaca Machine. You could demonstrate exactly where the Eucharist doesn't turn into Jesus' flesh.
Posted by: dangeraardvark | October 28, 2009 7:27 PM
Go vote the video back up to 5 stars.
Oh, while pissing on Jesus is hilarious. That tube top was equally so. I wonder if they make them in my size.
Posted by: Dahan
|
October 28, 2009 7:29 PM
PZ, how about sharing the wealth? I'm sure there are more than a few of us here who would be happy to take over the job of finishing off those crackers you've got. We could have a whole video montage made up.
Perhaps an award for winning the Molly? You get a cracker to do with as you wish?
Of course, if you actually like this idea and end up using it and wanted to award me with one of them as a thank you... Lol!
Posted by: Pacal
|
October 28, 2009 7:31 PM
Well I still have no desire to watch Curb Your Enthusiasm, having watched it once was once too often.
Posted by: n | October 28, 2009 7:33 PM
Donahue is absolutely right. People should NOT break the 3rd commandment & display their sinfulness in the lav... or something.
Go get 'em Billah!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 28, 2009 7:34 PM
My mistake, it's some other group of morons who were publicizing the DI's BS. Same ambivalence, of course.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: fauxrs
|
October 28, 2009 7:34 PM
I'm with Larry, "every erection is a miracle"...
Given the amount of ED medication being pushed on TV thats probably true....
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 28, 2009 7:34 PM
Chris Tucker at #33,
Best. Epithet. For Ratzinger. Ever.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 7:42 PM
John #43...
nice name...
http://john.urbanup.com/1407432
http://john.urbanup.com/1387582
http://john.urbanup.com/3975045
Posted by: B166ER
|
October 28, 2009 7:44 PM
@Dahan #48
I second the passing out of crackers. I'd be down for a little of christ's body with some hummus... mmmm hummus.
@Maggie Moo #32
Maggie, are you talking about the video I put up. I don't understand your use of the word. That the video is crude and will be short lived like the building by the same name? I am confuzzled...
No Gods, No Masters
Cameron
Posted by: skullsinthestars.com
|
October 28, 2009 7:47 PM
PZ wrote: "I'll be traveling tomorrow, so I'll have to miss the execrable Fox and Friends..."
Hmm... why watch it? Just take Donohue's emails to you, replace "cracker" with "picture of Jesus" and "PZ Myers" with "Larry David" and... voila! Instant Donahue on "Fox and Friends" interview!
Posted by: Blondin
|
October 28, 2009 7:49 PM
I thought it was funny.
I laughed so hard the tears rolled down my leg.
(I'm trying to curb my enthusiasm.)
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 7:52 PM
B166ER #55... relying upon Google or Wiki digs you a deeper hole... still taken from the Indian vernacular, kachcha really means: rudimental, embryonic, abortive, immature, unripe, deckle-edged, and improvident... and a source of motivation for Winston Wolfe...
Posted by: Flounder99 | October 28, 2009 7:56 PM
I can see why Billy is so upset. That girl, showing so much skin to men she isn't married to. Very anti-catholic!
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
October 28, 2009 7:59 PM
If he's mad now, I can't wait to see how mad he'll be after he sees this threat.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 28, 2009 8:00 PM
Back when there was talk about a Flag Amendment -- passing a constitutional amendment making it a crime to desecrate an American flag -- one of the conservative congressmen who had been backing it pulled out, and said that he did not want this to come to a vote, or pass. His rationale was that, as if was, very few people burned American flags in protest. But make it illegal, and many otherwise fine citizens were vowing to burn flags in protest of the law against doing so, because they believed it violated civil liberties. And, regardless of the merits of their argument, her knew that in practice that meant that actual flag burnings would go way up. And he wanted them to go down.
He didn't just want the joy of putting people in jail for it. Or the credit of being a "flag protector." He wanted to actually be a flag protector. So he dropped it.
Bill needs to decide what's really important to him. Punishing blasphemy, or lessening it? The more he screams and rants and fusses about how this ought to be illegal, or forbidden, the more ordinary people are going to be provoked into committing acts of blasphemy, to show they can, and should, for it's a matter of civil liberty.
Bill, just drop it.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 28, 2009 8:05 PM
I have to respectfully disagree with PZ.
I did think it was funny.
By the way if anyone has missed this, the "fatwa envy" is mutual. Muslims also claim that the defenders of those who insult their faith, in the name of freedom of expression, would never do so if the "victims" were Christians or Jews.
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
October 28, 2009 8:12 PM
lose_the_woo @ 34:
Right. Except for homosexuals, and blacks, and women, and Jews, and Muslims, and -
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 28, 2009 8:14 PM
it's awful nice of piltfuck to give us an explicit list of those it hates.
Posted by: howdy-lentils
|
October 28, 2009 8:18 PM
I thought Donahue's description of the scene was pure comic genius. Bill's got timing, and a way with adjectives. Maybe he missed his calling. I didn't see the show, but Bill's retelling had me chortling. Like all good humor, it contained a grain of truth.
Posted by: Susan | October 28, 2009 8:19 PM
I wonder how Bill will explain the imagined disrespect. "Larry David made a show where he peed on Jesus"? This is not TV worth watching.
And did Larry leave without washing his hands? Eeeeeewwwww. I don't care how many tube tops his assistant wears, he's far more gross.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 28, 2009 8:19 PM
Offend away, moron. The difference is when those groups are actually denied their rights.
You keep walking the edge. There may be another dungeon resident soon.
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
October 28, 2009 8:19 PM
MAJeff @64:
"Piltfuck"? "It"? I'm sensing some hostility here, MAJeff.
Did my words offend you?
Too bad - no one has the right to not be offended, remember?
Posted by: Copernicus | October 28, 2009 8:20 PM
Don't worry MAJeff, he chose an appropriate screen name: a hoax with the jawbone of an orangutan...
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 28, 2009 8:21 PM
There is a lot of hostility to dimwitted cretins here, Pilty. It's earned.
Reminder: one thing that is NOT a right is the ability to comment here. It's a privilege. I can take it away.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 28, 2009 8:21 PM
Who's worried?
Posted by: Steve_C | October 28, 2009 8:22 PM
Why am I not surprised that Plity doesn't know the difference between hatred and criticism.
Religion is stupid. Does not equal hate. The Catholic Church protects pedophiles and sexual predators. That's not hate. That's a fact. And should be condemned.
Homosexuals are abominations. Does equal hate.
Women should be quiet and subordinate. Does equal hate.
On and on...
Why is that so hard to understand.
Posted by: tms | October 28, 2009 8:23 PM
Hey PZ,
The CYU video gave me an idea of what to do with your remaining crackers, and brought to mind another irreverent pissing scene from the movie "Swing Kids". The scene is early in the movie and the three protagonists are pissing on a poster of El Duce while singing, "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.".
Perhaps you could make a short video using the cracker as a toilet target, with the same sound track? Sufficiently blasphemous I should think.
Tom
Posted by: GeorgeRic | October 28, 2009 8:25 PM
There used to be many more anti-religion types who went out of their way to offend. It seems a perverse pleasure to purloin communion hosts, calculated to offend, and not really done to try to force a miracle. I visit many atheist blogs, and only about 8% are nasty and try to infect my system.
The whole ballgame (knowledge and understanding of worlds superior to ours) is about to go through a major expansion, understanding a brand new (and traditional) view of our worlds. For doubters, it is a scientific approach, taking a theory and checking phenomena to see if that theory makes them more understandable.
Seekers of truth can find it in the contiguous dimensional worlds, humorously described by Edwin Abbott in 'Flatland'. Science determines truth by checking phenomena against the over-all theory. If that theory explains the phenomena then we can firmly hold it. 'Techie Worlds' (available at amazon.com) examines Trinity, resurrection, judgment, soul, and finds Christian teaching logical and rational in Abbott's context.
Unlike Christians, materialists believe that only this world exists. Science can only experiment with this material world, whereas mankind is quite unable to manipulate the higher worlds.. Yet humans report on miracles, on events such as the dance of the sun at Fatima. Pagans believe in many gods (with good reason) and the possessed levitate, all evidence that spirit worlds do exist. Both positions resolve to 'acts of faith', but the Christian (in the Flatland context) is simple, consistent, and teaches love for human improvement. Open your minds with 'Techie Worlds' logical explanations.
GeorgeRic
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | October 28, 2009 8:26 PM
Donahue has stiff competition - here's the doyen of Dawkins demonizers -
http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/richard_dawkins_leftist_buffoon/
Posted by: savagemickey | October 28, 2009 8:28 PM
Was there asparagus involved?
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 28, 2009 8:29 PM
The truth hurts, pilty.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 8:30 PM
ummm, GeorgeRic... you aren't by any chance related to Charlene Warner?
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 28, 2009 8:33 PM
PZ, we've got ourselves a spammer. This one needs to be banned immediately.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | October 28, 2009 8:33 PM
GeorgeRic wrote:
Hey, I'm sure TimeCube makes sense to the TimeCube guy; it doesn't mean that it's not a flaming crock of shit indistinguishable from the output of a random word generator.
Posted by: Bostonian | October 28, 2009 8:35 PM
I think it's funny that the Fox New poll associated with this mentions that followers of Islam would never stand for this sort of thing (my wording is imprecise because the Fox site is currently down). Even in polls, fatwa envy.
Posted by: Andyo
|
October 28, 2009 8:38 PM
GeorgeRic #74.
Materialists don't just believe only this world exists. We know it obviously does, and then we don't accept just-so stories about the supernatural, especially when they're so lacking of evidence. Miracles? Like crying statues? One out of a million people whose cancer recedes? Winning the lottery? A couple of people saved from a horrible accident that killed a hundred others? Have some fucking imagination at least.
People's reports of the "supernatural" are just lame. The story of the material world is so much more rich, no one could have even imagined quantum mechanics, it's just the way the universe is. Compared to human inventions like virgin births and three-in-one gods, reality is so much deeper, thought-provoking and just plain amazing.
The poor idiots who are missing out on the wonders of the universe are you, and we have evidence to back it up.
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
October 28, 2009 8:41 PM
Steve_C @ 72:
Do you understand the difference between criticism and desecration?
This isn't about criticism. It's not even about mockery, ridicule or satire. Most Catholics couldn't care less if you ridicule their faith. If PZ had restricted himself to sounding off on his blog -- Har har Catholics are such fuckwits worshipping a cracker what a bunch of whackaloons har har har -- nobody would have cared or even noticed, apart from the usual dittoheads.
But PZ went beyond ridicule -- he physically desecrated an object regarded as holy by Catholics. That's not criticism, that's an attack.
Same with this crappy show.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 8:44 PM
OK, I apologise GeorgeRic, it's Pilty that must be related to Charlene Warner!
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 28, 2009 8:45 PM
Poor widdle Hoax, cannot tell the difference between criticizing people who happens to be X as opposed to criticizing a person because they are X. If only those homosexuals, and blacks, and women, and Jews, and Muslims knew their places, they would keep their mouths shut.
Yes, Hoax, you are feeling the hate. You worked hard for every bit of it.
Oh, wait, this is just my being passive-aggressive bullshit.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 28, 2009 8:45 PM
Why don't you team up with the nice lady at the Beautiful Cervix Project, put your new speculum to use, and see if transubstantiated Jesus crackers can get some volunteers pregnant? I mean, Christian god's already got a trinity going, why not try to add a few to the pack? You could make it all sciency by seeing if Jesus' testicles are included in every wafer or if each wafer corresponds to a particular part. You could send dear Billy a new Jesus-Getting-Happy-With-A-Cervix pic each day!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 28, 2009 8:45 PM
People also report seeing shimmering water on hot asphalt, every summer, world-wide. Should we pray to the Water Providing Solid Yellow Line?
For an example of why seeing something doesn't mean it exists, see the comments by David B at #89, akshelby at #147, and Thrillhouse at #152 in this thread.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 28, 2009 8:46 PM
We all have to sign up to learn the fine art of drawing a line in the sand from you, pilty.
Posted by: Sean | October 28, 2009 8:48 PM
I (friend of Pastor Tom Estes put PZ on the mailing liust of the idiot catholic.
Posted by: JHS
|
October 28, 2009 8:49 PM
I guess Billy D hasn't heard: I just founded a religion in which I and my followers worship Bill Donohue-Free TV. By appearing on TV, or really in any visual media at all, he is trampling all over our most sacred rites, rituals, beliefs, and good taste. "Pissing on them," if you will.
Where's the outrage?! After all, all religions demand complete and unquestioned respect and deference, even from non-adherents, right?
Now, if you'll excuse me, tonight is our most holy of nights, when the most pious among my sect gather and pay homage to the great Bill-Free TV by unleashing a holy torrent of prayerful urine upon a picture of some bearded carpenter.
Got a problem with it, Bill? Respect! RESPECT!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
October 28, 2009 8:51 PM
And the Maasai believe they own all cattle, everywhere. Are you attacking them every time you eat a burger?
Your 'faith' doesn't give you the right to unilaterally decide you own some class of objects because you deem them sacred.
Take your offended pomposity and your kiddy-pool deep philosophy and fuck off.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 28, 2009 8:52 PM
But PZ went beyond ridicule -- he physically desecrated an object regarded as holy by Catholics. That's not criticism, that's an attack.
So, Hoax, do you active avoid doing actions that other people in other religions consider to be desecration. Or is it only YOUR religion that people should not cross?
Posted by: Andyo
|
October 28, 2009 8:54 PM
I'm sorry, I'd missed that GeorgeRic said that "the possessed" levitate.
Um
WHAT?!?!
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | October 28, 2009 8:56 PM
Yes. Criticism exists in reality; desecration only in the minds of the deluded.
Every time you eat beef you desecrate a creature regarded as holy by Hindus. Every time you eat any animal you desecrate a creature regarded as holy by Buddhists and Jains. Every time you do work on the Sabbath you desecrate an ideal regarded as holy by observant Jews. Every time you praise Jesus you desecrate the beliefs of other religions who don't believe in Jesus.
Need I go on? In short, you're an insenstive monster with all your attacking of sacred beliefs, Piltdown...
Posted by: woozy | October 28, 2009 8:57 PM
Okay, no-ones more willing to bend over backwards and try to see the other side's point of view more than me, good ol' concern troll woozy. That said, Bill, here are a few points:
1) This is HBO. Not basic cable or broadcast. Folks have to *pay* to see this and make a choice whether to subscribe. Hence it is *private* viewing and not *public* viewing. You may have a point about anti-catholic sentiment betraying public decency (you may, but I personally think you don't) but such concerns have no place in concerns with *private* viewing. (At least that don't in any country with free private presses and networks.)
2) Crass and purile as this may have been, it can't really be seen as an attack on either Jesus or Catholics but only on followers of reported miracle sightings. Seeing images of weeping statues is not restricted to Catholics nor is it fundimental to Catholic beliefs.
3) Although seeing urine splashing onto an image of Jesus may be upsetting portraying it here was clearly meant to be an accident. Clearly such accidents do occasionally occur. The fact that such is possibly (i.e. that any icon that encounters piss won't miraculously dry itself off) can't be considered an attack. Perhaps, you could argue that basing a television episode upon a soiled icon is an attack but ... see point 2.
Okay, concern mode off.
Bleah. I never liked Curb. Really not that funny, in my opinion.
Posted by: Kevin Beck
|
October 28, 2009 8:59 PM
swollen and empurpled spitting
Hmmm, what well-known item is also swollen, empurpled (nice word), and spits stuff?
Come on, PZ, just call ol' Wild Bill a dick outright and be done with it! ;o)
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 28, 2009 8:59 PM
Dear Sean @ 89,
It is a great relief to us all to hear that Pastor Testes finally has a friend, even if, given the contemptible man he is, that doesn't say much about you. But you spell badly enough to be a born-agen-christchin, so I'm sure you and the Pastor's Testes will hang out together happily (teabags anyone?).
Jesus also has you on his 'liust'--you're the deranged fundy, next to the idiot catholic, the moronic mormon, the fraudulent scientologist, and the clotted jehovah's witness. Fucked-up loony's united in faith.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 9:10 PM
Well Smoggy, you know what the friend to the testes is, don't you?
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 28, 2009 9:12 PM
GeorgeRic[hter] (#74)
Why is it woo-infested fuckwits like yourself always redefine "open-minded" as "credulous enough to uncritically agree with all the whacko shit I believe in" and "logical" as "whatever popped into my head that morning after I rubbed one out"? Oh, and it's pretty obvious that you're also "Bob Nelson," the only guy on Amazon who reviewed your book. Loser.
Posted by: Copernicus | October 28, 2009 9:13 PM
swollen and empurpled spitting, Maggie?
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 9:15 PM
Precisely, Nicklaus, a kielbasa
Posted by: Copoernicus | October 28, 2009 9:19 PM
Well actually Maggie, although I did occasionally walk the banks of the Vistula, my meaningful years were spent in Bologna, so mortadella would be more appropriate!
Posted by: Max W. | October 28, 2009 9:19 PM
Another slow day at the Catholic League...
Posted by: John Morales | October 28, 2009 9:22 PM
Piltdown:
Not so. You're equating ridiculing the faith with attacking believers.
I suppose that could be interpreted so, in some symbolic sense, but then so would the sneering quote you attribute PZ also have been.
Anyway, if you don't see defacing and discarding a purported holy cracker is quite literally "ridiculing the faith", you're in denial.
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | October 28, 2009 9:24 PM
Inpurpled - kielbasas? . . . . I must not read this blog before dinner.
Posted by: chrisD | October 28, 2009 9:24 PM
Until one day when it became a desecration to even mention how batshit insane Catholics are for worshiping a stale piece of toast. Then you couldn't even utter a word for desecration happens in your thoughts and not your actions. "He might as well have punched me in the nose!" Fuuuuck. I'm too exhausted to try to make you look ridiculous, you do a fine job of that, and I'm sure one of the other posters have done so or are doing so at this moment. Suffice to say, by that last statement of yours, I no longer take you seriously and consider you to be just another Smoggy Batzrubble except not funny and especially grating.Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
October 28, 2009 9:25 PM
GeorgeRic says "Yet humans report on miracles, on events such as the dance of the sun at Fatima. Pagans believe in many gods (with good reason) and the possessed levitate, all evidence that spirit worlds do exist."
Isn't it funny how these "miracles" never occur when somebody has a camera around to document them. I mean what are the odds that you'd have all these miracles happening everywhere and somehow nobody had a camera or even a cell phone to document the auspicious event. Dude, this crap used to work when the world was empty. It's harder to pull off in a wired world.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 28, 2009 9:30 PM
Piltdown Man #83 wrote:
Can you give an example of any other attack on someone which the perpetrator could, in theory, do in private, and no one else on earth need ever know about it -- and yet someone has still been "attacked?"
I don't think the word fits. Who is being attacked? An idea?
Posted by: Copernicus | October 28, 2009 9:32 PM
hmmm, the definition of "desecration" in the Catholic Encyclopedia reads as follows:
so presumably, as soon as PZ obtained the crackers, morally speaking they were deconsecrated before they could have been desecrated, just as an anointed chalice that is damaged need not be ritually desecrated before it goes in for repair...?
Posted by: Rorschach | October 28, 2009 9:41 PM
Not another cracker desecration reloaded thread, pweeeease !
I like A Noyd's idea @ 86, of feeding transmogrified jebus into volunteer vaginas though, that has a nice ring to it...:-)
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 9:42 PM
Sastra, how about mutilating a "vodou doll" in the shape of a human but with the jaw of an orangutan?
Posted by: John Morales | October 28, 2009 9:43 PM
Sastra,
That's too easy: sticking pins in a voodoo doll with intent to harm someone.
:)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 28, 2009 9:44 PM
To quote someone or other, Pilty, "it's a fracking cracker."
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 28, 2009 9:46 PM
Too slow Johnny!
Posted by: woozy | October 28, 2009 9:54 PM
>>>>Hey Billy, no one has the right to not be offended.
>>Right. Except for homosexuals, and blacks, and women, and Jews, and Muslims, and -
Sigh... Concern mode back on (Why do I do it? It'd be so much easier if I didn't.)
That'd be a valid point if you kept track of which individuals said what. So far as I know, *nobody* on this forum has ever claimed HBWJMetc. have special rights not to be offended. If someone has, that person clearly wasn't loose_the_woo who seems to have clearly stated otherwise.
When you accuse people of hypocracy, it'd be best if you don't put words in their mouths.
>>>>But PZ went beyond ridicule -- he physically desecrated an object regarded as holy by Catholics. That's not criticism, that's an attack.
I had my concerns about the "good taste" of the cracker business. (Mostly my point was misinterpretted but I won't go into that.) However I think PZ has been consistant in his views. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I don't think he'd disagree with you about it being an attack. I think he'd say catholics deserved the attack for issuing death threats over a cracker. (Although "attack" implies intended harm and it's hard to see what harm PZ would have thought desecrating a holy object, and a mass produced one at that, could do.)
>>>>Same with this crappy show.
Now hold on a minute! Catholics hold crackers holy because they believe them to be the body of the host. Catholics hold Jesus holy because ... well ... 'cause he's Jesus. Catholics do *not* hold pictures of Jesus holy; they are only pictures. They object to desecrating images of Jesus because it represents disrespect to what they hold holy. The show removed it a step further in that neither Jesus, nor an image of Jesus, was pissed on. All that occured is that we were presented with a dramatization or an image of Jesus getting splashed with urine. That's three steps away from actually pissing on Jesus. Furthermore, the image of Jesus wasn't criticized or attacked. The adoration of Jesus wasn't criticized or attacked. The adoration of *images* of Jesus wasn't even criticized or attacked. The only think criticized were miracle followers.
Okay, I'll admit that the adoration of images of Jesus wasn't *indulged*. To properly *indulge* someone's adoration of images of Jesus, one wouldn't speculate the possibility that such an image might get splashed with piss.
Hence a statement upon which we can all agree:
In this episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm HBO wantonly did not indulge extreme Catholics' adoration of images of Jesus.
Wow. How terrible.
Posted by: thepugilist
|
October 28, 2009 10:04 PM
It seems like the good folks over at the Fox News forums are trying to organize a boycott of the shows sponsors. That's right, a boycott of the sponsors of a subscription based, commercial free television show. You can't make this stuff up. It's quite obvious that the people complaining about this particular episode have never even watched CYE. Myself, I never miss an episode of it and last nights was pretty good. Or as Larry David himself would say, pretty good. Pretty, pretty, pretty good.
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
October 28, 2009 10:05 PM
@38:I found it odd that someone would have a picture of Jesus looking down on them while they use the toilet.
Obviously, it's to discourage one from using the facilities for....anything but strictly excretory and hygienic functions. I mean, that's gotta be a serious buzzkill having Him look down on you with that mingled disapproving/hurt-puppy-dog look while you're trying to get some DIY action going.
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 28, 2009 10:11 PM
"You know, I still have a stash of holy crackers. I might just have to escalate some more.." If you want the perfect condiment for those spicy little delectables may I recommend tofu. It's about the only thing that won't overpower the subtle cardboard like flavors of your basic communion wafer.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
October 28, 2009 10:21 PM
It's about the only thing that won't overpower the subtle cardboard like flavors of your basic communion wafer.
You haven't eaten upper Midwestern cooking have you?
Now that is boring enough to be a good match for Jebus crackers.
I almost typed crappers. Appropriate, somehow.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 28, 2009 10:25 PM
While I did cackle more than a bit at the CYE clip, I have to comment (mebbe redundantly, in this company) that one of the funniest bits sure as hell doesn't fit the reality I've observed...
I mean the bit where she catches him pissing, and it dawns on her, and there's this precious look on her face--as in, oh fuck, okay, I get it... mah ticky tacky Jayzuz wasn't so much crying, after all, was he...
See, my impression is, in the real world, that simply wouldn't have happened. Whatever else might have been her reaction to the bizarre vision of her boss urinating on the shrubbery with enough volume to put out the LA wildfires, the last connection she woulda made--or more to the point, verbally acknowledged--woulda been that there was actually a non-miraculous (if physiologically bizarre) explanation for the 'tear' she'd thought she'd observed. Having just rededicated her life to spreading the word of this miracle, she'd be far more likely to have clung to her previous weird leap of faith pretty much even if she'd caught him pissing in the very same toilet, the spray liberally drenching the fantastically ugly thing she'd hung above it in dilute urea...
(/Just sayin'. And yeah, notwithstanding that, I lawled.)
Posted by: Curious | October 28, 2009 10:26 PM
You think I am going to get up at 8:45 in the morning to watch that crap? Sorry.
Posted by: Levi in NY
|
October 28, 2009 10:27 PM
Hmm..."execrable". I learned a new word.
I thought at first it was "excretable"...which of course Fox and Friends is, as well.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 28, 2009 10:28 PM
I suggest being more creative, maybe a bacon and cheese dip, or for more subtle flavor, a shrimp dip with some wine flavoring.
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
October 28, 2009 10:35 PM
Pilty @where-eva'
Go ahead, Pilty...give or take a blow-job from a priest and tell me how upset you are of an attack on your fundie using a cracker. For that matter, catholic history is filled with hideous religious massacres...and you want to defend that behavior over a cracker being thrown in the trash?
Pilty, you're frackin' no-brained retarded.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 28, 2009 10:41 PM
I suppose you refrain from eating beef purely out of respect to the Hindus. Or refrain from harming any animals at all because of the sacred nature of life to the Jainists...Just because you hold something as sacred, it does not follow that everyone should hold it as sacred. You might ask for civility, but honestly you can't expect anything more than that.
In terms of things damaging to Catholicism, PZ's breadicide doesn't nearly compare to the systematic cover-up of paedophilia on a global scale. Priests were molesting and raping children! The fact that you can sit there and not be concerned that you're a member of an organisation that not only failed to stop the raping of children, but covered it up in such a way that other children and communities were put at risk. I don't know how you can be outraged over the throwing away of a piece of bread while being an apologist for such evil.
Posted by: llewelly | October 28, 2009 10:43 PM
GeorgeRic | October 28, 2009 8:25 PM:
Brain Dunning explained that event here.
An excellent podcast, which everyone interested in miracles should listen to.
Posted by: foxfire
|
October 28, 2009 10:47 PM
Piltdown Man @ # 83
So Pilty, what do you call it when Catholics and other Christians do far more than desecrate an object; when they denigrate or destroy other human beings because those people don't adhere to the appropriate dogma?
Is denigration and denial of full civil marriage rights to non-heterosexual couples simply a criticism?
Is working to prevent the use of condoms in an AIDS infected 3rd world country simply an opinion?
Pilty, I suggest you revisit your whining about an attack. Christianity hasn't been attacked, it has been counter-attacked and will continue to be counter-attacked. That's called an an aggressive defensive response.
If you don't want a war, then don't start one.
Posted by: druidbros
|
October 28, 2009 11:01 PM
Aw cmon y'all. Pilty ( aka - the hoax) just cannot help him/her/it self. He is just another common funda(non)mentalist trying to tilt at windmills.
On another note, I just started reading the great tome, ' The Making of the Fittest'. Its a great supply of fundy thought killing bullets.
Posted by: Bryman | October 28, 2009 11:18 PM
FYI - My comment is regarding Dr. Myers original post and has nothing to do with 100+ comments that have followed. I have yet to read them..
Bill Donahue is beyond ridiculous, He is a parody of himself. I read his press release. This disgusting, pompous, shit monster contends that this is a direct assault on the Catholic flavor of nonsense. I was so perplexed by this that I watched the episode again. At no point was there any reference to this character being Catholic as opposed to any other brand of bible beating Jesus crispy.
Why does he want to portray this character as Catholic just to feign outrage? Is he that desperate for publicity? Mind you, these are rhetorical questions.
I would also like to note that this clip does not do the episode justice. Watching only it, I can see how you would think it was garbage. Personally, I love the irony of subsidizing the evangelization of others for your own selfish reasons. From a Jew, no less. Watch the whole episode and then render your opinion.
Thank you for reading my diatribe.....
Posted by: randomBLOG | October 29, 2009 12:07 AM
love curb best show on tv
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
October 29, 2009 12:28 AM
@ AJ Milne (#120)
I think you're exactly right. Only somebody with skeptical inclinations would have reacted the way she did to the splodging revelation, and such a person would never have put herself in that situation to begin with. Her reaction in that scene was about as realistic as Bill Dembski reading one of PZ's posts and suddenly realizing that evolution is real but gØd isn't.
However, the plotline as it was was quite effective for comic effect.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
October 29, 2009 1:26 AM
Mike @ 38:
Because they think an invisible somebody gives a crap?
Posted by: kyhwana
|
October 29, 2009 3:40 AM
"That irreligious coward would never urinate on a Koran. He is an intolerant moron who thinks he's funny. "
I smell a new PZ-gate coming on!
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 29, 2009 5:46 AM
Can Jesus be hurt?
If you think he never existed: no.
If you think he was a charismatic guys with some great ideas (and a few crazy moments): well, he's dead, so...
If you think he's some sort of deity: well, can you hurt a deity? that sounds crazy.
So, in either case, Jesus doesn't care.
Posted by: Sili
|
October 29, 2009 6:06 AM
Yeah, I had to stop washing after the pig pissed everywhere and then didn't even wash his hands.
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
October 29, 2009 6:59 AM
John Morales @ 104:
No, I'm questioning the equation of physical desecration with simple ridicule.
But it is ridicule through an act of physical desecration.
Sastra @ 108:
But PZ's act could not in theory have been done in private -- the whole point of the exercise was that it was public.
I would say a community.
Woozy @ 115:
I wasn't referring to specific statements by posters on Pharyngula; it was more a grouse against the suffocating atmosphere of political correctness that panders to the sensibilities of certain groups perceived to be victims of oppression, to the extent of silencing criticism.
Death threats or alleged death threats? And if there were death threats, why attack an entire community because of the actions of a few hotheads?
Strictly speaking all that is true. But you're a man of the world and you know as well as I do what's going on here. It wasn't a statue of Buddha* that got splashed with urine and it never will be. You know that.
(*See - no fatwa-envy.)
Kel @ 125:
Actual physical desecration of a sacred object is not the same thing as refusing to believe a supposedly sacred object is sacred. It is not compatible with civility.
Brownian @ 91:
Wowbagger @ 94:
Kel @ 125:
The difference is that PZ's was a calculated act of desecration. It's the difference between eating a burger and sneaking into a Hindu village at night and slaughtering the sacred cow. It's the difference between enjoying a bacon sandwich and putting a pig's head outside a mosque. It's the difference between working on the Jewish sabbath (which is fine anyway for gentiles as far as Jews are concerned) and spraying a Torah scroll with urine.
Kel @ 125:
Of course not. Which is why certain priests and bishops will most likely end up being repeatedly buggered by giant demons for all eternity, while PZ will merely get dumped in a load of coffee-grounds and banana skins.
"Organisations" don't do anything, people do. And I don't defend the evil that people do - I suggested on this very blog that pederast priests should be executed, castrated or flogged as the case may be (and was promptly accused of bloodthirsty illiberalism).
Where we differ is that you see these crimes as something inherent to the Church, a kind of natural outgrowth of Catholicism; I see them an an attack on the Church, a viral infection that needs to be extirpated.
foxfire @ 127:
Now that's an intelligent and forceful response. I suppose one could argue that Christianity is merely trying to reclaim the position in society it once had and that therefore it is being "aggressively defensive", attempting to mount a counter-insurgency as it were.
One could also ask why PZ feels the need to take the war against the enemy's civilian population, to trumpet to ordinary Catholics in the pew that their "crackers are not safe". Why not desecrate a wafer in private and send it (or a picture) to the local bishop or to the Vatican? Would they not be more legitimate targets?
Posted by: strangest brew | October 29, 2009 7:16 AM
Shows the inherent deep down knowledge that jeebus, his pappy and a whole host of 'saintly' non entity dead clones that are named after some real folks and some not, from way back are just that, dead and non-existent, and all are delusion.
They are not omnipotent, they are not supernatural, they are myths, stories, fiction, wishful thinking, they make it so folk do not have to have intelligence to work things out, they are scapegoats for the incompetent and the inadequate...for the deluded and for the cover story to perpetuate rancid evil.
So these figments are incapable of any self defence, they cannot strike people dead, they cannot send anyone to a non-existent hell, they cannot curse anyone, they cannot actually hear anything said, sang or preyed, they are non-existent figments of stunted imaginations, or rather of imaginations warped by incessant caterwauling of snake-oil salesmen and purveyors of false dogmatic tracts that enshrine hatred, bigotry and intolerance and crass ignorance in the 'written word'.
And of course the likes of 'donkeybreath' are aware that the illusion is shedding a few veils, and the ugly underneath is showing, and folks are laughing at the stupid!
And they are impotent to the growing realisation amongst society that religion is a con game, mainly for money, but also for power!
Churches are losing the woo factor, and folks are losing the fear of rejecting a fairy story.
If jeebus is pissed, then he is perfectly capable of exacting revenge especially so with daddy 'o' riding shotgun, but the 'faithful' have no faith in that , cos they know it is not going to happen, cos deep down they know none of the xian construct actually exists, and they are terrified!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 29, 2009 7:21 AM
Ah, Pilty, as inane and irrelevant as always. Your god doesn't exist, your babble is fiction, and your church is morally bankrupt. So your feeble attempts to defend such an organization shows your morally bankruptcy, making you someone who has nothing to say of interest. The burden of proof is upon you to show that the host is the body of the mythical jebus. If it isn't, it is just a cracker. Anything can happen to a cracker. What cat-o-licks believe is irrelevant. They are not special, and their inane and insane beliefs can and will be ridiculed. If you don't want your beliefs ridiculed go and stay away.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | October 29, 2009 7:34 AM
Jesus wept.
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
October 29, 2009 7:49 AM
Pilty
There's fantasy: 6-day creation, talking snakes, people turning to pillars of salt, water to wine, rising from the dead, etc...
There's reality: the big-bang, evolution, carbon dating, the red-shift of stars, nebula and galaxies, gravity, fossil records, etc...
Most folks here can tell the difference and choose accordingly...you can't. And until you can produce a visable burning bush that speaks in tongues that we all can witness as readily as the red-shift of stars...don't expect much support here for your fantasies.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 29, 2009 8:00 AM
All right, so a Jew accidentally splashed a picture of Christ. Meanwhile, we've got 2,000 years of getting the crap kicked out of us.
We'll call it even.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 29, 2009 8:03 AM
Because the point of the exercise was to demonstrate the ridiculousness of holding a cracker above the safety, life happiness, freedom of an actual human being.
Because it was members of the Church that prompted the action. Members like you who continue to support an organization that systematically does monstrous things to people in the name a mystical being of questionable origin who you people believe can be turned into a wheat based wafer with some incantations and handwaving.
Because the actions of the representatives of your organization demonstrated the belief that a symbol and symbolism are more important than actual people.
That's why.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 29, 2009 8:08 AM
I took a quick look at the comments on Fox's website. Of course, none of the knuckle-draggers actually saw the episode; they simply accept at face value Fox's statement that Larry urinated on the picture, the clear implication being that it was a deliberate act.
Right away, threats of damnation:
We'll see how God takes this joke on Judgement Day.....
and, of course, the inevitable thinly-veiled antisemitism:
Yeah, well the Pharisees and Sadducees are alive and well. Drive another nail into The Lord you scum! You can't stop Jesus!
That sounds about right.
Posted by: Anri
|
October 29, 2009 8:17 AM
Pilty sez:
And so far, the answer would seem to be "Yep, pretty much the same here." But thanks for the questioning.
As is drawing an image of Muhammad. Just as physical, just as 'desecrating'.
So, if this act had been private, it would not have been desecration?
Really?
Are you objecting to the desecration or the bad press?
I assure you, if this country is ever overrun with science-blocking, reality-denying, evangelical Buddhists, it will be.
Yes, it is. You cannot desecrate the non-sacred.
Also, telling people that they are wretched creatures who fully deserve eternal torture and damnation isn't very civil. Really.
Except it's not your cow. You can slaughter a cow a Hindu gives to you, however.
And so long as it was my property, I believe I have as much right to put a pig's head in my yard as anyone else has to put a statue of Jesus in theirs. Do you disagree?
Again, so long as I own the scroll, I can do with it whatever I please. And I can tell people I am doing it, too.
And what should happen to the poeple who helped hide and relocate those rapists?
And what should happen to those people that give money to the people that helped hide those that raped?
And what should happen to the people who publicly support the hierarchy that cause this, and supported it, and defended it?
And which category do you fall into?
No, we see a reverance for unreal things being given importance above other human beings as central to religion in general. We see oppressive and self-serving behavior as inherent to authotarian systems.
Any time god thinks that the current pope is doing anything other than a bang-up job, he can remove him, right?
And given christianity's track record, we don't want it to have that position back.
It did a rotten job of it for about a thousand years - we're done with that experiment.
Look at some pictures of Vatican City.
Think of how much money the pope earns by the sweat of his brow (ie, none).
Without the 'civilian population', there would be no Catholic Church.
At least not one capable of protecting so very many criminals.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 29, 2009 8:18 AM
Sis Boom Rah!! Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!
YAY JESUS!
You can't stop Jesus, you can only hope to
contain himnail him to a cross.Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 29, 2009 8:29 AM
Yawn.
Pilty, you're just pissed you can't burn PZ at the stake.
The catholic church has very peculiar standards of civility. One might think protecting pedophiles is a lot less civil than "desecrating" a cracker.
Which one do you think has damaged the reputation of the church more by the way?
Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords
|
October 29, 2009 8:40 AM
Can't we just ignore BD? Unless he actually does something that threatens real harm, or is actually funny? He's a classic "talking tar baby" and nothing worse.
His is the most useless of wingnut/Xian "techniques": being a completely obtuse, sticky-as-tar piece of shrieking dog shit in the mistaken idea that the sheer, smelly inertia of his existence will drive his opponent off.
These debased humans need to have their positions answered in the most simple, plain fashion (or with truly hilarious satire) and then IGNORED until a new simple response is needed FOR A THIRD PARTY.
Also, can you imagine what a living hell it is to BE someone like this? Or Ken Ham? Or every single "Republican"? To live and think you are prospering, even "happy", by way of idiocy and lies. And when life's realities smash you in the face with the facts, you are too much of a fool and a coward to do anything but more of the same?
No non-physical suffering could be worse, given its utter hopelessness.
Posted by: strangest brew | October 29, 2009 8:49 AM
#147
"No non-physical suffering could be worse, given its utter hopelessness."
One could say it was a hell of their own making!
Irony is unknown to most xian retards, but damn them all to hell, it is ironic that the only hellish situation causing such cognitive unease, is in fact being reserved exclusively for xians, they invented it, now only they are suffering it, serves them right for being such righteous dickheads!
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 29, 2009 9:18 AM
-Jesus wept-
and the tears were EXTRA salty.
I see Pilty is still trying to defend his odd idea that everyone should hold everything sacred if someone else does. No matter how ridiculous.
Anyone remember all that nonsense about the cows that were a health risk but couldn't be culled because they were "sacred". Anyone remember a teddy bear called Mohammad? Anyone remember a woman being surrounded and spat on because she clicked a button on her camera on a certain day? Lets see you defend them apples Pilty.
Pilty, we do not pander to your beliefs because they are trite, silly and more important to you than other humans. And until people realise this and it's implications (it makes you into an uncaring asshole-trust me) the mocking will continue.
Posted by: Brian | October 29, 2009 9:56 AM
Bill Donahue just got ripped apart my Patrice O'neal on the Opie and Anthony show. You should try to get the clips up on the site. Check it out!
Posted by: Brian | October 29, 2009 10:03 AM
He also just mentioned you too - bringing up the 'kidnapping' of the host. Priceless.
Posted by: Cycle Ninja
|
October 29, 2009 10:09 AM
Here's my suggestion: Tell Donohue you'll burn one cracker every time he sends out a press release.
Or do we want to deprive ourselves of all the fun that comes with pointing and mocking?
Posted by: JackieO | October 29, 2009 10:39 AM
Could somebody post a link to a youtube video of this when it goes up?
Posted by: Thorne
|
October 29, 2009 10:53 AM
My, my! All this hullabaloo over a picture that's not even Jesus? This is more in line with what Jesus looked like, not that Rennaissance fop commonly used in art. So pissing on that picture can't really be considered blasphemy, can it?
Posted by: Desert Son
|
October 29, 2009 10:53 AM
Piltdown Man emitted:
A statement which presupposes the sacredness of the object. Year 13.7 billion of the universe (give or take): still waiting for the evidence.
See also Anri's post at #144 on the ownership of the object in question.
Shouted from the battlements of one of the original fortresses of incivility: Catholicism. Since when, in its history, has Catholicism been concerned with civility? Autos da fe? The Inquisition? Indulgences? The Crusades? Sacking Constantinople (fellow Christians)? The massacre of the Jewish population of Worms? The constant oppression of women and homosexuals? Treatment of indigenous populations? Opposition to prophylactic education in epidemic areas? Collusion with totalitarian regimes? Harboring and actively defending sexual predators? Bandying superstitious vengeance as justification for manipulation, oppression, perpetuation of poverty, and power-grabbing?
Perceived to be victims? Perceived to be victims?! You know what, Pitldown Man? After reading various posts of yours over the time I've been visiting Pharyngula, and after your incessant failure to understand the points made counter to your own lack of perspective, and after your persistent reveling in institutionalized racism and homophobia and sexism, and after your self-righteous and disingenuous proffering of civility, this remains:
Take, eat. This is my contempt, which is given for thee. No doubt you'll wear it like a badge.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Kristian | October 29, 2009 11:00 AM
I found the last part where he hung on by grasping her flab was hilarious. ;)
Posted by: robinsrule | October 29, 2009 11:06 AM
Heh, you don't think about what you write, do you?
Well then start extirpating you idiot. Get your own goddamn house in order, then you'll gain some credibility. You can start by telling your maximum leader Rat-zinger to take a hike.
You splashed on Jesus!
Posted by: Rorschach | October 29, 2009 11:07 AM
Thorne @ 154,
Ask and you shall receive:
Hullabaloo !
Posted by: raven | October 29, 2009 11:19 AM
Why does god/jesus need Donohue or dubious internet posters to defend him?
Last I heard, god was the most powerful force in the universe, having created everything, and a well known short tempered genocidal maniac. He almost killed humanity once and is scheduled last month (among other dates) to kill everyone any minute.
It looks like even the xian believers don't really believe any more. They aren't defending god/jesus, they are defending their mythology.
Got to run here. Today I'm defending the Laws of Quantum Gravity and Germ Theory of Disease, Spiderman, and the Green Lantern. Mickey Mouse and Goofy don't need defending since they have the Disney corp lawyers and money behind them.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 29, 2009 11:29 AM
The difference is that PZ's was a calculated act of desecration. It's the difference between eating a burger and sneaking into a Hindu village at night and slaughtering the sacred cow. It's the difference between enjoying a bacon sandwich and putting a pig's head outside a mosque. It's the difference between working on the Jewish sabbath (which is fine anyway for gentiles as far as Jews are concerned) and spraying a Torah scroll with urine.
I think I finally understand the Hoax's point. If only PZ nailed that cracker and threw in the trash with a few pages of the Koran and of The God Delusion without letting other people know, it would not have been an attack on the catholic community.
As long as the Hoax did not know this have nappened, it would not have been an attack against him. Expect for that pesky little detail that the Hoax thinks that the cracker is the flesh of god and that PZ did kidnapped and harmed it. That PZ caused bodily harm to god. Yet the Hoax seems to be trying to edge away from that bit and playing it up as an attack upon people.
How very dishonest.
I wasn't referring to specific statements by posters on Pharyngula; it was more a grouse against the suffocating atmosphere of political correctness that panders to the sensibilities of certain groups perceived to be victims of oppression, to the extent of silencing criticism.
If only these people perceived to be victims of oppression would just accept their station in life that they were assigned to so that I may say what I want without criticism from them.
Love that bit about perceived oppression. Especially funny from someone who squeaked that he was one of the New Jews. Look at me, I am oppressed because I am a catholic. And you hordes want to do me in like, well, the catholics wanted to do in the Jews.
Posted by: Carlie | October 29, 2009 11:36 AM
You nailed it, Janine.
However, this is also entirely inaccurate on Piltdown's part.
PZ did not go to Pilty's house and desecrate the cracker on his front porch. He did not do it anywhere that Pilty would have been unable to notice. Instead, PZ performed said desecration in the comfort of his own blog, accessible ONLY by going directly to said blog. It's not like it was even on public access tv and Pilty could have accidentally come across it while channel surfing. Nope, to see the desecration, one had to come visit this blog, then click on the post, then scroll down and read the whole thing.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 29, 2009 11:43 AM
"It's not like it was even on public access tv and Pilty could have accidentally come across it while channel surfing. Nope, to see the desecration, one had to come visit this blog, then click on the post, then scroll down and read the whole thing."
Probably with his empurpled kielbasa in his hand the entire time.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
October 29, 2009 11:53 AM
Piltdown Man grunted:
There is no difference between criticism and desecration. The word desecration is simply an attempt to declare criticism off limits. It is only used in a religious context, because religion has tried for centuries to make any and all criticism taboo.
But unfortunately it has backfired, because desecration exposes supposedly sacred objects and rituals for what they really are--completely ordinary. Whether it's a cracker tossed in the trash or a picture of Jesus in a jar of urine, the very act of desecration strips off the layers of superstitious bullshit applied by those looking to profit off them.
Posted by: muttpupdad | October 29, 2009 11:59 AM
My first thought on this was the Kinky Friedman song Mensroom in L.A. Look it up(not to good with inbedding links)
Posted by: Anri
|
October 29, 2009 12:05 PM
Exactly, Janine! "Screw Jesus, what about my poor, hurt feelings!"
.
.
Brain Bleach for one, please!
...better make it a double.
Posted by: strangest brew | October 29, 2009 12:29 PM
Xian clones only spout only what they think they should spout.
They get told what to say...what to think and how to react!
They get 'instruction',and they get the message hammered home at every turn of the earth that they alone and independently are incapable of formulating a plan or being worthy of carrying it out or indeed being capable of understanding their plan without supposed dialogue with a supernatural figment that only the church can enable.
The church argue relentlessly that the congregation are worthless are sinful, are failures and despicable sinners in the eyes of the lawd!.
This they are told over and over in every possible way and means from early years and all through their teens and into adulthood.
But there is a get out clause, the only one, it is called excepting some medieval constructed figment of a god into your heart...'born again unto the lawd god almighty!'
Come in to the church and praise him with everyone else in fact with every other lied to, frightened, bullied, coerced and manipulated mark in the area that we brain washed from birth.
It is no surprise that xian religion is the force that it is, certainly as it was.
Society is so entangled with it folks can end up strangling themselves trying to extricate.
But times are changing, the coils of ignorance are falling away, the lies are becoming obvious, the inherent bigotry is more exposed, the hatred is becoming more visible, the stupidity the arrogance and the manipulation, and the nonsensical dogma and the fear of eternal damnation is slowly dissipating.
And characters like 'donkeybreath' are being laughed at and ignored and their response is even more acidic apoplectic rants and raves about such ridiculous terms such as blasphemy and sacrilege and liberal intolerance of jeebus worship, of unevidenced belief and some people nod and agree and hate the mockers like the church would approve.
And others see something that does not look right, like child abuse, homophobia, fiscal irregularity, hatred of women, political influence and double standards, and fringe xians ranting about 6000year old earth and dinosaur saddles and all manner of crazy talk and the obvious contortions of science to fit an allegorical story and the mocking is getting louder and more pronounced, and they start to question...
then we have won...simple like so!
Posted by: whitebird | October 29, 2009 1:26 PM
FY guyses' I: I heard (yeah, that's the ticket...I heard)this very item is at the top of the Perez Hilton blog. It'll be very interesting to see, um, I mean hear from someone else who is definitely not me, what the commenters on that post have to say. Demographically speaking.
Posted by: Rev. Dr. Stephens Hawkings 386sx III½ Jr., Esq.
|
October 29, 2009 1:31 PM
I was wondering if Donohue had ever made one of his press release tantrum thingies about Stephen Hawking's story of when the Pope told him to "please remain butt-ignorant of the origins of the universe, for that was a Jesus poof! moment". (I'm paraphrasing the Pope a little bit, of course.)
Yeah, it turns out that Donohue did have something to say about Hawkings story! Dude gets around, that's for sure.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=127&id=4048
Posted by: Traveler
|
October 29, 2009 1:56 PM
I wonder when one of the evangelicals on Fox will slip up and tell Bill what they really think of Catholics? If they are ever able to remake the country to suit their dominionist fantasies, then Bill will find out what persecution of Catholics is really like.
Posted by: ema | October 29, 2009 2:16 PM
One could also ask why PZ feels the need to take the war against the enemy's civilian population, to trumpet to ordinary Catholics in the pew that their "crackers are not safe". Why not desecrate a wafer in private and send it (or a picture) to the local bishop or to the Vatican? Would they not be more legitimate targets?
One could also ask why people ask questions without bothering to, you know, understand the topic under discussion. Crackergate is not about the safety of Catholic crackers or the Vatican. It's about the danger posed by magical thinking:
1) An actual person gets assaulted in church over his perceived mishandling of a cracker.
2) PZ Myers does not approve of actual persons being assaulted as a result of imbuing objects [and pay attention, this is important, *whatever those objects might be*] with magical properties.
3) Hobbled by his inability to express his disapproval through interpretative dance (come on, admit it, you'd all love to see that!), PZ Myers proceeds to throw a few items--a cracker, a couple of books, and a banana peel--in the garbage in order to make his point.
Posted by: raven | October 29, 2009 2:25 PM
Donohue already knows that the fundies think the RCC is the church of satan and the Pope is the antichrist. He occasionally rants and raves about Hagee and the rest of the clowns.
OTOH, according to the RCC, the protestants are all Fake Xians so it all evens out.
Donohue is just an attack mouse for the RCC. Truth, reality, and making sense aren't important. The Ministry of Truth still exists even though it is not 1984.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 29, 2009 2:39 PM
You've got it backwards.
Science determines falsehood by checking the overall theory against phenomena. If that theory fails to explain any of the phenomena, we must discard it.
If it explains all of them, we check if we can find any other theories that also explain the same phenomena. Then we apply Ockham's Razor to all of them, a test that we hope only one of them will pass. (Mind you, this hope is not always fulfilled. I just finished coauthoring a paper where no less than six pass it; they're equally parsimonious.)
And then?
Suppose we discover the truth. How can we find out that what we've discovered is indeed the truth?
By comparing it to the truth, which we don't have?
Science cannot confirm truth. It can only confirm falsehood. It cannot prove, only disprove.
And that reason is?
Show me.
Bingo.
"Physically", or "desecrated"? Are you confusing accidents and substance? B-)
It is ridicule. Plain obvious ridicule. Mocking. Pointing and laughing. And you know that full well.
Yes, it's ridicule that's meant to be offensive. Most ridicule is.
And I didn't even need to mention comment 94…
This, too, is ridicule: it mocks the gullible who would rather believe in weeping paintings than trying to figure out from where (…ehem…) water could have been sprinkled on it. See comment 115. (And 117.)
:-D
In other words, you changed the topic. Shame on you.
Hey, PZ! Look! An idea! :-)
Though actually, I'm not sure if that would actually offend anyone. For instance, Zen Buddhists say "if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him".
It's not even meant to be. To the contrary. It's meant to shake people awake.
…As you know full well.
The actual targets are the people involved in the original Crackergate (see comment 170… I'm sure you remember), and the Internet Tough Guys who spammed so many people with hate mail (up to and including death threats). They wouldn't be reached the way you suggest.
Besides, comment 161.
Amen.
Posted by: Kapitano | October 29, 2009 2:49 PM
Piss Christ.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 29, 2009 2:51 PM
... I still have a stash of
holy crackershostages.Let's speak clearly on this, just so Bill D has no excuses in case any
bodywafer gets hurt.Posted by: strangest brew | October 29, 2009 3:28 PM
#168
Seems 'donkeybreath' is making one or two assumptions above and beyond his intellect...Not hard!
Donkeynuts vomited this shit in 2006 but it seems he only found the...
Address of Pope JP 11 to the participants in the Vatican conference on cosmology
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/july/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19850706_conferenza-cosmologia_en.html
The exchange b'twixt'n'b'tweenn Pope and Hawking was in 1981
Well the conference in that link was in 1985.
And seems to be the only one connected with any cosmological conference at the Vatican including Hawking, at least according to google! that is in the public domain.
I think donkeybrains assumed a wrong speech...
Anyway back to the plot in 1981
Donkeybray seems to think the pope only made a speech to conference as a welcome gambit...not so!
"At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference – the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death!"(Brief history of Time)
At the end of the conference was when the exchange apparently occurred.
I have looked for correction...but for some reason it seems that the Vatican NEVER EVER demanded retraction of that exchange in Steve Hawkins passage in his book.
Leads one to suspect that the reported exchange did occur...donkeybollocks got it wrong!
I think donkeyshite might have got a little in over his donkeyears on that one...
But if anyone finds anything more relevant I would be interested...
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 29, 2009 3:38 PM
Doesn't Godel state you'll get more than one?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 29, 2009 4:22 PM
Big newz: the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is on the case:
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 29, 2009 4:31 PM
Bryman #129
Bill Donohue makes a very good living being a professional victim. Every so often he has to remind the folks who send him money about how he's fighting for the dignity and wellbeing of the catlick church so they continue to send him money. This is just the latest installment of the "Help Donohue Buy a New Mercedes" promotion.
Posted by: kopd | October 29, 2009 4:40 PM
I'm jealous of their fatwa envy. At least they can stand up and say "no one would do this to Muslims" and be taken slightly seriously. Atheists can't even do that.
I'm kidding of course. But it is interesting.
Islam has fatwas.
Christianity has fatwa envy.
We have... what? I suppose sanity will have to do.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 29, 2009 4:49 PM
Another example of the twisted kind of thinking loved by the religious. Are we going to analyze a system, and the elements in it that lead to a definite situation? No sir? We're gonna talk about black sheep and bad apples. We're going to blame it all on a few individuals. We'll call them sinful. We'll say it's because they didn't pray enough, or they worshipped themselves and forgot god, or... I don't know... I'm not too gifted to invent these kind of crazy excuses. We'll say it's a matter of internal police.
I'm sorry, but with this line of thought, things are never going to get better. When John Paul II apologized for the Inquisition and the (past) crimes of the Church, I thought it was great. Really. But the way he did it ruined most of it. It was always sin. It was always individual responsibility. It was never a system, a shared ideology, a system of collective reinforcement.
OK, OK, I know. They just accepted evolution and pardoned Galileo. For them to understand sociology, it may take another couple of centuries.
Now, let it be said that I'm absolutely unable to understand the idea of physical desecration. "Physical" would mean that it's all about an object? So object are sacred? No, sorry, I don't get it.
On the other hand, I love "You can't stop Jesus". Perhaps it could be made into a great song. There was Jesus is just allright, which was just allright, perhaps it could be better.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
October 29, 2009 5:17 PM
Just alright is a huge overstatement IMO. Jebus is just an excuse for certain people to treat the other people like other than people, and religion is simply the safe harbor for all the jebuses.
Posted by: strangest brew | October 29, 2009 5:49 PM
Lets face it these turkey pluckers have been pissing all over science and the rational since before pope 1.
They grudgingly recanted their position on Galileo Galilei on the basis of an official inquiry that lasted 13 years it was indeed grudging...if not bad tempered.
The committee decided the Inquisition had acted in good faith in the case against Galileo.
Apparently Father George Coine...(* He who was fired for telling said bennybaby that ID was a load of cobblers and that evolution was a fact) anyway about Galileo he said at the time that the affair was 'tragic, beyond the control of any one party'. It was the height of the Church's battle with Protestantism, 'and here was a scientist saying he interpreted scripture better than they did.'
Even the moderate Jesuit scientist cannot help themselves in trying to excuse the behaviour of ignorance in their masters.
Methinks Bennybaby was just to ignorant and Coine snapped...got himself banished from the observatory.
*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401950/Pope-sacks-astronomer-evolution-debate.html
And donkeybreath is blubbing over imagined heresy or intolerance or whatever...Git needs nailing up!
Posted by: mikecbraun
|
October 29, 2009 6:01 PM
Not as good as the Christ Nail stuff, but still decent. Of course, one of the greatest Larry moments has to be him trying on Susie's bra and getting caught on tape (also in the Christ Nail episode).
Posted by: mikecbraun
|
October 29, 2009 6:06 PM
@140:
Carbon dating? Come on, we can do better than that. How about potassium-argon dating? Or any of the other several dating methods which work on a longer timescale than carbon-14? But I know what you meant. ;)
Posted by: black-wolf72
|
October 29, 2009 6:57 PM
The core of Catholicism, and of course many other denominations and religions is spectacle. If their public displays of abstracted primitivism called ritual don't draw subjectively enough attention anymore (by being broadcast nationally for at least half of daytime on every occasion the Church deems appropriate), then the public celebration of outrage at disattention and ridicule of the outrage itself has to make the cut. What a pathetic bunch the religiots are.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 29, 2009 7:18 PM
Desecration, Pilty? There is no Catholic teaching that paintings of Jesus are sacred.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 29, 2009 8:02 PM
raven (#159)
Marvel is part of Disney now, so Spiderman's safe. Just FYI.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 29, 2009 8:36 PM
It is bad enough when the spammers tack on to old threads but can't these shitheads keep away from the active ones?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 29, 2009 8:40 PM
Well, until PZ turns back on registration, we just will have to live with it. But without registration, we get a few trolls to chew on...Posted by: steve_h | October 29, 2009 9:06 PM
I'm not convinced that Larry David was actually urinating in that scene. My guess is that they shot him approaching the WC and pretending to unbutton/unzip his flies, at which point they switched to advanced TV trickery to give the impression that he was urinating when, in actual fact, he was merely gyrating and gurning.
Futhermore I would suggest that in some of the shots he was gyrating in a different location where there was no WC and no JC photo, only some guy from the props department crouching out of shot spraying him with fake (=LIES) urine from a cheap common-or-garden plant watering device (or an incredibly expensive theatrical mock-up of an artificial urine backspray simulation device (giant wiener).
Futherfurthermore, I would suggest that the "tears" were not actually urine, but "stage urine" - real urine would not appear as urine under bright studio lights and they would opt for some sort of urine-substitute distilled from late term aborted
fetusescute babies.Finally I would like to add: Hanging a photo of your savior next to the loo, is not a good idea; If someone flushes without closing the lid, the result is the ejection of a fine aerosol mix of some of its contents: your saviour will be coated with a fine mist of microscopic turdlets and wee wee. Only a fools would wipe his backspray of that without the necessary protection.
Posted by: Rude Kitty | October 29, 2009 11:54 PM
A war on Jesus? I haven't seen a war on worm shit recently, did I miss something? I mean, Jesus (assuming there was a real one and not just an amalgam of various founding fathers of the Nazarene cult) is DEAD. D-E-A-D. As in, deceased. Bereft of life. Pushing up the daises. Metabolic process now history. Kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil, gone to the afterlife that is worm shit after the worms got ahold of his moldy corpse. How the fuck can you have a war on worm shit, especially 2,000 year old worm shit that by this time is either fucking *petrified* or just plain gone to dust?!
Lunatics. Just plain lunatics. What next, these loons whine about a war on sawdust?!
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 30, 2009 8:09 AM
Finally I would like to add: Hanging a photo of your savior next to the loo, is not a good idea
This is another good point. No Jew would keep a Torah in the bathroom, no Buddhist would keep a statue of the Buddha there - but I have no hesitancy in betting good money that a fair amount of Xians have a picture of their holy savior right there to watch them do their business.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 8:14 AM
Or to keep them or their family members from doing "other" business.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 30, 2009 8:17 AM
On the other hand, it might encourage those who find Jesus sexy.Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 30, 2009 8:21 AM
I have a virgin of guadalupe shower curtain....
Then again, I decorate my bathroom with tacky religious kitsch.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 8:46 AM
Good point.
*starts to think of Jesus themed porn movie names....
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 30, 2009 10:49 AM
OK, Rev... I'm blaming this completely on you...
"Christ is risen"
"Semen on the Mount"
"Loaves and Bitches"
"The Prodigious Son"
And of course...
"The hot, steaming passion of the Christ"
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 30, 2009 12:10 PM
"Jots and Titties"
"Sadducee-tion"
"Rend Her Unto Caesar"
"The Opening of Mary Magdalene"
"He Came Unto Jerusalem"
"I Shall Call You Peter"
"Mary's Cherry"
"Three In One"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 30, 2009 12:26 PM
"The Naughty Nazarene"
"The Prophet Pimp"
"Seriously... Eat me"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 12:31 PM
i was hoping that would happen
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 30, 2009 12:38 PM
"Goat-herders gone wild!"
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 30, 2009 1:04 PM
"The Raised Erection Of Christ"
"The (very hot) Temptation of Christ"
"The Second Cumming"
"Bend Her"
"Jesus Christ Pornstar"
"Turn the Other Cheek"
"Take, Eat; This is My Body"
and (my favourite) "Ecce Homo"
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 30, 2009 1:17 PM
Feynmaniac, your favorite is mine too because it really pisses the homophobes off and is actually in the Bible.
The more I think about it, the more the whole story could be turned into one long porno delving into just about every distinct type of erotica. For instance:
"The Last Supper" (Sex and the City sushi scene)
"Oh Cum All Ye Faithful" (orgies)
"Jesus Brings His Sword" (hung like a horse porn)
"The Healing Touch" (very sensual guy)
"The Crucifixion" (BDSM)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 1:24 PM
Jesus came
Posted by: Anri
|
October 30, 2009 2:23 PM
"The Good Samaritan"
"The Schlong of Solomon"
"All Knees Shall Bend, All Heads Shall Bow"
I'm liking this!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 30, 2009 2:40 PM
"Worshiping the Godhead"
"Holey Trinity? — Holy Toledo!" (ok ok, Father+Son porn is going too far)
"A Divine Revelation"
"The 12 Disciples Take Lessons from Jesus"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 2:46 PM
"Receive his Mass"
"John 3 on 16"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 2:49 PM
"Our Father who art in Haven"
or
"Our Father who art in Art"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 2:52 PM
"Why Hast Thou Four Sucking Me"
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 30, 2009 2:57 PM
"Who's Nailin' Jesus?"
"Jesus does Jerusalem"
"The Devil in Messiah"
"The 33 Year Old Virgin"
"Do onto Others..."
"The Stained Sock of Turin"
"Get Thee Behind Me, Satan!"
"Come Unto Me"
"Through the Eye of a Needle"
"Mustered Seed"
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 30, 2009 3:00 PM
ROFLMore:
"Cut and Well-Hung Woodworkers of Nazareth: Jesus and His Followers"
* I'm soooo hoping Donohue reads our little blasphemic ending (thank you Rev BDC for the suggestion). It will set his heart aflutter.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 30, 2009 3:02 PM
"Jesus Christ Pornstar" made me snarf my lemonade right out my nose... can't believe I missed it...
More...
"Jericho's Balls"
"Raising Lazarus"
"Anal Domini"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 30, 2009 3:04 PM
This soooooo needed its own thread instead of being tucked away at the bottom of this one...
Posted by: kopd | October 30, 2009 3:05 PM
Ezekiel 23 is porn. With disturbing mental imagery. Writing stories like that is no time to rely on your cultural tradition of animal husbandry.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 3:06 PM
"His daughters give a Lot"
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 30, 2009 3:06 PM
"Anal Domini" --- Oh My Spam, couldn't breathe for a second there.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 3:09 PM
"On the Third Day he rose again"
"Onan alone"
Posted by: kopd | October 30, 2009 3:11 PM
@Celtic
Nah. A discussion about that pompous windbag is a perfect place for Bible porn. Even better if he reads it.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 30, 2009 3:11 PM
RBDC...
went right past #211 somehow...
whooooo... sides hurt... now THAT'S funny...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 3:12 PM
"Noah shares Ham"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 3:14 PM
Maybe PZ will give it its own post and copy the already used ones into the post itself......
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 30, 2009 3:19 PM
"Jacob's Wife...and daughter...and Handmaid"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 30, 2009 3:20 PM
"The Father, the Son, and the Horny Spirit - an erotic ghost story"
"Give Us this day Our Daily Head"
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 30, 2009 3:21 PM
He should, if only for slight chance that Bill Donohue will see it and have his head explode.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 30, 2009 3:24 PM
he is risen, indeed :-)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 30, 2009 3:27 PM
"Buns of Man"
"The Last Tupper"
"Riding an Ass"
"The Beloved Discipline"
"Hose Anna!"
"The Cock Shall Crow Three Times"
"Crown of Horns"
"Get Me Behind Thee"
"The Burning Bush"
"Getting Nailed Three Ways"
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 30, 2009 3:28 PM
Outwardly, yes... while inwardly he'd be reading them thinking "I would totally watch that".
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 30, 2009 3:46 PM
That's some hot sex!Another:
"Daniel in the Cougars' Den"
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 30, 2009 3:46 PM
"The Son also Rises"
"Hot Man on Rib Action!"
"Sodomy and Gonorrhea"
"Adam and Steve"
"Serving Two Masters"
"All One in Christ"
"The Serpent"
"David and Goliath"
Posted by: Kyorosuke | October 30, 2009 4:49 PM
"Adam & Eve: Behind the Fig Leaves"
"Thou Shalt Not"
"Forgive them Father, They Know Not Who They're Doing"
"Tree of Carnal Knowledge"
"Let He Who is Without Sin Blow the First Bone"
And an extra-special entry...
"Ezekial 23:20" (this one is already porn)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 30, 2009 5:02 PM
Rule 34 is alive and well.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
October 30, 2009 5:44 PM
2¢:
'Caincest'
'End Time Anal'
'Jacob's Lather'
'Barely Levitical'
'Noah's Bestial Bedlam'
'Jesus Slept... Around'
'Do Others As They Do You'
'Inodus, Exodus, Repeatodus'
'2 Talking Snakes, 1 Burning Bush'
'Charlton Heston presents: Mosaic Lemon Party!'
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 30, 2009 5:49 PM
A couple of years ago, a fundie was spouting off about how the book of Daniel was chock-full of these great predictions. So I read it, and posted commentary to a thread here.
Chapter 10 was particularly ... hot and heavy, especially verses 10 and 11.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/kent_hovind_at_st_cloud_state.php#comment-536704
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 30, 2009 7:02 PM
"Turning a Snake Into a Staff"
"Coveting Thy Neighbour's Ass"
...alright I should stop.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 30, 2009 7:08 PM
Why? I was enjoying the titles by one and awl.Posted by: brad | October 31, 2009 4:38 PM
I love the idiots on here who judge a 5 min clip as being not funny without seeing the whole show, or understanding how these things play into the bigger context of the show. IT'S IMPROVISED, guys! Brilliantly improvised! You don't have to get it--Ernest Goes to Camp is still available on VHS!--but at least don't condemn it after a 5 min clip.
Like Seinfeld, this show juxtaposes the absurd (saving a life by grabbing on to hunks of belly fat, the Jr Mint in the person in surgery) with brilliant social commentary on the most mundane "rules" of social behavior (what is appropriate to wear to work, how close to stand to someone when talking).
Oh well.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 31, 2009 7:14 PM
The show as a whole may be hilariously funny. That clip wasn't. If you don't like some of us thinking the clip was majorly unfunny, that's your problem, not ours'.
Fine, the clip was improvised unfunny. I know a place where that clip and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
I assume you're an expert on Ernest Worrell movies, so I'll take your word on their availability. As for the clip, it was supposed to be funny. Well guess what, it wasn't. And you whining about other people not finding it funny won't make the clip any funnier.
What difference does it make to you if other people don't find something funny? Do you have stock in HBO? Are you the mother of one of the actors? Do you have a bet that 100% of the people seeing that clip will find it funny? How does it effect you that I don't find something funny?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 1, 2009 2:26 PM
Okay, last one, promise:
"Casting Pearl Necklaces Before Swine"
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
November 3, 2009 2:14 PM
Heh.
Posted by: Vanessa | November 4, 2009 1:22 PM
The funniest thing is there have been far more offensive scenes on CYE. This is so mild. Does the nattering of the Bill Donahue's of this world engender more sympathy for their causes or skepticism? I wish I knew.
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
November 6, 2009 5:25 PM
Desert Son @ 154:
I wasn't asking for civility, I was merely pointing out the absurdity of Kel's statement that civility was the bare minimum that I could expect. Ditto for PZ Myers' advocacy of civil discourse in the "We need to call ourselves atheists" clip.
No, I'll do what you suggest and eat it.
Mon âme à Dieu.
Mon corps au roy.
Mon coeur à ma femme.
Et mon cul à la république.
Janine the Ineffable @ 160:
Obviously the primary offence is towards God. I focus on the attack on the Catholic community because it exposes the hypocrisy of PZ Myers' liberal credentials -- what ever to sweet reasonableness and civility and live and let live? If PZ had proclaimed himself a militantly illiberal atheist there would have been no hypocrisy.
Sigh. That remark was a joke about replacement theology. Never mind.
ema @ 170:
"Assaulted". CRAP. "She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand ..." Boo hoo.
(BTW, it has been asserted that, at the time of the "great desecration", PZ Myers stated: "I’ve been intending to do something like this for a few months now. This was actually a good opportunity for something that is already written." Does anyone know if that's an accurate quotation? If so, it would blow apart the excuse that it was a righteously indignant spontaneous protest against assaults, death threats etc.)
Christophe Thill @ 180:
Feh. "They constantly try to escape/From the darkness outside and within/By dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good."
Rude Kitty @ 193:
Leaving aside the fact that Jesus is alive and well and sitting at the right hand of the Father, I wonder what you would make of this, you stupid bastard. Just worm shit, right? No big deal.
Jeff Eyges @ 194:
You would lose your money.
Feynmaniac @ 233:
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:
Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a Gem,
Reflected in the beam divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking Eye,
But still in Israel’s paths they shine.
- William Blake
Anri @ 207:
OK that is pretty funny ...
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 6, 2009 5:29 PM
*Looks up at the post's title*
.
.
*Looks down at Pilty's latest ramblings*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
November 6, 2009 5:38 PM
How can a fictitious character be offended?
It's a myth among certain of the less intelligent conservatives that liberals are supposed to be sweetness n' light and civil and stuff like that. It's not true. Pilty, I would have thought at after all your time here you would have figured that out. Apparently you're not as intelligent as even some of the less intelligent of your crowd.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 6, 2009 5:58 PM
Then let God be the one who takes offence. Why should you, or any Catholic, need to take offence on God's behalf?
The Catholic community was not attacked. A cracker had a nail stuck through it and was thrown in the garbage. That cracker was not the Catholic community, nor did it symbolize the Catholic community -- according to Catholics, anyway.
Or are you saying that the communion wafer does in fact symbolize the Caholic community, and every time you take communion, you are actually consuming yourselves?
Go on and eat yourself, then.
You first.
What do you think constitutes assault?
What do you think constitutes battery?
Do you permit just anyone to lay hands on you without taking offence? Do you think that anyone should have the legal right to lay hands on you and take something from your own hands, if they so desire?
Isn't that exactly what heaven is supposed to be like?
"Fact"?
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
November 7, 2009 6:37 AM
Owlmirror:
Why should I, or any husband, feel the need to take offence on my wife's behalf?
But the Catholic community do not see it as a cracker. They see it as a consecrated Host and hence something precious. Ergo its deliberate defilement cannot but be seen as an attack on Catholic sensibilities.
An act that is intended to cause physical harm to another.
Whether I permit it or not, and whether I am offended by it or not, have no bearing on the question of whether they are morally or legally justified in laying hands upon me.
If what was in my own hands was not mine to do with as I please, then yes.
No. Heaven is a place where everyone is so good there is no need for systems.
OK then, "belief".
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
November 7, 2009 7:23 AM
Assault is the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force. Battery is any physical contact with another person without their consent.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 7, 2009 7:38 AM
Your wife isn't omnipotent and omnipresent. Your imaginary deity is supposed to be. He has no need for you. You are just a worthless piece of ant dung to him, and can get along just fine without you.Then they, like you, are delusional fools. Nobody has to treat what think of as sacred the same way you do. Massive intellectual and moral failure on your part. The stoopid doesn't get any larger than that idea.Since your god doesn't exist, there is no heaven. Erroneous statement.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 7, 2009 8:12 AM
Piltdown wrote:
We've been through this. PZ was freely given the cracker in question by the person who obtained it by having received it from the person freely giving it to him - therefore, the cracker in PZ's possession was 'his to do with as he pleased', was it not? If not, please explain exactly what the difference is.
If I give Rorschach a taco and he gives it you, what right do I have to assault you to get it back?
If I say it is my 'belief' that you writing about Catholicism on this blog offends my belief system (the illuminating, wondrous and ever-fluctuating 'Wowbaggerism') will you stop doing it? If not, how is your continuing to do so any different from PZ throwing a cracker into his trash?
Posted by: Piltdown Man
|
November 7, 2009 1:39 PM
Nerd of Redhead @ 246:
Ha.
He doesn't need us to feel offended on His behalf, true. We just naturally feel offended on His behalf because we love Him.
Catholics believe He loves us as a father loves His children. He is saddened if one of His children acts spitefully towards Him; and we are sad because He is sad.
I think it comes down to the difference between "regard" and "treat". By all means regard the communion wafer as a cracker and Catholics as delusional fools. Couldn't care less. But to physically & publicly defile an object held by a community to be sacred is to act like a jerk because you are treating that community of human beings with contempt.
Wowbagger @ 247:
Priests do not "freely" distribute consecrated Hosts to members of a congregation to do with as they please. They do so on the understanding that the Hosts are treated in an appropriate manner -- which does not include smuggling them out of the church and sending them to be publicly defiled.
There is a difference between criticising someone, annoying someone, even offending someone, and gratuitously defiling the most sacred and important thing in someone's life.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 7, 2009 2:06 PM
Yay Jesus❣ (I think I'm going to barf.)Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
November 7, 2009 2:06 PM
Your very presence here is offensive, Pilty, and your continued commentary where you are not wanted is treating this community of human beings with contempt. Please get lost.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 7, 2009 2:13 PM
Pilty (quoting Blake),
"J'ai toujours fait une prière à Dieu, qui est fort courte. La voici: Mon Dieu, rendez nos ennemis bien ridicules! Dieu m'a exaucé." - Voltaire
"Il y a eu des gens qui ont dit autrefois: Vous croyez des choses incompréhensibles, contradictoires, impossibles, parce que nous vous l’avons ordonné; faites donc des choses injustes parce que nous vous l’ordonnons. Ces gens-là raisonnaient à merveille. Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste." - Voltaire
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 7, 2009 2:16 PM
gratuitously defiling the most sacred and important thing in someone's life. - Pilty
OK, so you care more about a cracker than, for example, your family. You, and all who feel the same, are worthy only of ridicule and contempt.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 7, 2009 2:24 PM
Catholics believe He loves us as a father loves His children. - Pilty
A father who threatens to torture his children forever if they do not love and obey him. I truly pity your children, Pilty.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 7, 2009 2:32 PM
Pure sophistry, and you know it. It just shows your inane character.Your inane belief is irrelevant to god. You are still ant dung. He sees or cares for you not. Besides not existing. Your beliefs are extremely mockable.More inane sophistry by the inane fool. We don't have to respect your belief. And the belief does not equal the person. What part of that don't you in your inanity not understand?Sorry, your reliqious ideas do not trump the law, which regards the cracker as gift freely given. You can't put restraints on it.Pilty the delusional. You have presented no argument that was not presented during the 30,000+ posts of crackergate and the aftermath. So, you are refuted before you even post. Why don't you just read through all the threads and save us the time of showing how idiotic you and your beliefs are.
Posted by: strange gods before me, OM
|
November 7, 2009 2:33 PM
Yeah, he's evidently some kind of psychopath:
"A child who is never made to feel any fear of his parents is being subjected to a very subtle form of child abuse"